Here in Georgia, it is considered ideal to kick your teenage child out of the house if she has a baby (the baby goes as well). Or was that in the 1950's?
So while the hue that is being raised about Obama's "pregnany as punishment for pre-marital sex" comments in light of Palin's own familial issue is in full swing within the conservative media, I wonder about how secret abortions were historically seen as a necessary reproductive restriction, by parents in the 19th and 20th centuries, in order to 1) clandestinely conform to the prevailing Victorian morality (without resorting to contraceptives) and 2) to extricate their daughter - and by extension, her family - of the burden.
So if the conservatives want to return Victorian morality to constitutional status, then why can't those who would otherwise prefer to conform to such morailty take such measures as abortion (as painful as it is) in order to conform?
I'm not an advocate for abortion and I'm not for Obama or McCain, but I don't trust the reactions of the conservatives against the commentary as being all that altruistic ("for the sake of the unborn"). Some people see having children out of wedlock as a punishment for engaging in a rush-of-the-moment decision. Those who are "pro-life" are demanding a recognition of the distinction between a punishment and a consequence (an unfortunate consequence) for the designation of pregnancy out of wedlock, but how can there be such a distinction given that someone like Palin's daughter wasn't expecting a pregnancy when she was knocked up by her boyfriend?
IMO, the only way that this could be considered a punishment for Pain's daughter is that she knew that there was a risk of pregnancy and still did the "do" regardless of the potential consequences. But how can we assume that a knowledge of this poential consequence was running through Bristol's head at the time of this action?
We don't. So we, the third parties, honestly can't say that this is a punishment.
But if Obama has regularly educated his two daughters about the potential consequences, and then they engage in the "do" out of wedlock as minors without protection, then....well.....that's a punishment.
However, if they do become pregnant, then - in the ideal of the women's reproductive rights movement - it should be their own and exclusive decision on whether or not they'd engage in a procedure to abort the baby in the first trimester, neither the demand (or refusal) of the pregnancy's other contributor (since it is left to wonder whether or not he will even stay on to raise the child) nor the parents of either participant.
So if Obama should be criticized over the content of his comments, then such criticism is best directed against his insistence that the pregnancy is a punishment from his prespective as the potential grandfather of a child out of wedlock, even if his daughter is residing in his house at the time of pregnancy. He's not the mother of a uterus (he doesn't even have a uterus), so it would seem fairly out of place for him to determine whether any pregnancy, even that of his own descendant, should be aborted.
So while the hue that is being raised about Obama's "pregnany as punishment for pre-marital sex" comments in light of Palin's own familial issue is in full swing within the conservative media, I wonder about how secret abortions were historically seen as a necessary reproductive restriction, by parents in the 19th and 20th centuries, in order to 1) clandestinely conform to the prevailing Victorian morality (without resorting to contraceptives) and 2) to extricate their daughter - and by extension, her family - of the burden.
So if the conservatives want to return Victorian morality to constitutional status, then why can't those who would otherwise prefer to conform to such morailty take such measures as abortion (as painful as it is) in order to conform?
I'm not an advocate for abortion and I'm not for Obama or McCain, but I don't trust the reactions of the conservatives against the commentary as being all that altruistic ("for the sake of the unborn"). Some people see having children out of wedlock as a punishment for engaging in a rush-of-the-moment decision. Those who are "pro-life" are demanding a recognition of the distinction between a punishment and a consequence (an unfortunate consequence) for the designation of pregnancy out of wedlock, but how can there be such a distinction given that someone like Palin's daughter wasn't expecting a pregnancy when she was knocked up by her boyfriend?
IMO, the only way that this could be considered a punishment for Pain's daughter is that she knew that there was a risk of pregnancy and still did the "do" regardless of the potential consequences. But how can we assume that a knowledge of this poential consequence was running through Bristol's head at the time of this action?
We don't. So we, the third parties, honestly can't say that this is a punishment.
But if Obama has regularly educated his two daughters about the potential consequences, and then they engage in the "do" out of wedlock as minors without protection, then....well.....that's a punishment.
However, if they do become pregnant, then - in the ideal of the women's reproductive rights movement - it should be their own and exclusive decision on whether or not they'd engage in a procedure to abort the baby in the first trimester, neither the demand (or refusal) of the pregnancy's other contributor (since it is left to wonder whether or not he will even stay on to raise the child) nor the parents of either participant.
So if Obama should be criticized over the content of his comments, then such criticism is best directed against his insistence that the pregnancy is a punishment from his prespective as the potential grandfather of a child out of wedlock, even if his daughter is residing in his house at the time of pregnancy. He's not the mother of a uterus (he doesn't even have a uterus), so it would seem fairly out of place for him to determine whether any pregnancy, even that of his own descendant, should be aborted.
The closet. The Wikipedia article addresses it from a sexual viewpoint (which, historically, has been the primary viewpoint associated with any discussion of the closet), where it, as a terminology, is usually used to described repressed sexual behavior or interests.
So, if coming out of the sexual closet is seen as a good thing in the LGBT rights (and reclamation) movement, then why is racism or unrealistic racially/ethnically-based expectations not given the same treatment when the racism is alledgedly "closeted"?
"Closet racism" is seen as being just as pernicious as open and visible racism, or at least that's what we've heard so much within the last few years concerning its nature; it came to prominence with the gaffes that surrounded the presidential campaign, usually involving Obama and/or Clinton(s) in an (in)direct way. This, I think, should be differentiated from "latent racism" in that while the "closet" is supposedly apparent in a continuous drip-drip sequence, the "latent" is so hidden from view that the bearer is not even aware that it exists, but can open it inadvertently in a more-than-obvious manner, thus landing the bearer in PR hot water.
The assumption is that those who are "closet racists" hide their own personal reservations or private outrages concerning race or ethnicity from public view for the sake of expediency, pleasing of a status quo, or winning a competition with a squeaky-slean record of affable accord with a ethnoracially-diverse population.
But I wonder: do we *really* want the "closet racists" to come out, be honest and flaunt ethnoracism with pride? Is the closet a good thing or a bad thing when it hides the stereotypes that are held by the bearer? Should we make an effort to extricate "closet racists" from office or places of power when it is assumed that those who are closeted may make their feelings known in the form of policies that affect millions or billions of people both in and out of the country?
But then, what to do when we have ethnoracially-based reservations, outrages and stereotypes of all types that wouldn't let us make friends or get into places of prominence if they were made known or obvious?
Are we like the conservative caricature of Obama? Are we ticking time bombs who'll, at some point, explode with an admiration for Hitler's genocidal policies and a hard-on for military attire and weapon-brandishing, who'll exhude a paternalistic violence and repression akin to what was seen in Milligram's experiment, who'll exhude some latent fear about the Jews taking over the world?
And what can we do about closet racism? Should it be made open to the public for naming-and-shaming purposes? How do we address it?
If we are racist, do we keep it to ourselves? Or not?
So, if coming out of the sexual closet is seen as a good thing in the LGBT rights (and reclamation) movement, then why is racism or unrealistic racially/ethnically-based expectations not given the same treatment when the racism is alledgedly "closeted"?
"Closet racism" is seen as being just as pernicious as open and visible racism, or at least that's what we've heard so much within the last few years concerning its nature; it came to prominence with the gaffes that surrounded the presidential campaign, usually involving Obama and/or Clinton(s) in an (in)direct way. This, I think, should be differentiated from "latent racism" in that while the "closet" is supposedly apparent in a continuous drip-drip sequence, the "latent" is so hidden from view that the bearer is not even aware that it exists, but can open it inadvertently in a more-than-obvious manner, thus landing the bearer in PR hot water.
The assumption is that those who are "closet racists" hide their own personal reservations or private outrages concerning race or ethnicity from public view for the sake of expediency, pleasing of a status quo, or winning a competition with a squeaky-slean record of affable accord with a ethnoracially-diverse population.
But I wonder: do we *really* want the "closet racists" to come out, be honest and flaunt ethnoracism with pride? Is the closet a good thing or a bad thing when it hides the stereotypes that are held by the bearer? Should we make an effort to extricate "closet racists" from office or places of power when it is assumed that those who are closeted may make their feelings known in the form of policies that affect millions or billions of people both in and out of the country?
But then, what to do when we have ethnoracially-based reservations, outrages and stereotypes of all types that wouldn't let us make friends or get into places of prominence if they were made known or obvious?
Are we like the conservative caricature of Obama? Are we ticking time bombs who'll, at some point, explode with an admiration for Hitler's genocidal policies and a hard-on for military attire and weapon-brandishing, who'll exhude a paternalistic violence and repression akin to what was seen in Milligram's experiment, who'll exhude some latent fear about the Jews taking over the world?
And what can we do about closet racism? Should it be made open to the public for naming-and-shaming purposes? How do we address it?
If we are racist, do we keep it to ourselves? Or not?
FAP closed early this morning, with all contents deleted and replaced by the infamous "RickRoll" video from YouTube. The private last-minute negotiations for acquisition fell through, according to both Ekigyuu and Belliachi.
This, however, was an interesting development.
So now the questions about the acquisition can be (partly and temporarily) laid to rest. However, it will be interesting to see how others will make use of Ekigyuu's "openFAP" server software (openFAP is not an official name for the project, since Ekigyuu hasn't even named it).
EDIT: The codename is Guava, and both it and the fAPI will be released under the GPL.
This, however, was an interesting development.
So now the questions about the acquisition can be (partly and temporarily) laid to rest. However, it will be interesting to see how others will make use of Ekigyuu's "openFAP" server software (openFAP is not an official name for the project, since Ekigyuu hasn't even named it).
EDIT: The codename is Guava, and both it and the fAPI will be released under the GPL.
Furry Art Pile, ran by Ekigyuu (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
noodlesandbeef ) achieved a bit of notoriety on August 27th with the announcement of its closure (slated for tomorrow, September 1st). This announcement engendered both severe criticism from commenters on both his journal and that of the
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif)
furryartpile community (and respondent criticism from friends and associates of ekigyuu that the critics were "whiny furfaggots") and lots of interest in the acquisition of the site from such people as toribelliachi, owner of MyFursona (myfursona )(although Ekigyuu denied that the site would be sold or given to new management). Ekigyuu has also expressed interest in releasing a source code version of the site's server software under an open source license (maybe the GPL?) to allow others to build their own web galleries.
This happening, on the eve of the initially-intended date of closure, raises more questions, IMO, than answers. </lj>
Plus, editing the relevant WikiFur article to take all of this into account (even after they deleted the News post for undisclosed reasons nevermind per below) is fun to do.
noodlesandbeef ) achieved a bit of notoriety on August 27th with the announcement of its closure (slated for tomorrow, September 1st). This announcement engendered both severe criticism from commenters on both his journal and that of the furryartpile community (and respondent criticism from friends and associates of ekigyuu that the critics were "whiny furfaggots") and lots of interest in the acquisition of the site from such people as toribelliachi, owner of MyFursona (myfursona )(although Ekigyuu denied that the site would be sold or given to new management). Ekigyuu has also expressed interest in releasing a source code version of the site's server software under an open source license (maybe the GPL?) to allow others to build their own web galleries.This happening, on the eve of the initially-intended date of closure, raises more questions, IMO, than answers. </lj>
- Will the release of the FAP source code to open source development include the release of the fAPI within?
- Is it true that Ekigyuu's keeping open the site for another two weeks to find new managers in clandestine negotiations, according to Tori?
- Does Tori's age and British citizenship prevent him from accessing, let alone administering, a website with adult content contained therein?
- Why the sudden announcement within days of the runout of donations?
- And, given the proximity of time between the announcement and the planned date of closure, as well as the likelyhood that donations were being given to Ekigyuu during the month of August, is it really true that the possibly-ample donations are to run out at the end of the month?
- A question asked by several commenters on his blog: Why would Ekigyuu expressly deny or resist handing the site over to new management on the rationale that it is his "baby" and "portfolio", and that he'd rather end its existence on his watch rather than hand it over to another party?
Plus, editing the relevant WikiFur article to take all of this into account (
Admittedly, it sucks at the moment, but I've written out a rough draft of the Free Animation License.
Have a looksee; it will certainly change with further additions.
Also, this is meant to cover any imagery that may be used in an animation or slideshow, hence the inclusion of several different image media. However, I especially intend this to be used for SVG animations, since such animations are completely text-based and text-editable (in other words, you should pull up an SVG file like this and open up the "Page Source" window for it in either Firefox or Opera).
In other words, this license is meant to be more like a combination of the GNU Free Documentation license (GFDL, used for text publications, especially Wikipedia) and the Free Art license when applied to text-based graphic animation (2D or 3D), and less like any of the Creative Commons licenses, which have found greater exposure as licenses of choice for those who want free publicity for, I guess you could call it, "binary media", or media that is processed and manipulated by the machine (most music and graphics files) rather than by text (anything XML based).
Have a looksee; it will certainly change with further additions.
Also, this is meant to cover any imagery that may be used in an animation or slideshow, hence the inclusion of several different image media. However, I especially intend this to be used for SVG animations, since such animations are completely text-based and text-editable (in other words, you should pull up an SVG file like this and open up the "Page Source" window for it in either Firefox or Opera).
In other words, this license is meant to be more like a combination of the GNU Free Documentation license (GFDL, used for text publications, especially Wikipedia) and the Free Art license when applied to text-based graphic animation (2D or 3D), and less like any of the Creative Commons licenses, which have found greater exposure as licenses of choice for those who want free publicity for, I guess you could call it, "binary media", or media that is processed and manipulated by the machine (most music and graphics files) rather than by text (anything XML based).
So free software is about freedom, not choice (which comes in a distant second place of consideration in the development of FOSS). Can this be interpreted as "freedom for developers" vs. "choice for users"?
I've drawn from the continual debate between the "whiny users" and the "volunteer developers" that free software - particularly that which is licensed under the GPL and other copyleft licenses - bring more long-term benefits to the programmers than it does to non-programmer users. It provides programmers with the right to observe, tinker within, and redistribute source code, as they are usually the only ones who have any long-term interest in the source code's composition.
But the non-programmer users? As far as the programmers are concerned, f**k the non-programmers; they don't deserve anything, and are expendable...unless they pay up.
I've drawn from the continual debate between the "whiny users" and the "volunteer developers" that free software - particularly that which is licensed under the GPL and other copyleft licenses - bring more long-term benefits to the programmers than it does to non-programmer users. It provides programmers with the right to observe, tinker within, and redistribute source code, as they are usually the only ones who have any long-term interest in the source code's composition.
But the non-programmer users? As far as the programmers are concerned, f**k the non-programmers; they don't deserve anything, and are expendable...unless they pay up.
So this is the first summer off that I've had in two years. And it's coming to an end on Monday, when I re-start college at Macon State.
Of course, I can't say that this was the most enjoyable summer. It was spent almost entirely in the house, although
Hope that next summer will be just as interesting.
In the meantime, besides school, I don't know what to expect out of the coming months. There are a few intentions and hopes, such as going to AWA in Marietta next month with a proper costume (maybe an Asian-themed fursuit?), but other than that....who knows?
Of course, I can't say that this was the most enjoyable summer. It was spent almost entirely in the house, although
- I was able to see two of my nieces for the first time since 1993
- I was able to start a job as a private tutor for my mother's doctor's children.
- I can also say that this was the summer where I started using Ubuntu on a semi-constant basis. 8.04 LTS works, although some things remain a mystery to me about it (like how it doesn't quiet down when it boots into the splash login).
- The iPod touch that I have in my pocket became increasingly useful to me (via jailbreaking, of course) over the summer.
- I faced my own concept of spirituality, and finally said some things that I wanted to say about God, monotheism, and anti-semitism for a long time. Still don't know if going an alternative way will be all that easy.
- I saw the Zimbabwe crisis and associated victims slide a few inches further down the toilet.
- I switched from cow milk to goat milk.
- I came up with new ideas.
- I almost saw a ghetto catfight in an aisle of Wal-Mart, but saw almost all the entire staff of McDonalds run out of the kitchen to see it happen.
- I saw a tropical-strength storm hit our area and Macon torn apart by it. Wish I had a camera the night after the storm passed over.
- Finally realized that African-American comedy isn't all that funny in retrospect. It's either too true or realistic, too totalitarian or too preachy.
- I watched Absolute Boy
- I was examined for hemorrhoids for the first time. It felt....weird and cold.
Hope that next summer will be just as interesting.
In the meantime, besides school, I don't know what to expect out of the coming months. There are a few intentions and hopes, such as going to AWA in Marietta next month with a proper costume (maybe an Asian-themed fursuit?), but other than that....who knows?
Can anyone tell me if the Planet aggregator software can be used by audio and video podcast feeds?
"Planet" refers to a server-side software that aggregates multiple feeds (usually written or created by people who're interested or actively participating in a project or topic) into both an OPML format and a website that presents, on the front page of the Planet website, all the most recent posts to the included blogs by date and time of submission.
I'm wondering about this because, if the <audio> and <video> tags and Ogg Vorbis/Theora are to be supported by bigger players like Mozilla in the next version of Firefox (or so it is rumored), then I think that it would be a good idea to sort out how a Planet would handle feeds that display media formats in a way that would be friendly to both text-centric feed readers (Google Reader, NetNewsWrire, Bloglines), that will simply show you the link to the source file and an embedded player, and audio/video-centric feed readers (Miro, Juice, Amarok) that will play the media within the client.
Whether such a development will spur acceptance of Theora and Vorbis as default podcasting media formats for FOSS developers by is another question altogether.
"Planet" refers to a server-side software that aggregates multiple feeds (usually written or created by people who're interested or actively participating in a project or topic) into both an OPML format and a website that presents, on the front page of the Planet website, all the most recent posts to the included blogs by date and time of submission.
I'm wondering about this because, if the <audio> and <video> tags and Ogg Vorbis/Theora are to be supported by bigger players like Mozilla in the next version of Firefox (or so it is rumored), then I think that it would be a good idea to sort out how a Planet would handle feeds that display media formats in a way that would be friendly to both text-centric feed readers (Google Reader, NetNewsWrire, Bloglines), that will simply show you the link to the source file and an embedded player, and audio/video-centric feed readers (Miro, Juice, Amarok) that will play the media within the client.
Whether such a development will spur acceptance of Theora and Vorbis as default podcasting media formats for FOSS developers by is another question altogether.
It's a bit buggy (i.e., alpha software), but I posted a request for the creation of a usable .deb package of the app for Ubuntu a few weeks back on the Getdeb.net bugzilla on Launchpad. It was finally published today on Getdeb.net.
Here it is for Hardy Heron (8.04 LTS) and compatible distros on Getdeb.net.
Here it is for Hardy Heron (8.04 LTS) and compatible distros on Getdeb.net.
( Read more... )
Foreword: This is a post that will probably be taken very seriously and out-of-context. Please consider that I'm not an anti-semite, nor anti-Israel, nor Judeophobic. I consider this either a psychological issue - or maybe a psychological disorder - or a religious issue. Comments - even trolling comments - are open, as I think that such an obvious and pathetic call for unnecessary attention deserves callous anonymous responses.
This is simply an explanation on a stupid and irrational reaction that has occurred constantly to me for an extended period of time, which I hope to end either now or soon. Please take it as such.
This is simply an explanation on a stupid and irrational reaction that has occurred constantly to me for an extended period of time, which I hope to end either now or soon. Please take it as such.
In reply to this post about the Wikimedia Foundation moving to shut down several African-language wikis, since their commenting system is very broken at the moment. I'm a bit tired ATM, so my comment may seem very "all-over-the-place" and incoherent.
( Read more... )
The Mobile Web is the World Wide Web as seen and used on millions of mobile devices.
The best mobile web browser, arguably, is Safari on the iPhone OS, at least because you can surf the Web using up to 8 tabs.
However, I, like Google, thinks surfing the Web on a mobile device, even the "Mobile Web", sucks. Caching web pages on Safari tends to be very short-lived, albeit because of the poor battery life of the iPhone and iPod touch, and copy-paste would be nice to use on the iPhone OS.
But most of all, using "made-for-iPhone" web applications on Safari tends to be sucky (although Facebook's web app tends be a bit more usable, touchy-feely and animated than any of Google's Web-based offerings). So with the opening on July 10th of the App Store after months of preparation and queuing by both development startups and Web-based companies who wanted to deliver a better mobile approach to their web services than would be reachable on their own mobile browser-based services, I suppose that a new rule of mobile Internet-dependent software development was realized:
Never create for a web browser what you can create as a native application that can pull and present data from off the Web or another Internet-based application.
Or: Apple may have intentionally let WebKit deal with "made-for-iPhone" web apps so horribly in order to pressure Web-based companies into making use of the iPhone SDK and the App Store to deliver far-better, but more proprietary, user interfaces for RIAs than could ever be hoped for on Safari for iPhone OS.
Either way, this means that the "apps" of the Web (social networking, blogging, email, pseudo-SMS, etc.), if they want to attract more flies, will have to be recreated as native apps for the iPhone OS, Symbian OS, and other current and future operating systems (with the exception of Palm. Their OS doesn't deserve any recognition, LOL.). It may be nice for Apple to allow background processes in the future to allow for cross-platform development and widget design for the same-branded native apps on more than one OS.
However, after all the web apps for mobile phones have been turned into native apps, what will remain on the Mobile Web? Or at least what websites will remain that can't be fully or successfully converted into native mobile apps (it feels like I'm asking about who will remain after the Apocalypse or something like that)?
I think one candidate for such a position would be any wiki website, especially Wikipedia.
Simply put, wikis are dynamic websites that allow one to create a page about anything (that's notable or important); they also make it rather easy to link to other articles by typing "[[ ]]" around any word or group of words, although that means if a linked article doesn't exist (hence the red text of a non-existent page link) then one can create the missing article by clicking on the red link, which presents a "Create this page" page. Rinse and repeat.
As you can see, an article on a wiki can fill up pretty fast with an array of links to, well, anything on the wiki that needs "wikilinking" (oh, and the slightly less-common, but necessary hyperlinking for external links and references).
So trying to create a hypothetical Wikipedia application for mobile touchscreen-input access on the iPhone OS is something that may very well run aground when one has to open up links of either the wiki- or hyper- type.
Plus, links on a webpage, especially on a wiki, aren't designed as buttons. They're designed as text links (and image links that direct to the original wikipage of the image). So hyperlinks or wikilinks can't, at the moment, be considered as widgets that can be tapped in order to deliver or render animated transitions of the user interface from one page to another, except for the basic loading of another page. And let's not forget about how, whenever one opens up a hyperlink in a native app, the webpage immediately and automatically opens up in Safari, thus bring us back to the Mobile Web.
One developer can partially remedy this for the creation of a native Wikipedia or wiki reader by simply stripping the text of any links, although that would take away the "fun" in navigating through Wiki articles. Another can remedy this by styling the wikilinks, reflinks and hyperlinks as touchy-feely widgets, although that would result in a wide interspersion of "embedded" but raised widgets within the text.
Finally, no web-based third-party Wikipedia-for-iPhone reader in existence has taken on how a wiki can be edited within the iPhone OS using a virtual touchscreen keyboard that takes up nearly half the screen's real estate. Not even Wikipedia's own official mobile interface.
Do I think that a mobile wiki that can do just as much as a web-based wiki can be created? I don't discount the possibility.
But I don't think that the current situation of mobile software development or mobile user interface design lends a great deal of resources to such an ideal as a mobile, iPhone-accessible wiki interface.
The best mobile web browser, arguably, is Safari on the iPhone OS, at least because you can surf the Web using up to 8 tabs.
However, I, like Google, thinks surfing the Web on a mobile device, even the "Mobile Web", sucks. Caching web pages on Safari tends to be very short-lived, albeit because of the poor battery life of the iPhone and iPod touch, and copy-paste would be nice to use on the iPhone OS.
But most of all, using "made-for-iPhone" web applications on Safari tends to be sucky (although Facebook's web app tends be a bit more usable, touchy-feely and animated than any of Google's Web-based offerings). So with the opening on July 10th of the App Store after months of preparation and queuing by both development startups and Web-based companies who wanted to deliver a better mobile approach to their web services than would be reachable on their own mobile browser-based services, I suppose that a new rule of mobile Internet-dependent software development was realized:
Never create for a web browser what you can create as a native application that can pull and present data from off the Web or another Internet-based application.
Or: Apple may have intentionally let WebKit deal with "made-for-iPhone" web apps so horribly in order to pressure Web-based companies into making use of the iPhone SDK and the App Store to deliver far-better, but more proprietary, user interfaces for RIAs than could ever be hoped for on Safari for iPhone OS.
Either way, this means that the "apps" of the Web (social networking, blogging, email, pseudo-SMS, etc.), if they want to attract more flies, will have to be recreated as native apps for the iPhone OS, Symbian OS, and other current and future operating systems (with the exception of Palm. Their OS doesn't deserve any recognition, LOL.). It may be nice for Apple to allow background processes in the future to allow for cross-platform development and widget design for the same-branded native apps on more than one OS.
However, after all the web apps for mobile phones have been turned into native apps, what will remain on the Mobile Web? Or at least what websites will remain that can't be fully or successfully converted into native mobile apps (it feels like I'm asking about who will remain after the Apocalypse or something like that)?
I think one candidate for such a position would be any wiki website, especially Wikipedia.
Simply put, wikis are dynamic websites that allow one to create a page about anything (that's notable or important); they also make it rather easy to link to other articles by typing "[[ ]]" around any word or group of words, although that means if a linked article doesn't exist (hence the red text of a non-existent page link) then one can create the missing article by clicking on the red link, which presents a "Create this page" page. Rinse and repeat.
As you can see, an article on a wiki can fill up pretty fast with an array of links to, well, anything on the wiki that needs "wikilinking" (oh, and the slightly less-common, but necessary hyperlinking for external links and references).
So trying to create a hypothetical Wikipedia application for mobile touchscreen-input access on the iPhone OS is something that may very well run aground when one has to open up links of either the wiki- or hyper- type.
Plus, links on a webpage, especially on a wiki, aren't designed as buttons. They're designed as text links (and image links that direct to the original wikipage of the image). So hyperlinks or wikilinks can't, at the moment, be considered as widgets that can be tapped in order to deliver or render animated transitions of the user interface from one page to another, except for the basic loading of another page. And let's not forget about how, whenever one opens up a hyperlink in a native app, the webpage immediately and automatically opens up in Safari, thus bring us back to the Mobile Web.
One developer can partially remedy this for the creation of a native Wikipedia or wiki reader by simply stripping the text of any links, although that would take away the "fun" in navigating through Wiki articles. Another can remedy this by styling the wikilinks, reflinks and hyperlinks as touchy-feely widgets, although that would result in a wide interspersion of "embedded" but raised widgets within the text.
Finally, no web-based third-party Wikipedia-for-iPhone reader in existence has taken on how a wiki can be edited within the iPhone OS using a virtual touchscreen keyboard that takes up nearly half the screen's real estate. Not even Wikipedia's own official mobile interface.
Do I think that a mobile wiki that can do just as much as a web-based wiki can be created? I don't discount the possibility.
But I don't think that the current situation of mobile software development or mobile user interface design lends a great deal of resources to such an ideal as a mobile, iPhone-accessible wiki interface.
Well, I joined that group and its affiliated forums months ago, although I've been and continue to be a questioning skeptic to the whole thing, but I guess I can say that it has evolved a bit ever since I first came across it while reading this (two-year old, but very "epic") thread at Neoseeker.com.
It has gained a rather large membership of folks (300, as of July 24); among the most common topics of discussion are personal faith, astral travel and dreams, especially those which concern the Digital World and Digimon. The group has also suffered from a number of raids and infiltrations from the members of various forums and imageboards.
I've asked on one of the affiliated forums about if the whole Digiclipse project is meant to have a digital nature or an astral/metaphysical nature, as the latter seems to be much more utilized and displayed during forum discussions; one of the replies are the following:
I wrote about it at the forum a few nights ago:
Just to get it out of my system, I'll predict that, at some point in the future, this Internet-based spirituality will intersect with the furry fandom, or vice versa.
I say this because
some of us are actually, or spiritually, Digimon in a physically-human embodiment, and must thus work towards the development (if it doesn't already exist) or maintenance/regaining (if it already does exist) of the Digital World, starting with the wearing of Digimon fursuits at conventions, Digimon avatars on virtual worlds, and Digimon-Digital World MUCKs on Telnet.
I honestly see that happening. And when that does happen, this sudden realization that we're spiritual Digimon in a human body, you can expect a slew of Digimon Otherkin taking part in discussions on the furry, Otherkin, Digimon and general anime forums on the Web.
Of course, how this group of Digimon Otherkin will deal with those who see themselves as Digimon Tamers (some of whom are on the mailing list, the forums, and on YouTube) is a completely separate matter altogether.
It has gained a rather large membership of folks (300, as of July 24); among the most common topics of discussion are personal faith, astral travel and dreams, especially those which concern the Digital World and Digimon. The group has also suffered from a number of raids and infiltrations from the members of various forums and imageboards.
Digiclipse and Metaphysics
I've asked on one of the affiliated forums about if the whole Digiclipse project is meant to have a digital nature or an astral/metaphysical nature, as the latter seems to be much more utilized and displayed during forum discussions; one of the replies are the following:
I really think it has to be a combination of both metaphysical as well as technological means, but I look at it this way.So this approach - the combination of metaphysics/magic(k) and a fetishized Internet (based upon a premise set forth by a Japanese anime) - is, IMO, rather unique for a new religious movement.
Too many people want a physical way to the Digital World, to go on adventures and save the world with their digimon partners. When you think about something "digital," however, you think about numbers and binary and code and information and things that are not physical. At best, the only way to satisfy these people is with highly advanced virtual reality.
I don't have any answers about the digital world and the astral plane. In fact, I think "astral" is actually the wrong word for it. I see the digital world existing as another realm, alongside the countless other realms that exist out there, and just like you can project into one, you can project into another. This is because, as far as I know, these other realms exist on a higher frequency, in which matter is disregarded. Bodies are not necessary and actually hinder things there.
I get results when I do things metaphysically or through magickal means (or just magical, since I've gotten come complaints about the way I spell the word), and not just with digimon-related business. But concerning the digimon, it's enough for me. It's my preferred method. That doesn't mean I'm going to hinder those who prefer to work with technology, however....
....I don't think it's about finding answers, I think it's about experiencing new things and growing as a person because of them. So I can't tell you about the origins of the digital world, or how it functions in relation to the astral plane, or anything of the sort.
....I will tell you, though, that I do believe the internet to be its own "plane" just like we have physical, astral, and spiritual planes. I believe that there can be inhabitants of this plane, and those are the ones our minds perceive as "digimon" when we do metaphysical work with traveling to/communicating with this plane. Thus reality shifts.
I wrote about it at the forum a few nights ago:
If the Digiclipse and related projects have both a metaphysical and a digital side that are meant to balance (if not cancel) each other out, I wonder if this is one of the few and first examples of "Internet-centric spirituality".
Other, previously-constituted spiritualities have used computers, software and the Internet as a means to simply communicate whatever's been written in old or recently-published paperbooks, but the adherents do not actively embrace the same outside of the realm of "tools of the trade". Furthermore, those who use the Internet as a means to set up a spiritual shop are derided by those of similarly-aligned but opposing faiths as being purveyors of twisted, misconstrued "Internet religion"; this occurs especially in the realm of neopagan and animistic spirituality, where words are thrown between "real practitioners" and "Internet gurus" who are accused of corrupting the faith or defrauding people of a particular ancestry whose long-dead ancestors practiced a similar belief system.
The Digiclipse project, IMO, may have come closer to crossing that chasm in that it gives a greater (canonical) credence to things of a digital, man-made-and-machine-processed nature. It's pretty hard, from a Google search, to come across a similar belief system that actively embraces computers and the Internet as being a means of communicating with astral and spiritual things (which are involved with the Internet) and beings rather than just tools of communication between believers who subscribe to a belief in those astral and spiritual things and beings (which aren't involved with the Internet).
Even those who are into UFOlogy and paranormal studies don't entirely embrace the Internet outside of the "tools of communication between subscribers" pigeonhole. For them, the Internet fails to communicate the experience of abductees and encounterees of paranormal queries.
However, that doesn't mean that the Digiclipse project fares that much better than the UFOlogists and paranormal scholarships; the Internet and its present facilities still don't effectively communicate the professed experiences of the Digiclipse members with others of a like mind, although that may (or may not) change with the ongoing advances in network computing and user interfacing.
The only difference that I see between the two is that computers, software and networks are much more involved as facilitators of the professed encounters of the Digiclipse members, and are more embraced as themes of the spirituality and metaphysics, than they are to the UFOlogists and paranormal scholars, and even far more computer-embracing in comparison to those who have a more traditional religious/animistic bent or bias.
But when the technology expands in capability, does the Digiclipse project expect that more things of a spiritual and metaphysical nature will increase in occurrence? Or will the occurrences expand in number and breadth because of the increased number of folks drawn into the Digiclipse project and related initiatives?
I remain an adamant skeptic, although I'll to admit that I'm acclimated more to the Digiclipse/RDB project's goals and beliefs than I am to Wicca, Christianity, or even UFOlogy.
The Digiclipse and the furry fandom
Just to get it out of my system, I'll predict that, at some point in the future, this Internet-based spirituality will intersect with the furry fandom, or vice versa.
I say this because
- The Digimon franchise already enjoys utilization as a base of inspiration for the design of personal fursonas, not to mention the copious amount of furry art (often yiffy) utilizing such characters as Leomon, WereGarurumon, and Renamon.
- It is possible that the belief in the existence of Digimon and the Digital World can intersect with the furry fandom's deep philosophy/spirituality section - namely, the school that puts forth fursonas, fursuits and other personal furry/otherkin (re)conceptualizations as the true embodiment of "human" natures.
some of us are actually, or spiritually, Digimon in a physically-human embodiment, and must thus work towards the development (if it doesn't already exist) or maintenance/regaining (if it already does exist) of the Digital World, starting with the wearing of Digimon fursuits at conventions, Digimon avatars on virtual worlds, and Digimon-Digital World MUCKs on Telnet.
I honestly see that happening. And when that does happen, this sudden realization that we're spiritual Digimon in a human body, you can expect a slew of Digimon Otherkin taking part in discussions on the furry, Otherkin, Digimon and general anime forums on the Web.
Of course, how this group of Digimon Otherkin will deal with those who see themselves as Digimon Tamers (some of whom are on the mailing list, the forums, and on YouTube) is a completely separate matter altogether.
....Or, why Canonical (or the Ubuntu Foundation) should hook up with an All-in-One PC maker like Acer-Gateway or Averatec.
Mark Shuttleworth yesterday voiced his desire to help get Desktop Linux to, or past, the same design landmark currently held by Apple's Mac OS X. He also predicted that the same would be accomplished within the next two years.
Now one can laugh at this, and maybe even make a few jokes about how Ubuntu's trademark brownish-beige look and feel is easily dispelled by Mac OS X's trademark bluish/ivory look-and-feel.
I personally don't think that a desktop Linux distribution like Ubuntu should be so easily discounted as an operating system and software platform in comparison to Mac OS X. However, I contend that Ubuntu's success as a competing operating system and software platform against Mac OS X should be judged, or at least reviewed and assessed on how well either operating system fits into and utilizes an All-in-One PC.
The reason why I place the All-in-One PC in such a higher regard in comparison to the more diverse monitor-mouse-keyboard-tower combo that is sold by most desktop PC vendors as far as comparing Ubuntu to Mac OS X is because Mac OS X, since its introduction around 2000/2001, has historically been designed around the iMac, the AIO PC that was inaugurated in 1998 as the flagship product of the "new, improved" Apple. Even as Apple had introduced other desktop and laptop computers which had less of a hardware focus around the OS X GUI (including the current Mac Pro and Mac mini), the Mac OS X user interface has almost always been designed around the iMac in all generational iterations of the computer.
For instance, if you look at the iMac page on Apple.com, you can see how the GUIs of all the applications displayed on the screens of the row of iMacs are designed to take up the entirety of the screen. In fact, since Apple had first started to sell the flat-screen iMacs (starting with the iMac G4 of 2002), the screen real estate taken up by whole applications has almost always been advertised on the iMac page of Apple.com. The current iterations of the other desktop and laptop products from Apple are not advertised in a similar fashion on their own respective front pages on the website; the GUI's design is not "front and center" on those pages.
So I honestly think that Mac OS X's UI is designed to fit best on an iMac, with all the other installations of OS X on the other Mac desktops and laptops being a second-best consideration for Apple until recently. This All-in-One GUI-design mentality is also carried over to the iPhone OS, as the iPhone OS is designed more for the iPhone (an "All-in-One" candybar mobile device where, again, the screen is all that matters for user interaction) than it is for the iPod touch (and, if it decides to add another mobile pocket device, maybe a clamshell, to the line-up, Apple will still preinstall the iPhone OS onto the device without any significant changes in the design of the GUI or the functionality of the OS). A sign of this is the fact that the iPod touch still has some camera functionality akin to the iPhone, even though the iPod touch doesn't have a built-in camera.
Meanwhile, Windows on the desktop isn't and never has been designed with such a focus on the All-in-One desktop computer form factor; instead, it has been traditionally designed around the monitor-mouse-keyboard-tower metaphor.
Desktop Linux, as well, has been historically designed around the monitor-mouse-keyboard-tower metaphor, at least because the cheaper desktop computers have followed such a hardware design for expandability and upgrading purposes. Thus, Ubuntu has followed in like manner.
However, because it isn't created and provided by one single vendor, nor are the offered looks determined by one single vendor, it may be possible for desktop Linux distributions like Ubuntu and its own spinoffs can be designed and themed for best fit and access on an All-in-One PC's display.
If a Linux distribution (or more specifically, dare I say, an Ubuntu spinoff) can be designed and themed to be accessed specifically on an All-in-One PC like Gateway's One, Sony's Vaio L or Asus' EEE Monitor, I think that it may become the pinnacle of free software UI design for both desktop and laptop computers.
Anyone who may want to consider such an idea should at least consider the user interface of the "made-for-EEE PC" Linux distributions like Xandros and eeeXubuntu, and then try to apply the user interface with major modifications for access within an AIO PC.
So this, I believe, is what Canonical must consider if it wants to compete with Apple in the area of user interface design. It must look at and study the hardware form factor that Apple uses to design the user interface of Mac OS X (the iMac) and then apply an AIO-centric design to Ubuntu that definitely outranks and outmaneuvers the Mac OS X-on-iMac user experience.
If it can do that, then Apple will be forced to compete against desktop Linux on the desktop and laptop front, particularly to retain their high-profile image as a computer company.
Mark Shuttleworth yesterday voiced his desire to help get Desktop Linux to, or past, the same design landmark currently held by Apple's Mac OS X. He also predicted that the same would be accomplished within the next two years.
Now one can laugh at this, and maybe even make a few jokes about how Ubuntu's trademark brownish-beige look and feel is easily dispelled by Mac OS X's trademark bluish/ivory look-and-feel.
I personally don't think that a desktop Linux distribution like Ubuntu should be so easily discounted as an operating system and software platform in comparison to Mac OS X. However, I contend that Ubuntu's success as a competing operating system and software platform against Mac OS X should be judged, or at least reviewed and assessed on how well either operating system fits into and utilizes an All-in-One PC.
The reason why I place the All-in-One PC in such a higher regard in comparison to the more diverse monitor-mouse-keyboard-tower combo that is sold by most desktop PC vendors as far as comparing Ubuntu to Mac OS X is because Mac OS X, since its introduction around 2000/2001, has historically been designed around the iMac, the AIO PC that was inaugurated in 1998 as the flagship product of the "new, improved" Apple. Even as Apple had introduced other desktop and laptop computers which had less of a hardware focus around the OS X GUI (including the current Mac Pro and Mac mini), the Mac OS X user interface has almost always been designed around the iMac in all generational iterations of the computer.
For instance, if you look at the iMac page on Apple.com, you can see how the GUIs of all the applications displayed on the screens of the row of iMacs are designed to take up the entirety of the screen. In fact, since Apple had first started to sell the flat-screen iMacs (starting with the iMac G4 of 2002), the screen real estate taken up by whole applications has almost always been advertised on the iMac page of Apple.com. The current iterations of the other desktop and laptop products from Apple are not advertised in a similar fashion on their own respective front pages on the website; the GUI's design is not "front and center" on those pages.
So I honestly think that Mac OS X's UI is designed to fit best on an iMac, with all the other installations of OS X on the other Mac desktops and laptops being a second-best consideration for Apple until recently. This All-in-One GUI-design mentality is also carried over to the iPhone OS, as the iPhone OS is designed more for the iPhone (an "All-in-One" candybar mobile device where, again, the screen is all that matters for user interaction) than it is for the iPod touch (and, if it decides to add another mobile pocket device, maybe a clamshell, to the line-up, Apple will still preinstall the iPhone OS onto the device without any significant changes in the design of the GUI or the functionality of the OS). A sign of this is the fact that the iPod touch still has some camera functionality akin to the iPhone, even though the iPod touch doesn't have a built-in camera.
Meanwhile, Windows on the desktop isn't and never has been designed with such a focus on the All-in-One desktop computer form factor; instead, it has been traditionally designed around the monitor-mouse-keyboard-tower metaphor.
Desktop Linux, as well, has been historically designed around the monitor-mouse-keyboard-tower metaphor, at least because the cheaper desktop computers have followed such a hardware design for expandability and upgrading purposes. Thus, Ubuntu has followed in like manner.
However, because it isn't created and provided by one single vendor, nor are the offered looks determined by one single vendor, it may be possible for desktop Linux distributions like Ubuntu and its own spinoffs can be designed and themed for best fit and access on an All-in-One PC's display.
If a Linux distribution (or more specifically, dare I say, an Ubuntu spinoff) can be designed and themed to be accessed specifically on an All-in-One PC like Gateway's One, Sony's Vaio L or Asus' EEE Monitor, I think that it may become the pinnacle of free software UI design for both desktop and laptop computers.
Anyone who may want to consider such an idea should at least consider the user interface of the "made-for-EEE PC" Linux distributions like Xandros and eeeXubuntu, and then try to apply the user interface with major modifications for access within an AIO PC.
So this, I believe, is what Canonical must consider if it wants to compete with Apple in the area of user interface design. It must look at and study the hardware form factor that Apple uses to design the user interface of Mac OS X (the iMac) and then apply an AIO-centric design to Ubuntu that definitely outranks and outmaneuvers the Mac OS X-on-iMac user experience.
If it can do that, then Apple will be forced to compete against desktop Linux on the desktop and laptop front, particularly to retain their high-profile image as a computer company.
Since when did "fanboy" become a synonym for "penis"?
(Or is it intended as a synonym for "fly" or "underwear", or at least something that is showing when your pants are not zipped up entirely?)
(Or is it intended as a synonym for "fly" or "underwear", or at least something that is showing when your pants are not zipped up entirely?)
Poll #1226226 Commons or Piracy
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All
Thanks togreenreaper, although it may look a little "off". Please let me know in the comments if there are any improvements that can be made.
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All
Would you get your media from a freely-licensed Commons or a multiply-licensed Pirate site?
View Answers
Pirate Bay FTW!
1 (50.0%)
ISOhunt.com, but only if I have to or can't find it through any other means. 1 (50.0%)
I'll wait until it comes out on DVD/CD 0 (0.0%)
Creative Commons, if it's available under such a license. 0 (0.0%)
Only whatever is acceptable for submission to Wikimedia Commons 0 (0.0%)
Thanks to
greenreaper, although it may look a little "off". Please let me know in the comments if there are any improvements that can be made.Maybe it's just me, but I wonder why those who frequent TorrentFreak have a dead-set thing against sites which remove unlicensed and restrictively-licensed torrents from their index?
To those who remove and support the removal of such torrents, its a way to keep far from the litigious reaches of both the MPAA/RIAA/other "industry rights" organizations and those single individuals who are more than happy to sue whenever some art or other work of their making is found to be distributed on some P2P index.
To those who are against the removal of the same torrents, it is a way to "bend over" or "pussy out" for such organizations and individuals, as such a stance on torrent licensing certainly accepts the explanation of the "industry" and "creative rights" organizations and individuals: that material which has been licensed under a restrictive, exclusive license shouldn't be redistributed by a third party at all, whether it is without the license in the metadata or not. This is an affront to those who are pro-piracy, with the statement that "no torrent is illegal".
Well that, and the common designation of such "legal torrent" sites as "useless" and "empty", considering that most film makers, game developers, software vendors, and music "artists" don't make an active use of or participate on any torrent site where their own released content has been redistributed.
Thus, when one site, like YouTorrent, decides to remove illegal torrents and only index legal ones in a move to make the site more palatable to the highest-bidding company, those who are pro-piracy will easily dismiss the site as a "sell-out" to the MPAA and rights organizations and proclaim "I've deleted Youtorrent from my bookmarks. Good riddance." Even if YouTorrent indexes 6TB worth of legal torrents.
I think this disconnect of legal argument between those who are unconditionally pro-piracy (The Pirate Bay, TorrentFreak, Piratpartiet) and those who are (un)conditionally pro-commons (LegalTorrents, YouTorrent, Creative Commons) may prove to be a definitive factionalism that will determine how BitTorrent is used, developed and promoted in the future. As one who uses BT, I feel that the two sides can co-exist for as long as their purposes and stances are clear and separate enough for users to see: those who are pro-commons should stick with pro-commons licenses and media, while the pro-piracy folks should stick with that which is copyrighted and exclusive in order to provide such media to those who may have no other alternative.
However, the factionalism between the pro-commons and pro-piracy can be destructive. The pro-piracy folks already see the pro-commons folks as a "fifth column" in the war of entrenchment against the rights and censorship organizations and affiliated individuals, while the pro-commons folks view the pro-piracy folks as being unnecessarily callous and willfully ignorant of the current legal climate that facilitates the strengthening of the rights and censorship organizations and affiliated individuals.
It may stem from the ultimate targets of the two sides: the pro-piracy folks would rather fight the MPAA and others of it's ilk using the brute strength of the "hydra effect" (also known as the "Streisand effect"), while the pro-commons folks would simply create and index freely-licensed, non-exclusive works that could then render the MPAA and subscribing companies a bit more irrelevant and redundant.
But why not get the monkey off your back as soon as possible, rather than use the capabilities of the Hydra to engage in a perennial, never ending battle against those who will come back again and again for one more fight, using whatever destructive means to kill the hydra and f*** the others over?
To those who remove and support the removal of such torrents, its a way to keep far from the litigious reaches of both the MPAA/RIAA/other "industry rights" organizations and those single individuals who are more than happy to sue whenever some art or other work of their making is found to be distributed on some P2P index.
To those who are against the removal of the same torrents, it is a way to "bend over" or "pussy out" for such organizations and individuals, as such a stance on torrent licensing certainly accepts the explanation of the "industry" and "creative rights" organizations and individuals: that material which has been licensed under a restrictive, exclusive license shouldn't be redistributed by a third party at all, whether it is without the license in the metadata or not. This is an affront to those who are pro-piracy, with the statement that "no torrent is illegal".
Well that, and the common designation of such "legal torrent" sites as "useless" and "empty", considering that most film makers, game developers, software vendors, and music "artists" don't make an active use of or participate on any torrent site where their own released content has been redistributed.
Thus, when one site, like YouTorrent, decides to remove illegal torrents and only index legal ones in a move to make the site more palatable to the highest-bidding company, those who are pro-piracy will easily dismiss the site as a "sell-out" to the MPAA and rights organizations and proclaim "I've deleted Youtorrent from my bookmarks. Good riddance." Even if YouTorrent indexes 6TB worth of legal torrents.
I think this disconnect of legal argument between those who are unconditionally pro-piracy (The Pirate Bay, TorrentFreak, Piratpartiet) and those who are (un)conditionally pro-commons (LegalTorrents, YouTorrent, Creative Commons) may prove to be a definitive factionalism that will determine how BitTorrent is used, developed and promoted in the future. As one who uses BT, I feel that the two sides can co-exist for as long as their purposes and stances are clear and separate enough for users to see: those who are pro-commons should stick with pro-commons licenses and media, while the pro-piracy folks should stick with that which is copyrighted and exclusive in order to provide such media to those who may have no other alternative.
However, the factionalism between the pro-commons and pro-piracy can be destructive. The pro-piracy folks already see the pro-commons folks as a "fifth column" in the war of entrenchment against the rights and censorship organizations and affiliated individuals, while the pro-commons folks view the pro-piracy folks as being unnecessarily callous and willfully ignorant of the current legal climate that facilitates the strengthening of the rights and censorship organizations and affiliated individuals.
It may stem from the ultimate targets of the two sides: the pro-piracy folks would rather fight the MPAA and others of it's ilk using the brute strength of the "hydra effect" (also known as the "Streisand effect"), while the pro-commons folks would simply create and index freely-licensed, non-exclusive works that could then render the MPAA and subscribing companies a bit more irrelevant and redundant.
But why not get the monkey off your back as soon as possible, rather than use the capabilities of the Hydra to engage in a perennial, never ending battle against those who will come back again and again for one more fight, using whatever destructive means to kill the hydra and f*** the others over?
They just formed at the Green Party convention in Chicago last week.
Unfortunately, they don't have a website or a wiki....and they're nowhere to be found on the Green Party site, nor on Google.
Which is kinda surprising and disturbing. You'd expect the Green Party to have at least some mention of what is carried on at their own convention on their own website.
In fact, the only messages which I've received from this group are through email. No listserv for this organization or anything.
I'll begin publishing the messages I've received soon, at least to see if there's anyone who's willing to discuss it in public.
Unfortunately, they don't have a website or a wiki....and they're nowhere to be found on the Green Party site, nor on Google.
Which is kinda surprising and disturbing. You'd expect the Green Party to have at least some mention of what is carried on at their own convention on their own website.
In fact, the only messages which I've received from this group are through email. No listserv for this organization or anything.
I'll begin publishing the messages I've received soon, at least to see if there's anyone who's willing to discuss it in public.
Apple finally turned the iPhone (and iPod touch) into a Wi-Fi remote control for the Apple TV on the 10th.
Finally.
EDIT: I'm still trying to conceptualize a mobile OS IDE that can be used from within a mobile OS rather than the desktop.
I mean sure, extending a mobile OS to take on even more capabilities and interact with or control other devices is a good thing, but should software development for mobile device operating systems only reside on desktop operating system IDEs?
But if it shouldn't, then how does one turn the mobile devices like the iPhone and iPod touch from perpetual receivers and consumers of software code into tools for production of software code?
Just like graphic and audio editing software, IDEs usually take up a number of windows on a desktop in order to keep the various options and functions perpetually within the relative periphery vision of the editing user. Furthermore, like the bare-bones text editors, they are also intensive upon the keyboard for input of source code into the text area.
On mobile devices, however, there is very little screen real estate for windowed applications. Even on the current iPhone OS, which has no physical keyboard, the virtual keyboard which pops up every time that one needs to type in a text field (say, for Google or Yahoo search) tends to take up around half of the screen from the bottom up.
So I look at the keyboard metaphor, and I wonder about how it could be best applied in the creation of content, or even software code.
What if the virtual keyboard in the iPhone OS can have dynamically-added extra buttons for code preset templates?
It could work similarly to how wiki articles on Wikipedia or Wetpaint allow one to highlight a word or set of words and choose a way to format the highlighted section, such as Bold, Italics, Underline, Strikethrough, <ref></ref> or Soft Redirect. The graphical cues for creating page templates are even more apparent on Wetpaint and Pbwiki, which uses alot more Ajax to generate such cues.
Even in desktop IDEs, code templates are selected for any new project through graphical means, as shown in the most recent iteration of Dashcode.
So graphical code template buttons are one way to extend the virtual keyboard's functionality into creative territory. Such buttons could, upon being tapped, indicate the placing of an entire snippet of code for each tapped button in the top text area.
Another approach to developing software on the iPhone OS from within the iPhone OS is to develop brand new computer languages that would be entirely "graphical" or "non-textual": in other words, while being rendered by software that was written and compiled in textual form, the code that would be tapped from the virtual keyboard's dynamically-added symbol buttons would not result in a placing of text code, but rather a placing of graphical symbol code.
It's alot like how one can talk to someone using symbol language, like "Eye Heart U" (with the respective symbols to indicate pronunciation) to say "I Love You", or how keys on a game controller are marked with symbols to indicate the order by which the next secret move of your character will take place.
The downside of creating an entire computer language out of graphical symbols is that one must be familiar with what each symbol may indicate as an instruction in the greater source code. Does it indicate a single equivalent of a human language word, or does it indicate an entire idea that may be represented by a thousand human language words, such as the code template button idea that I suggested earlier?
Finally, a third idea to "create" something that can be installed on any iPhone OS device or within any pertinent iteration of an iPhone OS application as a "script" in order to render a same or similar action would be to "record" a workflow. This could be determined in a hypothetical "file type options" dialog box.
This would work by asking you exactly what you want to do with a file type or file tagged with a keyword: do you want to save an archive of each file at this time every few hours/days, and do you then want to publish your file's stats on a local or external database?
However, this approach would demand that the application or OS provides as many properly laid out options as can be thought possible within an application. I'd favor the previous two anyway.
Anyway, just a few ideas on the perfect touchscreen mobile IDE on the iPhone OS.
Finally.
EDIT: I'm still trying to conceptualize a mobile OS IDE that can be used from within a mobile OS rather than the desktop.
I mean sure, extending a mobile OS to take on even more capabilities and interact with or control other devices is a good thing, but should software development for mobile device operating systems only reside on desktop operating system IDEs?
But if it shouldn't, then how does one turn the mobile devices like the iPhone and iPod touch from perpetual receivers and consumers of software code into tools for production of software code?
Just like graphic and audio editing software, IDEs usually take up a number of windows on a desktop in order to keep the various options and functions perpetually within the relative periphery vision of the editing user. Furthermore, like the bare-bones text editors, they are also intensive upon the keyboard for input of source code into the text area.
On mobile devices, however, there is very little screen real estate for windowed applications. Even on the current iPhone OS, which has no physical keyboard, the virtual keyboard which pops up every time that one needs to type in a text field (say, for Google or Yahoo search) tends to take up around half of the screen from the bottom up.
So I look at the keyboard metaphor, and I wonder about how it could be best applied in the creation of content, or even software code.
What if the virtual keyboard in the iPhone OS can have dynamically-added extra buttons for code preset templates?
It could work similarly to how wiki articles on Wikipedia or Wetpaint allow one to highlight a word or set of words and choose a way to format the highlighted section, such as Bold, Italics, Underline, Strikethrough, <ref></ref> or Soft Redirect. The graphical cues for creating page templates are even more apparent on Wetpaint and Pbwiki, which uses alot more Ajax to generate such cues.
Even in desktop IDEs, code templates are selected for any new project through graphical means, as shown in the most recent iteration of Dashcode.
So graphical code template buttons are one way to extend the virtual keyboard's functionality into creative territory. Such buttons could, upon being tapped, indicate the placing of an entire snippet of code for each tapped button in the top text area.
Another approach to developing software on the iPhone OS from within the iPhone OS is to develop brand new computer languages that would be entirely "graphical" or "non-textual": in other words, while being rendered by software that was written and compiled in textual form, the code that would be tapped from the virtual keyboard's dynamically-added symbol buttons would not result in a placing of text code, but rather a placing of graphical symbol code.
It's alot like how one can talk to someone using symbol language, like "Eye Heart U" (with the respective symbols to indicate pronunciation) to say "I Love You", or how keys on a game controller are marked with symbols to indicate the order by which the next secret move of your character will take place.
The downside of creating an entire computer language out of graphical symbols is that one must be familiar with what each symbol may indicate as an instruction in the greater source code. Does it indicate a single equivalent of a human language word, or does it indicate an entire idea that may be represented by a thousand human language words, such as the code template button idea that I suggested earlier?
Finally, a third idea to "create" something that can be installed on any iPhone OS device or within any pertinent iteration of an iPhone OS application as a "script" in order to render a same or similar action would be to "record" a workflow. This could be determined in a hypothetical "file type options" dialog box.
This would work by asking you exactly what you want to do with a file type or file tagged with a keyword: do you want to save an archive of each file at this time every few hours/days, and do you then want to publish your file's stats on a local or external database?
However, this approach would demand that the application or OS provides as many properly laid out options as can be thought possible within an application. I'd favor the previous two anyway.
Anyway, just a few ideas on the perfect touchscreen mobile IDE on the iPhone OS.
CSS is most well known as a means of creating nifty-looking graphical effects and enhancements in W3C-compliant webpages. Also, it has been demonstrated that CSS can be embedded into both HTML (a text-oriented markup language) and SVG (a vector graphics-oriented markup language).
But while CSS can wire together embedded content (images, video, etc.) and text into a variety of harmoniously-compartmented displays on xHTML, it remains to be seen what CSS can wire together in an SVG file, apart from doing the same job in SVG (wiring text and embedded images together into specific positions) that it does in xHTML.
Sure, SVG can be approached in the same way that non-image MLs like xHTML are approached: text can be embedded into SVG just like SVG can be embedded into text. However, SVG embedded into HTML would be treated like any other image format like JPEG, PNG and SWF, while text embedded into SVG wouldn't have anything to do with xHTML (at the moment, I don't think it's possible to embed HTML syntax into SVG, as there are very few to no resources via Google on the subject); instead, it would be treated as text from within SVG's own approach.
However, I'm certain that other images and image/video formats can be embedded in SVG, just as images can be embedded into HTML. So a CSS-based layout of the images and the text would work similarly to, albeit not the exact same as, CSS-based layout of images and text in HTML.
I think that now, from the recent addition of animations and transformations into CSS on WebKit, the main issue of discussion on CSS's role in vector graphics markup centers around how CSS and SMIL can be appropriated within both HTML and SVG without getting in each other's way.
Like CSS and unlike HTML, SVG and other markup languages, SMIL (a markup language, abbreviation for "Synchronized Multimedia integration Language"), ironically pronounced as "smile", doesn't have a "face"; in other words, an SMIL file doesn't have a visible output except when it is used to determine the sequential display of elements in another markup language, like SVG (thus being akin to Flash Player's ActionScript in terms of its "animation" capabilities). In fact, the main purpose of SMIL in a markup language is to determine how the elements in a markup page are supposed to "act" when the page is "played".
Also, it is most used by multimedia players such as QuickTime and RealPlayer to determine (or, dare I say, "daisy-chain") a pre-determined playback sequence of audio and video, hence known as "playlists". Also, a subset of SMIL, known as the Multimedia Messaging Service, is used primarily in the mobile device media industry to provide a variety of multimedia (video, images, audio, rich text) for messages between device rather than just the infamous "text message" allowed by the Short Message Service (SMS) protocol.
But what can CSS, even animated CSS, do for SMIL? Or what is the best relationship between the two?
At the moment, I've found this W3C resource on the interaction between CSS2 and SMIL (possibly for embedding); however, it was published exactly 10 years ago, while CSS animations were introduced this year as part of the drive toward an eventual CSS3 recommendation.
CSS, like SMIL, doesn't have a "face" unless it is embedded or "inlined" correctly in a markup language; and to an extent, it does determine an exact layout for the markup file's inner contents and embedded material. However, unlike SMIL, previous standards of CSS didn't include provisions for animation, although animation in CSS has been proven to work in previous years at a very rudimentary and manual, mouse-driven (:hover) level prior to the introduction of larger animation attributes to the CSS implementation in WebKit this year.
At the same time, even with this recent CSS animation implementation, it is still (albeit slightly less) driven by the mouse, as the :hover and :mouseover tags' capabilities have simply been expanded into the area of transformations (in other words, the attributes that allow for translations and rotations of elements).
So I could see the CSS3 transformations being geared exclusively to single hover-driven elements (like mousing over a hyperlink to see it expand or rotate into a bigger form), while SMIL's animations can be applied to elements in the page that aren't hover-driven, but click-driven (like clicking "play" to play a video and "stop" to stop it).
But that's the best that I can see as far as a relationship between a transforming CSS3 and animating SMIL is concerned. There's still no word yet on what embedding CSS into an SMIL file can do for the latter (vice versa, I believe, is impossible).
Neither of them have "faces" with which they can smile or style.
But while CSS can wire together embedded content (images, video, etc.) and text into a variety of harmoniously-compartmented displays on xHTML, it remains to be seen what CSS can wire together in an SVG file, apart from doing the same job in SVG (wiring text and embedded images together into specific positions) that it does in xHTML.
Sure, SVG can be approached in the same way that non-image MLs like xHTML are approached: text can be embedded into SVG just like SVG can be embedded into text. However, SVG embedded into HTML would be treated like any other image format like JPEG, PNG and SWF, while text embedded into SVG wouldn't have anything to do with xHTML (at the moment, I don't think it's possible to embed HTML syntax into SVG, as there are very few to no resources via Google on the subject); instead, it would be treated as text from within SVG's own approach.
However, I'm certain that other images and image/video formats can be embedded in SVG, just as images can be embedded into HTML. So a CSS-based layout of the images and the text would work similarly to, albeit not the exact same as, CSS-based layout of images and text in HTML.
I think that now, from the recent addition of animations and transformations into CSS on WebKit, the main issue of discussion on CSS's role in vector graphics markup centers around how CSS and SMIL can be appropriated within both HTML and SVG without getting in each other's way.
Like CSS and unlike HTML, SVG and other markup languages, SMIL (a markup language, abbreviation for "Synchronized Multimedia integration Language"), ironically pronounced as "smile", doesn't have a "face"; in other words, an SMIL file doesn't have a visible output except when it is used to determine the sequential display of elements in another markup language, like SVG (thus being akin to Flash Player's ActionScript in terms of its "animation" capabilities). In fact, the main purpose of SMIL in a markup language is to determine how the elements in a markup page are supposed to "act" when the page is "played".
Also, it is most used by multimedia players such as QuickTime and RealPlayer to determine (or, dare I say, "daisy-chain") a pre-determined playback sequence of audio and video, hence known as "playlists". Also, a subset of SMIL, known as the Multimedia Messaging Service, is used primarily in the mobile device media industry to provide a variety of multimedia (video, images, audio, rich text) for messages between device rather than just the infamous "text message" allowed by the Short Message Service (SMS) protocol.
But what can CSS, even animated CSS, do for SMIL? Or what is the best relationship between the two?
At the moment, I've found this W3C resource on the interaction between CSS2 and SMIL (possibly for embedding); however, it was published exactly 10 years ago, while CSS animations were introduced this year as part of the drive toward an eventual CSS3 recommendation.
CSS, like SMIL, doesn't have a "face" unless it is embedded or "inlined" correctly in a markup language; and to an extent, it does determine an exact layout for the markup file's inner contents and embedded material. However, unlike SMIL, previous standards of CSS didn't include provisions for animation, although animation in CSS has been proven to work in previous years at a very rudimentary and manual, mouse-driven (:hover) level prior to the introduction of larger animation attributes to the CSS implementation in WebKit this year.
At the same time, even with this recent CSS animation implementation, it is still (albeit slightly less) driven by the mouse, as the :hover and :mouseover tags' capabilities have simply been expanded into the area of transformations (in other words, the attributes that allow for translations and rotations of elements).
So I could see the CSS3 transformations being geared exclusively to single hover-driven elements (like mousing over a hyperlink to see it expand or rotate into a bigger form), while SMIL's animations can be applied to elements in the page that aren't hover-driven, but click-driven (like clicking "play" to play a video and "stop" to stop it).
But that's the best that I can see as far as a relationship between a transforming CSS3 and animating SMIL is concerned. There's still no word yet on what embedding CSS into an SMIL file can do for the latter (vice versa, I believe, is impossible).
Neither of them have "faces" with which they can smile or style.
Profile
- rayne_vandunem
- The Lone Penman
- My Googlepage