Primary tabs
Posts
Posts
All articles from all albums, full content, latest on top,
not including Doodles
not including Doodles
Page 87 of 131, posts 431 - 435 of 652
One of the first rules about the world of hypertext: YOU DON'T CHANGE THE LINKS!
When the Urantia Foundation re-did their online Urantia Book a while back, they CHANGED ALL THE LINKS. So, now, none of those carefully-laid-in links from Mindful Webworks works. Well, that's not quite true. Links which just go to the Papers' web pages proper work, at least the few I've tested, but not any of the internal links, which refer to specific sections or paragraphs. ARGH!
I tried to help them be digitally smart, as far back as the pre-Internet CompuServe days, and could tell they were being digitally dumb. The fellow, can't remember his name, who was then preparing their first "official" digital version of the UB was a nice guy, enthusiastic about the task and its technical minutiae in good old geek fashion, and was fun to talk with. I was encouraging the Foundation to have a presence on Religion Forum on CompuServe, and he agreed this was a good idea. (This was as the Foundation was functioning primarily from abject digitized fear, and was fiercely battling the bootlegged searchable digital version Kristen Maaherra circulated. Some in the Foundation seemed to be afraid that that little set of 5-inch floppy disks would somehow bring down the Foundation and disrupt the unity of the movement, which as it turned out became a self-fulfilling prophecy.) Talking with Martin Myers about the UB's digital presence, though, was like trying to light a fire underwater with soggy matches. In the rain. During Biblical Noah's flood.
Historic Timeline of Events in the Revelation Community 1981-1995:
1991 Urantia Foundation initiates legal action against Kristen Maaherra for creating and giving away an electronic index to The Urantia Book.
1992 Martin Myers dismissed as Trustee of Urantia Foundation
1991 Urantia Foundation initiates legal action against Kristen Maaherra for creating and giving away an electronic index to The Urantia Book.
1992 Martin Myers dismissed as Trustee of Urantia Foundation
After my visit to the Foundation and that disappointing -- almost scary -- encounter with Martin Myers, I prepared a page of artwork for UB Comix that took the poster from one of the Halloween horror flicks, probably Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989), and basically substituted Martin for Michael. (I've never seen any of that series; I have no use for the terror, gore, and horror genre at all. It was purely inspired by the name and the reputation Martin had as the bad guy.) It wasn't a very effective piece, not funny, and rather mean-spirited, I suppose. Might've got me sued! I might have ended up not using it, but... I have all sorts of old UB Comix notes and scripts and sketches and I never throw any of them away, but all of that vanished without a trace! I swear the Midwayers took that finished artwork and all the work-up pieces of it right off my art table!
Of all the stupid moves the Foundation has made, changing the links has to be one of the stupidest. How long will it take me to re-work just the framed study version of UB Comix #7!!
One of the first rules about the world of hypertext: YOU DON'T CHANGE THE LINKS! Mindful Webworks has been on four different sites, including, finally, MindfulWebworks.com, and all the web page links still work, redirecting from its former homes on Sprynet, CableOne, and us75.com, to the current site. Actually, I found some people on a website, I think it was Korean, linked, not to the web pages proper, but directly to UB Comix graphics, which is a hyperlink no-no, and those links are broken. It would have been prohibitively difficult to redirect every single graphic, so those old links to graphics are and forever will remain broken, but all links to the old-site web pages forward to the current location of that page.
YOU DON'T BREAK THE LINKS! There's lots of news sites that don't understand this rule, and their old pages to which I linked years ago have been re-URL'd or removed. But newspapers are notorious for not understanding the web. This is why your newspaper is dying!
Unlike periodicals, the Urantia Foundation has one main text, and you'd think they would have learned YOU DON'T BREAK THE LINKS! Even more annoying, they've added what look like internal links [e.g. "(1772.1) 160:0.1"] where, when you hover over the "160:0:1," an underline appears as if it were a link, but it's not! You can't right-click and copy-link on any of those. Whoever re-designed their online book didn't make the links the current right way. They used the old method of using a link tag like <a name="U160_0_1">. The "name" parameter is available only on "a" tags (the basic hypertext link tag), and has long ago been deprecated in favor of the "id" parameter, which can be added to any HTML tag. It's technical, but it's significant for a major recent re-write. And there's yet some other, different reason why these links don't work as live links, because even deprecated, they should, but don't.
If you know how, you can reconstruct internal links to each paragraph. For example, that link to Paper 160, introductory section, paragraph 1, ends with "paper-160-rodan-alexandria#U160_0_1" -- you just add paper, section, paragraph numbers, e.g. "#U160_0_1" (note the leading "#U" and the underscores), to the end of the paper's URL to create most internal paragraph links. Linking to section headers, the last number is a zero. But that's not intuitive, and the average non-techie web user is not going to know how to do that.
It's so annoying. They not only changed all the links, they changed them badly in multiple ways.
I used to link only to the Foundation's book using the same logic that caused me to buy a Radio Shack computer in the Spring of 1979, instead of that odd-looking alternative named after a fruit: I figured the Radio Shack company was big, in good standing, would be around a long time, and therefore would be able to be available for service if I needed it and would be upgrade-friendly. Wrong! Radio Shack came out with the utterly different Model II and then the supposedly-similar Model III which was not backwardly-compatible with all the software developed for the original Model I, and in other ways blew their lead in home computing. Us non-fruity computeys mostly went on to the similar IBM/MS-DOS line, and eventually were stuck in Windows™. Similarly, I thought, the Foundation's book, being the old-guard and the official, will always be online, and reliably WILL ALWAYS HAVE THE LINKS. Wrong!
YOU DON'T CHANGE THE LINKS! ARRRGGGHH! I'd complain to the Foundation, but what would they do about it? They're not going to roll it back, or put in the old links as well as the new (which, if you must re-do the links would have been the way to go). The toothpaste is already out of the tube, the horse is out of the barn, the new version is paid for, and people are presumably linking to it now. It's too late! I just have to re-do practically every link to The Urantia Book I ever put on my web pages! First I need to figure out whether I still want to link to the stodgy, stumbling old Foundation, or to some other unreliable, unstable, likely-to-screw-me-around site. The Foundation has hyperlinks noting the various printed-version changes, which changes were not cool, but having them hyperlinked is supercool, and you can toggle their version to have Jesus words in red, which is meh. There may be for-some-reason better versions of the book online now than the Foundation's. But if the Foundation is unreliable, so is everybody else. I now TRUST NO ONE!
Okay, got that off my chest. Whew.
•
•
•
•
•
On HillBuzz, Kevin DuJan asked, "How can we create a 'Sarahstock' logo that captures the spirit of the Woodstock logo, but replaces the dove and guitar with positive, Alaskan-inspired items that will commemorate Sarah Palin’s presidential announcement?"
Here's my slapdash effort on a hot August afternoon. My original idea was simply to replace the guitar with a rifle barrel, and that led to the following attempts. This poster doesn't really fill the requirements. It doesn't really capture the spirit of the Woodstock logo, and in fact if you didn't know it was supposed to be a take-off on Woodstock, I expect you might not get it at all. It's not particularly Alaskan-inspired. The armaments are not all that relevant to her Presidential announcement. At best, this is a direct in-your-face to the blood libelous folks.
Two versions, sized the same as the Woodstock poster graphic on HillBuzz:
Version 1 here is not even a very flattering picture of Gov. Palin, as the rifle hides her face, is military rather than hunter, and she looks cross-eyed.
Version 2 is a better picture, but I had to blow it up 225% from the original to make it fit the poster.
•
•
•
•
•
In order to imagine an alternative to your perception, you must admit to the possibility of perceptual confusion.
Second in a series on perception and awareness.
First: Discerning Compound Problems — Problems are sometimes simple. More often problems are compound and complex, and complicated.
First: Discerning Compound Problems — Problems are sometimes simple. More often problems are compound and complex, and complicated.
The boyfriend says to the girlfriend, if there's 2 ways to take something, and one is mean and hurtful, I meant the other one.
Right?
But if you don't see the other one, that's meaningless. You only think, he's being mean and hurtful.
First, you must own your own emotions. Always take responsibility for being upset. "I am upset" is truth. "You upset me" avoids responsibility; it's not true in the same way. If the same words, same speaker, different listener, causes no upset, it's not the speaker, it's the listener. The manner of reaction is based on internal realities rather than external. The inverse would be a person who fails to get it when someone is being insulting or manipulative. Like when an old friend turns on you, and at first you think they're joking, until the preponderance of evidence is, no, that person really is being a jerk.
Second, in order to think "he meant the other one," you have to at least imagine that there is another one.
In order to imagine an alternative to your perception, you must admit to the possibility of perceptual confusion. You have to be able to have a second thought after the first impression. Even though it seems like the other person must be "making a dig" or "guilt-tripping" or something else, you might be imagining it.
It's not so much a matter of disregarding your perception as allowing for the possibility of misperception, despite how real it might
seem, despite the powerful and instantaneous emotional reactions which lend credence to your perception.
A negative perspective creates negative interpretations. If you have chronically and for years misunderstood and misinterpreted, the negative perspective seems all the more real. It's like in A Wrinkle in Time, where at first they're inside the darkness and it seems to be the main thing, but when the witches take them to a higher level of understanding, they see the reality is, the darkness is only a patch, and the light is the whole reality. Except that quite often the darkness isn't even real, you're just "blind" to the light.
Key is honesty, sincerity, in being able to accept that, for whatever reasons, you have had and continue to have perceptual problems which cause you to perceive things in a way that upset you, and have evolved whole perceptual milieu which are fooling your brain. It's a kind of emotional pareidolia.
"I wasn't angry," is often shouted angrily. Here is an article that seems to beg some conclusion, but is nevertheless good for definition:
Anger: An Often Mislabeled, Often Misperceived Emotion
[A]nger should be seen as a spectrum of reactions and feelings ranging from the mild to the severe. It may be a case of irritation, frustration, being upset, resentment, hatred, madness, aggression, hostility, violence, or rage. ... People need help in self-awareness to discover the source and magnitude of their anger. Questions like, What makes me upset or resentful? and Why do I get so easily frustrated? help clarify whether it is a manifestation of selfishness and narcissism or a mobilization of necessary zeal on an existential level to face violation, stop injustice, and overcome evil.
So: Anger is a range, not a single state. Self-awareness helps discern whether it's a result of internal confusion or actual external attack.
Similarly to the definitional limitedness of the above, here are just a couple of lines from a message on PsychForums (BPD = Borderline Personality Disorder):
Upthread are these "sub-genre" for BPD:
- Avoidant PD (social anxiety)
- Self-Destructive PD
- Dependent PD
- Oppositional[ly] Defiant [PD]
- Obsessive-compulsive PD"
My (flawed) impression of people with BPD is that they see emotional triggers that aren't there. Things become greater or more significant than they really are. The sky is falling-in. Or they have just met the most amazing person in the world and everything is now perfect.
I hate the idea of feeling or thinking something that isn't real. I'd rather have too few emotions than ones based on misperceptions. I'd rather be missing data than have flawed data in my system.
There are three things I see here that are important:
- "emotional triggers that aren't there"
- "emotions... based on misperceptions"
- "missing data"
You may perceive abuse, but while there may be a nit of basis for the perception, you're missing the broad fabric.
When I say "misperception," it's really more a matter of failure to perceive the greater context and an amplification of imagined hurt that fills the void of understanding.
This can be hard stuff to incorporate. Like the forum comment, one may dislike the idea of having false information and reactions thereto. But facing truth is vital.
Shocking illusion - Pretty girls turn ugly!
Uploaded to YouTube by TangenCognitionLab on Jul 7, 2011
How does that work?
[h/t to Maetenloch at Ace of Spades for the link!]
Uploaded to YouTube by TangenCognitionLab on Jul 7, 2011
How does that work?
[h/t to Maetenloch at Ace of Spades for the link!]
•
•
•
•
•
The gunman who killed at least 80 people at an island youth camp northwest of Oslo used his disguise to lure in his victims, then shot them twice to make sure they were dead, survivors said in the village of Sundvollen, where they were taken after the massacre. … Elise said she hid behind the same rock that the killer was standing on. … Several victims "had pretended as if they were dead to survive," the 21-year-old said. But after shooting the victims with one gun, the gunman shot them again in the head with a shotgun…. Emilie Bersaas… said she ran inside a school building and hid under a bed when the shooting started. … "I laid under the bed for two hours and then the police smashed a window and came in…."
Comments from the Ace of Spades blog article on Oslo terrorist
I heard 90 minutes. Not to minimize the tragedy in any way, but WTF? Some of the people there were in their high teens and early 20's. I'd like to hear more about how this went down. There wasn't one person there who could have run up behind the shooter and smashed his head with a rock or something? I want to hear if someone tried to step up in any way. It makes no sense to me that someone, armed but seriously outnumbered, could walk around for 90 minutes or so and just keep firing without anyone trying to jump him and subdue him. Any 'let's roll' moments that didn't quite work out? I really want to know…
Not to be cold but they were mostly kids, probably young Commie peaceniks who are taught to hug trees, not engage in violence. They were easy targets.
The guy had a machine gun. If someone was able to organize and coordinate many people it might have been feasible, though I'm sure it was pretty difficult to organize anybody after the shooting started. After people started splitting up, running up to him while he was shooting with that would have been just plain suicide.
AD, he had (according to the Norwegian police) an automatic rifle and a handgun. He had to stop to reload. One girl hid right under him, and I still think these young people had been so indoctrinated that they never even thought to pull together to get him. 90 minutes is a long time. I can buy panic for the first five minutes, but after that, I cannot imagine why they didn't pull themselves together and fight back.
Maybe. I just choose to believe that the natural reaction is to just hide and hope it will just go away. That's what makes Flight 93 so heroic.
I saw other reports saying had had a machine gun. Link (The Daily Mail isn't the best place, but I saw it at other places.) If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Without it, yeah, it would be more feasible.
Maybe. But, many jumped in the water and started swimming, which made them floating targets, which also smacks of suicide. At some point, this guy had to stop and reload. Maybe I would have done the same thing and ran like hell, I don't know. But the die running vs. die trying thing has been nagging me since yesterday. Like I wrote earlier, I want to know more details. I want to know if someone at least tried…
How many stories did we see out of Iraq about busloads of army/police reqruits marched off buses and executed? Those were by and large adults. I can't blame the kids for not mounting a defense. I would blame the organizers of the event for having no security precautions whatsoever (how do the local police not swarm this island after the bombing earlier within minutes of the first shooting).
Grand Prairie, Texas — A shooter opened fire at a skating rink during a private family event Saturday night, killing five and wounding four before turning the gun on himself. … a family member… pulled a pistol and started shooting after getting into an argument with his wife. … Including the gunman, six people were killed. Three were wounded… fourth victim arrived at a hospital by themselves [sic] … witnesses reported seeing individuals fleeing the skating rink, some of whom still had their skates on. …
A fight at a crowded Kent car show escalated Saturday afternoon, leaving 10 people shot as cars sped away from the scene and frightened spectators ducked into the safety of nearby businesses. … At least one shooter fired from the front of the shopping center into the crowd. … Patrons and employees in nearby shops and restaurants locked the doors and crouched in back rooms … Police said they don’t know how many shooters there were. No arrests had been made by Saturday night. … eight people — six men and two women — were admitted to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries. … ages of the wounded ranged from 14 to 32 … a fight broke out just before the shooting … About 10 people rushed into the back restrooms of the nail shop after locking the front door….
He ordered all the men out of the room, then systematically began picking off the women who were left.
Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal on December 6, 1989
(I tried to find how many men were culled from the room. One source said there were 26 students. If the two professors were male, and there were nine women, 17 men left them behind. Wikipedia's article says the killer "separated the nine women from the approximately fifty men and ordered the men to leave." [my emphasis.])
(I tried to find how many men were culled from the room. One source said there were 26 students. If the two professors were male, and there were nine women, 17 men left them behind. Wikipedia's article says the killer "separated the nine women from the approximately fifty men and ordered the men to leave." [my emphasis.])
Hearing the gunshots, gym coach Jon Lane entered the classroom. Loukaitis was holding his classmates hostage, and planned to use one hostage so he could safely exit the school. Lane volunteered as the hostage, and Loukaitis was keeping Lane at gun point with his rifle. Lane then grabbed the weapon from Loukaitis and wrestled him to the ground, and assisted the evacuation of students.
In 1903, the great poet, Chaim Nachman Bialik, was sent to report on the Kishinev massacre of Jews in Russia. Bialik was shocked by what he learned of the men's passivity, as their women were raped and murdered before their eyes. … once again, here in America, too many Jewish men are crouching "in that dark corner," while Jewish women are attacked.…
While I always appreciate expert advice and soak it up as much as I can, I have been struck by one commonality that I have heard and vigorously disagree with. I have been told over and over again that the first thing one must do when a combat theater unfolds is to seek cover. I'm sorry, but that is wrong. … Any adult with any degree of physical capability, regardless of armament, upon seeing a shooter should immediately RUN AT THE S.O.B. as hard and as fast as possible. If you have a gun, you draw it and start shooting as soon as you can. If you have a knife, draw it and brandish it and then go for the face and neck as soon as you are in range. If you are unarmed you can still tackle him and beat him into submission or death, if necessary, or gouge his eyes out (ladies). … Let's say that I rush a gunman. In the time it takes the gunman to see me rushing him, aim, fire and drop me, other people have advanced four or five steps closer to him. Each person he has to kill buys the other people four or five steps. This is war, writ small. What do you think D-Day was? …
Now, if you're an average person in approximately the first scenario, your first instinctive response will probably not be to charge forward, screaming in rage, straight at the bear and lunge for his eyes or jugglar with whatever was in your hand. … No, you're probably going to do something like run away screaming in high-pitched terror, faint, freeze, or muss your underoos. You were, in a word, unprepared.
•
•
•
•
•
Sgt DW Schlutz knows nothing. Nothing!
•
•
•
•
•