Archive for May, 2012

3

Why Does a Nosy Computer Want to Ruin My Marriage?

There are many things about the corporate world that I’m forced to inhabit during normal business hours that regularly perplex and frighten me — for example, the tendency of its residents to use “spend” as a noun and “parking lot” as a verb. (E.g., Corporate Wonk 1:“What was our spend this quarter?” Corporate Wonk 2: “Let’s parking lot that discussion for another day.” Me: Baaaaaaaaaaarrrrrffff)

Occasionally, however, my experiences drift into a more metaphysical realm. Case in point: the existential crisis that arose after I finally remembered to update my emergency contact information yesterday following my marriage last year. As you can see, the first few text fields are fairly standard. However, after selecting how I was related to my emergency contact from a handy — and, I must, say, quite thorough — drop-down menu, I became genuinely stumped by the final piece of information requested: my “Relationship Start Date.”

Uhh, say what now? You want to know when my relationship with my emergency contact started? What does that even mean? If I had listed a parent, would my faceless overlords have wanted to know the day I was born, the day I was conceived, or the day I truly began to recognize my parents as flawed human beings who I could finally and legitimately consider peers? More importantly, would Virginia and Oklahoma require a personhood amendment to even be able to answer this question?

Of course, I didn’t list a parent. I listed a spouse, which makes the question even moreproblematic when you consider the possibility that, in the event of an emergency, whoever contacts her could conceivably share the information about when I believe our relationship started. Sure, I could just play it safe and list the date we met, but it would certainly be a stretch to say we had a relationship at that time. And since we were friends before any sort of romantic entanglement reared its snarled head, which phase of our relationship is more pertinent in this case: our fledgling friendship or consequent courtship? I suppose the former could be said to have begun the first time we hung out socially in any capacity, but the latter is a much trickier knot to unravel.

Did “she” and “I” become “us” the first time we danced together in a raging discotheque located beneath the local bullfighting arena? Were we “we” the moment she agreed to accompany me unchaperoned through the narrow, winding streets of the ancient Moorish barrio on the outskirts of town? Or perhaps the solidifying moment came during our unexpected, Lady-and-the-Tramp-style kiss over a mutually munched churro? (In case you’re confused, I should probably point out that we met in Spain.)

Then again, her relationship as my spouse obviously didn’t begin until the day we married, so maybe I should simply list our anniversary as the “Relationship Start Date.” Yeah, our anniversary, which is on…uhhh…I remember it was summer-ish…

On second thought, maybe I should just start looking both ways before I cross the hallway, since avoiding an emergency at work seems to be the only way to avoid a much bigger emergency at home.

0

QOTD

“If you don’t know who is posting anonymous nonsense on the Internet, you don’t even know exactly whose children to set fire to.”

Sauce.

1

Websites that Sound Like Other Things

When creating a new online presence, it’s important to choose a name that’s both memorable and at least vaguely emblematic of your site’s intended purpose. This usually means following one of two broad naming strategies: 1) Choosing a random, possibly foreign word that is spiritually — if not literally — related to your mission (see: Google, Amazon, Yahoo, Hulu, Yelp), or 2) mashing together two or more words that allude to content and purpose (see: YouTube, WordPress, Facebook, Pinterest).

The danger with these strategies, of course, is that they require powerful branding to become household names (or, at least, Web-hold ones). Otherwise, n00bs coming across them for the first time may become confused about what they’re all about. Forthwith, a collection of popular online entities whose names could have easily been co-opted for other purposes had the original ventures failed to make it out of the digital starting gate:

Boing Boing

What it is: An eclectic group blog aggregating various links and stories from around the web

What it sounds like: An X-rated Tigger fan-fiction site

The wonderful thing about Tigger is Tigger’s wonderful thing!

Forexpros

What it is: A comprehensive source for tools and information relating to the financial markets

What it sounds like: A depressing online community of former sports stars consumed with reliving their glory days

GitHub

What it is: A centralized control system for the collaborative development of software

What it sounds like: A British-run revenge site where wives send in stories about their idiot husbands

Gizmodo

What it is: A tech blog covering consumer electronics

What it sounds like: What you get when that adorable snuggle ball from Gremlins mates with the largest living species of lizard on earth

SlashGear

What it is: Another tech blog devoted to consumer electronics and technology

What it sounds like: Where Freddy Krueger and Jason Voorhees go to buy high-quality bad-guy paraphernalia

UrbanSpoon

What it is: A leading provider of “time-critical” dining data

What it sounds like: A place for lonely city dwellers to cuddle with strangers

Surprisingly, UrbanSpooning very rarely leads to UrbanForking.

YouPorn

What it is: An amateur pornographic video site

What it sounds like: Uhhh, okay, I guess there aren’t a lot of ways you can go with this one

***

(cross-posted on MotherBoard)

0

Is the microphone on?

Sorry, been busy with real life stuff. Shit happens. Career changes, etc. Trevor is over at Motherboard making money while Ben and I avoid blogging responsibilities and consider turning the whole enterprise into a book review site.

Meanwhile.

President Obama is busy spending all of America’s money (clearly) because he’s black and reparations and rawr. Except he’s not (well, okay, he’s black), and he’s spending less than any President since the Eisenhower administration. Fucking facts, right? How do those work?

Ben would probably be writing about the Montreal student protests more if he weren’t already doing so at epic length on Facebook. And yes, Ben, that is a challenge.

(h/t) (chart via)

0

Club club club

Everyone is joining the club!!!  (Sorry this post is late – there was a blip in the internets.  Who turned off the internets / stole the cookie from the cookie jar?!)

1

That TED talk on the economic consequences of inequality that was pulled for excessive “partisanship”

But redistributive taxes make our Galtian Overlords sad cause they WORKED for all that money.

0

Is Tom Friedman Really Like a Goldfish? Or Does That Insult Goldfish?

(via)

0

What looks from Toronto like mob rule in Quebec

The Globe and Mail can eat a dick. Their lede:

The fight over a proposed tuition-fee increase in Quebec is about something else now. It’s about whether decisions made by a democratically elected government can be overcome by force.

Commence whining about teh violins of teh mobz:

It would be one thing if the student demonstrators chose civil disobedience, accepted arrest and tried to win over public opinion by attempting to expose injustice. But they are not doing so.

Umm… peacefully blocking access to a CEGEP by creating a human barricade is a poster for civil disobedience. they HAVE chosen civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is precisely what they’ve chosen.

Also, a huge number HAVE “accepted” arrest, whatever “accepting” arrest means.  Looking for solid source for these numbers, but according to wiki, 916 have had to so far. These arrests have been “accepted” even in the face of pretty extreme incidences of police brutality on the topic of which the editors have not a word to spare. Also, the several-hundred-thousand-body-mobilizing protests we’ve seen have been overwhelmingly peaceful — Wikipedia has the casualty count at TEN injuries. Throw on an additional 11 reportedly injured at the protest at the PLQ’s convention in Victoriaville last week and you get… 21. Twenty-one. Let that juxtaposition sink in: Multiple protests of ~200,000 people; twenty-one injuries. Just like The Day of the (fucking) Locust.

The Globe goes on to declare:

The hallmark of Canadian democracy is a peaceful settling of conflict.

O R E A L L Y ? (Bonus content! — A generally informative encyclopedia entry on the history of political violence in Canada)

Canada is just like every other democracy — the democratic process works great for the majority. For the minority… not so much. Canadian democracy — just like American democracy, just like Western-European democracy — isn’t working too well for the minority born after about 1980 who, to paraphrase the Globe — which is right, at least, in saying that these protests are about more than just tuition — need to shut up and accept that reasonable tuition, single-digit unemployment rates, a reasonable expectation to be able to buy a house, a reasonable expectation to be able to retire in reasonable comfort are/were all privileges reserved for their Boomer/Gen-X elders on whom we should now expect to have to depend and to whom we should be getting used to groveling.

Additional reason the Globe and Mail can eat a dick: They endorsed fucking Stephen “who needs a census when you can throw more kids in jail for minor drug offenses” Harper last election, lest we forget. We should care about such an editorial board’s opinion… why?

Also: Why is it so rare to see an acknowledgement that a 75% hike in tuition is a big, huge-assed hike in tuition — a big, huge-assed step in the direction of the utterly absurd rates demanded by American institutions driving the student-loan bubble that’s probably going to precipitate the next major economic crisis if Europe doesn’t beat it to it.  The future ain’t what it used to be.

Also: Another point that seems almost never to be made in the English language media is that it’s not even these, purportedly selfish and entitled students that would be hit by the planned 75% tuition hike. Those that’ll be hit hardest are those that will only start their post-secondary education five years from now. They’re doing unto their youngers as they would have their elders do unto them.

1

Found Art of the Day

From an unopened card to one “Janet,” which I was really, really hoping would have a crisp $20 inside. Alas.

3/15/96

Dear Janet,

This is just a little note to say thank you for being the Christian amongst [sic] our group. During lunch, for example, I’ve never seen you participate in gossip or throwing stones. You are always in a cheerful mood & bearing a smile. So let this be a card saying “Thank you” but also one of encouragement from 1 sister in Christ to another: I saw Christ in you & it was a comforting relief. Thank you.

-Heidi

3

On Centrism and Civility, Briefly

I was having dinner with my friend-and-sexual-associate not too long ago, and we got into a discussion about civility versus decency, which, if you’ve read our Inflammatory Writ, has been a hobbyhorse of the proprietors of this website for a while now. Her point was that people are more likely to take you seriously if you don’t use bad words and argue in good faith, and mine was that some people simply aren’t worth arguing with — since their minds will never change — and can simply be told to fuck off.

I understand that this opens me up to criticism from the right along the lines of, “Fuck off, libtard,” and I’m perfectly fine with that. I think that’s a legitimate criticism, all things considered. But I only think it’s legitimate because it fundamentally expresses the truth: to wit, the right-winger and I will never agree on certain issues, and there is basically no point in discussing those issues with each other. So, “Fuck off”? Gladly. Why waste each other’s time?

My audience, however, isn’t (I hope) on the fence about issues like LGBTQ rights, or global warming, or the military-industrial complex’s negative effects on American foreign policy, or the disaster that is deregulated capitalism. If you are, can I please request that you kindly fuck off? We have nothing to talk about. These issues are urgent, and I profess absolutely no regret for being earnest in my advocacy for the far left position I take with regard to each. The Overton window either moves left or right, after all. I confess to hoping that I do some small service on behalf of making our national discourse more amenable to left-wing political views.

Which brings us — AS ALL THINGS DO — to William Lloyd Garrison, who expressed my position considerably more succinctly than I’ve been able to do so here:

I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; — but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest — I will not equivocate — I will not excuse — I will not retreat a single inch — AND I WILL BE HEARD. [Bold added.]

I’ve got “never give an inch” tattooed on my left arm. In one respect it is an ironic statement on the foolhardiness of brooking no compromise — which is, I would argue, the central theme of the book from which it was derived. That is, I don’t think Kesey was endorsing the notion that one should never give an inch, even if his protagonists lived and died by the slogan. But in another respect, it speaks to the meaning of core principles. What do you stand for? To what extent are you willing to back it up? And most importantly, where do you draw the line in the sand?

Ultimately, like it or not, you have to draw it somewhere. You don’t, of course, if you’re trying to make a living in the Tom Friedman/David Brooks version of the universe where intellectual consistency means a pay-cut. But you do if, like most of us, you’re simply trying to be a decent human being. To do so requires staking out positions and making arguments, regardless of how popular or unpopular they make you. Believe it or not, I have considerably more respect for a principled bigot than a pundit who tries to play both sides of an argument and ends up defending that bigot. While the bigot and I may never agree about anything, at least I know that a gentle “Fuck you” adequately expresses my point. With the pundit, one is tempted to mistake smarminess for an argument, when in actuality it’s simply a ploy to mask cowardice and intellectual dishonesty.

Taking a stand is important. Knowing what you believe in is important. Having principles is important. And, crucially now, making compromises is important, too. But with compromise, you always have to be playing the long-game, and you have to have an idea of what audience is worth playing games for. There are simply some people you’ll never be able to reach. In the meantime, never give an inch.

Page 1 of 3123