Open Source

If there is one drawback to the proletariat, it is their aimless inability to work together and solve their problems. They have all the power and innovation in the world, but no cohesion. Once cohesion is accomplished, they cease being the proletariat, and start being a club.

Clubs can get things done.

In the world of open source computing there are, approximately 345,986 different clubs. about 100,000 of them are making operating systems (which is almost a complete waste of time because you can only use one at a time, really, and if you're using more you are really just dicking around), the rest are devoted to making various programs one might actually use.

All of these half a million operating systems, I might add, have basically the same objective. They want to be useful. They want to be pretty. They want to have style and form and application. Some of them even have the audacious goal of being more practical and aesthetic than the mainstream systems. (This job, by the way, is getting easier and easier and easier.)

Just putting in my two cents to the two souls who will read it: why not pool resources to these programs that will actually be used? The normal person is only gonna use their computer for a purpose, not spend hours beautifying it and researching which of the 8,987,969 distributions of Linux is right for them. Remember, choice is paralyzing and debilitating. And a huge waste of time.

I want a superior office software suite. LibreOffice is alright.... I suppose it is getting better. I have not been able to get version 4 because of another hiccup with the system: it is hard to download and install. There: two problems which need a better solution.

Keystone

Please, for the love of all that is sacred, holy, and good in our world, do not let the Tar Sands be extracted. This is my short public prayer. Nothing good will come from this extraction; it will only be the loss of lives innocent and deserving.

Please do not let it happen. To all people everywhere.

REmove REduce REuse REcycle REpurpose

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.

They are in order for a reason.

First, we reduce what we take.

Then we reuse what we have.

Last, we recycle what we cannot use anymore.

But there are really more steps.

First, we remove. More than reducing what we use, we simply use none. Don't buy from what you don't need. Just don't have. The mentality really is a return to a neolithic era. Some are rather against. Some are for. I am not asking everyone give up their cars and pills and computers and junk. Just the junk that you do not need or do not use and this is different for everyone.

Reduce: get high-efficiency bulbs and appliances. Use natural light and heat. Put on a sweater. All that jazz. Print double sided. Steam instead of boil. Walk instead of drive (although this could be upgraded to Remove for the strong-willed).

Reuse what you can. drink out of food containers and use them as Tupperware. Be creative. Everything has a different way to be reused.

Recycling. The most popular. Throw all that stuff that you cannot reuse anymore into a bin for someone to make into something use-able again. Plastic melted back down into plastic.

Repurpose. When the quality of a material is so depleted that it cannot be recycled into what it once was, re-purpose it into something else. It may not be that useful. It may not be reusable again afterward. A great example is glass being used to layer landfills. It is being used. This stuff that would otherwise be utter waste. But: it still has a job. In the landfill it may be, but it has a job there. It's better than nothing.

Regift. This could be added. Giving to the Goodwill or what-have-you. It is, as far as environmental stewardship goes, not as good as using it yourself. Because it might just be thrown away. The store might have to because they are over-flowing, or its new owner might because they just don't care. But it is better than you throwing it away now.

North Korea Nukes: why not?

How can we, with a straight face, demand that North Korea have no nuclear weapons when we do? The UN has decreed that they have no right... but until the US and others disarm themselves, how can we demand such a thing? Nuclear Weapons are not a defensive thing. Having them provides nothing but a sense of danger in others.

We must disarm to get nukes out of their hands too.

Writing and Sign Language

The Celtic people live in our culture and minds very romantically. I see them as big, brave, red-bearded folk who could eat and drink and party and beat up Roman's in their spare time. People who weren't afraid of death, who weren't afraid of life, generally rambunctious. The music we have that we call "Celtic" is some of my favorite music. The spiraling art featured in the Book of Kells is magnificent. I think, perhaps, that these iron-mining people are our cultural reference for Dwarves in a post-Tolkienian fantasy sense.

I've been reading about them recently. They are no less remarkable the more I learn. One great thing I admire about the Celts were slow to adopt written language. Consequently, they were awesomely eloquent. Champions of rhetoric. They had stupendous memory, being less dependent on writing down the things that came into their heads to remember later, they simply remembered it.

According to legend, anyway.

In our modern world, we have an incredible reverence (therefore dependence...) upon the written word. We teach it in our schools as if it is the most important thing in all the world. I am not immune to these symptoms. I like writing more than speaking, really, if I was forced to choose, but I am slow to say that this is an advantage for me. I would also say I admire speakers more, and I believe that this is fairly common. I respect speaking more for the simple reason that it is more social; I find more and more places in our world where society is eroding in favor of distance. Writing could have been the first step toward this. Why talk directly when you can just send a letter. Call instead. Send an email, just text... Devolving all the way down to a Facebook poke. Also, if the Celts could attribute their magnificent memories on their lack of literacy, then I might attribute my poor memory on my own dependence and reverence. Understanding that this is not a thing to boast about, rather a thing to fix. To work on. Right now, it is my reality and I am moderately comfortable with it. I really love writing. I am not so strong a speaker, I am not a quick thinker, I am a fond writer. I like being able to revise. I went to what was easier for me.

But is it better?

I think it's more vague than we often treat it. Writing is important, but not intrinsically. It in only so important because we have made it thus. And now, that we have deemed it indispensable, we cannot dispense with it. It is here to stay.

Sign Language doesn't really have a standard written language.

Not that people haven't been trying. There are at least two systems being heralded onto the stage. I think the results are mixed right now. There is SignWriting, which is a very computer-graphic system. It is pretty quick to understand, but does not look friendly to the pen. All of the graphics look like they were made on an Commodore 64. It has the support of Wikipedia behind it, however. They wish to transpose the encyclopedia into the language. Then there is the ASLwrite Dictionary done in "si5s". Which is something I could actually imagine writing old-school. I am excited about this one, and would like to learn it, thinking that it will help my real signing as well. (I am unsure how the creators expect it to be the vehicle they want it to be when the information isn't available: it is all proprietary and for sale. If it is to be the "official" writing system, it needs to be learn-able. Money may be needed, but the message must be out, too...)

But is digressing down this road really wise? I got to thinking about this as I started constructing my own writing system for ASL. For my own amusement, really. It wasn't very good and was never very complete. I din't know that anyone had already made one. I just wondered how I could do it at first. But soon I got to thinking about the extenuating effects. A written language could be divisive. For a people who are a minority, creating one less incentive for learning the language of the macro-culture could be inhibiting for individuals. It can also be internally divisive: direct communication is less necessary. Just send a letter. And there are all of those incredible mental strengths which come from being illiterate. Independence from paper.

But, on the other hand, and it is a strong hand, writing will go a long way toward preserving this endangered language. With advances in medical science, deafness is not what it once was. We can construct more and more precise artificial ears. When they eclipse the quality of our God-given ears, we might give 'em to everyone. And, like so many other things, a culture, the culture of the Deaf, may be quietly crushed. Along with the beautiful, immediate, and expressive language that is ASL and BSL and et cetera.

It is a discussion worth having. Since it is here, I will probably be learning si5s. ... Sigh.