so, for tonight...
i think my stomach has settled a little.
i will now need to put those berries into tupperware, do some dishes, take a shower and finish the last four liner notes for november.
Tuesday, December 24, 2019
it's really biden v buttigieg, though.
if biden can hold on, he wins.
if he slips, buttigieg will take his place.
if biden can hold on, he wins.
if he slips, buttigieg will take his place.
at
21:50
it's very unfortunate what's happened to bernie. really. it is.
but, he's started running with a bad crowd, and you have to react to what's in front of you.
but, he's started running with a bad crowd, and you have to react to what's in front of you.
at
21:21
it's not that sanders isn't the best option.
sanders is clearly the best option. but, i just can't do it. vote eco-socialist, instead.
even when they asked him the transgender question, he seemed weirded out and awkard about it, even while stating the right answer. see, and this is what i'm saying: i don't think that bernie has any problem with the queers. he's actually, historically, been a pretty good ally. it's more like somebody took him aside and told him "this queer thing. you gotta distance yourself.", and he's been fighting with it since. he thinks the queers are unpopular and are costing him votes....
but, the people that told him that were wrong, and the people he should be distancing himself from are them.
he might figure that out, in the end, and course correct. but, the damage is done, and it's going to take a long time before i can get over that, if i ever can.
sanders is clearly the best option. but, i just can't do it. vote eco-socialist, instead.
even when they asked him the transgender question, he seemed weirded out and awkard about it, even while stating the right answer. see, and this is what i'm saying: i don't think that bernie has any problem with the queers. he's actually, historically, been a pretty good ally. it's more like somebody took him aside and told him "this queer thing. you gotta distance yourself.", and he's been fighting with it since. he thinks the queers are unpopular and are costing him votes....
but, the people that told him that were wrong, and the people he should be distancing himself from are them.
he might figure that out, in the end, and course correct. but, the damage is done, and it's going to take a long time before i can get over that, if i ever can.
at
20:57
i got my pizza and watched the debates.
i had too much pizza....need to sit down....
i may not have another full meal until january.
the debates were not exactly what i expected. bernie has, in fact, toned it down a little, and that's a good thing. rather, it was mostly warren that got into the tiff with buttigieg, and actually...
i think he handed her a death blow. she's done. and, in fact, i think she knows it. she seemed on the brink of tears for the rest of the debate; i think she knows she missed her chance. i'd expect her to withdraw relatively soon.
klobuchar didn't come off nearly as badly in her scuffle with buttigieg, but i do still think that he got the best of her. if anything, bernie seemed to know better.
most of what i saw and heard just reinforced that i'm substantively further to the left than this party is. i didn't like much of what i heard from any of them.
yang had some good opportunities, but he just reinforced the perception that he isn't actually serious. and, steyer is a billionaire running against billionaires? let's hope that's the last we hear from both of them.
biden's hawkish response on the china question was flat out frightening, but it seems to be in the mainstream of bourgeois left thought to be "tough on china" nowadays. the reality is that china has a sphere of influence in the region, and america is going to need to make a choice: pull back a little (ok, a lot.) or fight a war. the chinese are crystal clear that they don't want american weapons in their backyard, and i think they have every right to take that position. the yankee american imperialists need to go home.
in my mind, the field has narrowed to biden, sanders, buttigieg and klobuchar. don't be surprised if you start seeing klobuchar beating warren in some polls...
i had too much pizza....need to sit down....
i may not have another full meal until january.
the debates were not exactly what i expected. bernie has, in fact, toned it down a little, and that's a good thing. rather, it was mostly warren that got into the tiff with buttigieg, and actually...
i think he handed her a death blow. she's done. and, in fact, i think she knows it. she seemed on the brink of tears for the rest of the debate; i think she knows she missed her chance. i'd expect her to withdraw relatively soon.
klobuchar didn't come off nearly as badly in her scuffle with buttigieg, but i do still think that he got the best of her. if anything, bernie seemed to know better.
most of what i saw and heard just reinforced that i'm substantively further to the left than this party is. i didn't like much of what i heard from any of them.
yang had some good opportunities, but he just reinforced the perception that he isn't actually serious. and, steyer is a billionaire running against billionaires? let's hope that's the last we hear from both of them.
biden's hawkish response on the china question was flat out frightening, but it seems to be in the mainstream of bourgeois left thought to be "tough on china" nowadays. the reality is that china has a sphere of influence in the region, and america is going to need to make a choice: pull back a little (ok, a lot.) or fight a war. the chinese are crystal clear that they don't want american weapons in their backyard, and i think they have every right to take that position. the yankee american imperialists need to go home.
in my mind, the field has narrowed to biden, sanders, buttigieg and klobuchar. don't be surprised if you start seeing klobuchar beating warren in some polls...
at
20:49
so, i got a bowl of fruit and actually passed out until almost noon. i guess the smell in here got to me.
he tends not to smoke when his kids are around, anyways.
as mentioned, i spent the morning (it was actually the afternoon) figuring out how to react to the oiprd's continual demands for more time, and i've decided to make an issue out of it by sending them two notices:
1) if they don't consent to let me add the file between now and friday morning, i'll need to file a motion without notice to add the file to the case.
2) if they don't get the application record in between now and friday morning, i'll have to file a motion without notice to the court to declare them late.
they talked about "early in the new year". based on past behavior, that suggests february or march.
the process of filing the motion will take some time as well, but i'm making a point - i'm sick of the delays and making a stink about it.
what i sent them will be slightly different than what i'm going to file, and i'll consequently have to re-serve them on friday. i won't actually send out anything until later in the day on friday. and, i'm going to need to call the post office and figure out what their hours are, actually.
for right now, i'm going to need to take a quick run down to get some berries, as that was the thing that i couldn't find when i went on friday. they were just expensive. i had a few day's worth still, though; now i'm done and need more. if i have to, i'll get frozen berries. and, i'm going to get a pizza on the way back. then i'm going to shower. and, i'll actually be in bed tonight.
my machine has not rebooted yet, which is a good sign. let's hope it survives my walk to get fruit.
he tends not to smoke when his kids are around, anyways.
as mentioned, i spent the morning (it was actually the afternoon) figuring out how to react to the oiprd's continual demands for more time, and i've decided to make an issue out of it by sending them two notices:
1) if they don't consent to let me add the file between now and friday morning, i'll need to file a motion without notice to add the file to the case.
2) if they don't get the application record in between now and friday morning, i'll have to file a motion without notice to the court to declare them late.
they talked about "early in the new year". based on past behavior, that suggests february or march.
the process of filing the motion will take some time as well, but i'm making a point - i'm sick of the delays and making a stink about it.
what i sent them will be slightly different than what i'm going to file, and i'll consequently have to re-serve them on friday. i won't actually send out anything until later in the day on friday. and, i'm going to need to call the post office and figure out what their hours are, actually.
for right now, i'm going to need to take a quick run down to get some berries, as that was the thing that i couldn't find when i went on friday. they were just expensive. i had a few day's worth still, though; now i'm done and need more. if i have to, i'll get frozen berries. and, i'm going to get a pizza on the way back. then i'm going to shower. and, i'll actually be in bed tonight.
my machine has not rebooted yet, which is a good sign. let's hope it survives my walk to get fruit.
at
15:35
read this if you want to understand what pete buttigieg is.
https://archive.org/stream/carrollquigley_angloamericanestablishment/Carroll%20Quigley%20-%20The%20Anglo-American%20Establishment_djvu.txt
https://archive.org/stream/carrollquigley_angloamericanestablishment/Carroll%20Quigley%20-%20The%20Anglo-American%20Establishment_djvu.txt
at
00:35
so, buttigieg is holding on in those early states, huh? he's consistently beating both sanders and warren in new hampshire, which neighbours both vermont and massachusetts. in a way, that's impressive.
and, you can see why everybody's going after him.
i didn't watch the debate, and i'm not going to, but if it was the moralistas ganging up on the gay guy like i imagine it was, and him basically calling them out on their hypocrisy for it like it looks like it was, they may have shot themselves in the foot and given him a boost. i don't know why bernie thinks his angry zealot routine is a winner; it's part of the reason he's losing.
the democratic party has entered a weird twilight zone where so many of it's talking heads grew up as republicans, and have a fundamentally different way to understand the world than most of their voters do. most people that lean democratic are basically nihilists, in practice if not in theory. this shit is just going to be weird to them. it's the kind of thing that you pull out after you win, and you need to go after swing voters, or disgruntled republicans that actually care about morals and don't see them in the existing right-wing paradigm. democrats are more prone to want to have a beer, smoke a bong, and tell you to fucking relax and stop judging people. harris at least realized that, even if the execution was so botched as to be comical. if the debate was angry bernie v chill & cool pete, i can tell you who won with actual democratic voters, regardless of what the polls say just right now.
again: this is why everybody's going after him. he has a cultural appeal in the actual party base that the other candidates just don't; he's the guy that the people that pay party dues and carry their membership card around with them are most likely to go for. and, like it or not, he's probably the future of the party.
he's still basically a log cabin republican from the all souls clique, working for a secret cabal of globalists connected to the legacy of cecil rhodes. he's not a good candidate for leftist voters. don't misunderstand me, here - i'm not endorsing this guy.
and he still has a hill to climb to beat biden, clearly.
but, the longer he sticks around, the scarier he gets.
and, you can see why everybody's going after him.
i didn't watch the debate, and i'm not going to, but if it was the moralistas ganging up on the gay guy like i imagine it was, and him basically calling them out on their hypocrisy for it like it looks like it was, they may have shot themselves in the foot and given him a boost. i don't know why bernie thinks his angry zealot routine is a winner; it's part of the reason he's losing.
the democratic party has entered a weird twilight zone where so many of it's talking heads grew up as republicans, and have a fundamentally different way to understand the world than most of their voters do. most people that lean democratic are basically nihilists, in practice if not in theory. this shit is just going to be weird to them. it's the kind of thing that you pull out after you win, and you need to go after swing voters, or disgruntled republicans that actually care about morals and don't see them in the existing right-wing paradigm. democrats are more prone to want to have a beer, smoke a bong, and tell you to fucking relax and stop judging people. harris at least realized that, even if the execution was so botched as to be comical. if the debate was angry bernie v chill & cool pete, i can tell you who won with actual democratic voters, regardless of what the polls say just right now.
again: this is why everybody's going after him. he has a cultural appeal in the actual party base that the other candidates just don't; he's the guy that the people that pay party dues and carry their membership card around with them are most likely to go for. and, like it or not, he's probably the future of the party.
he's still basically a log cabin republican from the all souls clique, working for a secret cabal of globalists connected to the legacy of cecil rhodes. he's not a good candidate for leftist voters. don't misunderstand me, here - i'm not endorsing this guy.
and he still has a hill to climb to beat biden, clearly.
but, the longer he sticks around, the scarier he gets.
at
00:28
Monday, December 23, 2019
i mean, i'm asking the court to pull the file due to unreasonable delay and gross incompetence.
and, they missed the deadline and asked for an extension. great. default, then, guys. perfect.
and, they missed the deadline and asked for an extension. great. default, then, guys. perfect.
at
23:46
so, i'm going to grab some fruit and soften the air in here a bit.
i've been at this for the better part of the last 18 hours, and i got two liner notes done from scratch and updated the first one, as well. the first one was lengthier due to typesetting, whereas the second was shorter because there wasn't much to add. there are four more left that should all be more like the second, so i should conceivably be able to get them done by the time i get my christmas eve pizza. but i should get the forms in order for the request first, because i'm not going to wait long before i request an order. if i can file the order tomorrow i will.
they have now sent me two requests for an extension, and i have rejected both. i don't celebrate christmas, and am not going to give them a break for the holidays. if anything, i'll take advantage of it to force them to default. if i could just cease to have to deal with them ever again, that would be incredible.
but, i'm happy i'm making some progress.
i still need to get through december/13 & january/14, both of which are shorter months, before i can start making entries in the alter-reality and start refocusing on period 3.
i've been at this for the better part of the last 18 hours, and i got two liner notes done from scratch and updated the first one, as well. the first one was lengthier due to typesetting, whereas the second was shorter because there wasn't much to add. there are four more left that should all be more like the second, so i should conceivably be able to get them done by the time i get my christmas eve pizza. but i should get the forms in order for the request first, because i'm not going to wait long before i request an order. if i can file the order tomorrow i will.
they have now sent me two requests for an extension, and i have rejected both. i don't celebrate christmas, and am not going to give them a break for the holidays. if anything, i'll take advantage of it to force them to default. if i could just cease to have to deal with them ever again, that would be incredible.
but, i'm happy i'm making some progress.
i still need to get through december/13 & january/14, both of which are shorter months, before i can start making entries in the alter-reality and start refocusing on period 3.
at
23:34
it was actually quite pleasant today when he was at work.
but, as soon as he got home, the smoke started.
i guess i'm not entirely certain that he's actually smoking. i dunno. maybe he's lighting really brutal candles. maybe it has something to do with the heating. maybe he's farting. maybe it's the dog.
but, the smoke, whatever it's source, is clearly correlated with his presence. it's obviously something he's doing. and it's making me cough and wheeze and hack and giving me a sore throat.
i'm updating a few files to finish inri003, and then i'm going to stop to eat and take a shower. the only thing that seems to work to counteract whatever he's doing is to increase the humidity down here.
but, as soon as he got home, the smoke started.
i guess i'm not entirely certain that he's actually smoking. i dunno. maybe he's lighting really brutal candles. maybe it has something to do with the heating. maybe he's farting. maybe it's the dog.
but, the smoke, whatever it's source, is clearly correlated with his presence. it's obviously something he's doing. and it's making me cough and wheeze and hack and giving me a sore throat.
i'm updating a few files to finish inri003, and then i'm going to stop to eat and take a shower. the only thing that seems to work to counteract whatever he's doing is to increase the humidity down here.
at
23:05
first liner note release for inri003
i spent
the summer and fall of 1997 programming drum tracks into an ry30,
notating them into a tablature program and sequencing them using
noteworthy composer. i did not know how i was going to record these
tracks. i think i was expecting to use the computer, but that was
probably naive; instead, i was gifted a 4-track recording machine. i
then spent the next year and a half rearranging and rerecording the
songs i programmed over that period. as these tracks were recorded into
my pc, they are time stamped...so i have a much clearer understanding of
when they were finished.
the jump to incorporating computers into the recording process is something i always wanted to do, it's just that it wasn't really previously feasible. first, there was a learning curve. i was a smart kid, though; the learning curve was just a time concern. the larger problem was simply access to a pc. i did have a pc at my disposal, but it did not have a modem and it was only equipped to run windows 3.1, which basically meant i could run civ 2 and wolfenstein and little else. the windows 95 computer had dial up but it was in a central location for family use.
when we moved across the city, my dad bought a new computer and i happily inherited his old one. this gave me internet access, which allowed me to download some freeware. it also gave me the time i needed to learn how to do certain things.
i'm separating out a handful of my first electronic sound experiments and collecting them together into an ep. what these blasts of noise have in common is that they were constructed on a windows 95 computer out of samples or generated sound and with very primitive software while i was waiting to get some kind of recording equipment. most of it was pasted together meticulously using the windows 95 sound recorder; the rest of it was constructed in cool edit, which i used as a sort of a synthesizer.
for the most part, these weren't really ever meant to be songs. i ended up using them as connectors, introductions, background. "continuity". yet, i find the idea of throwing them together here to be interesting from an autobiographical perspective.
created in mid 1997. sequenced and converted to stereo in november, 2013. released on nov 9, 2013. corrected in september, 2014. finalized on july 5, 2016. first liner note released added on dec 23, 2019. as always, please use headphones.
this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (1997, 2013, 2016). as of dec 23, 2019, the release includes an 8 page booklet in doc, pdf & html, with an html5 audio frontend, that includes journal entries from the remastering process over nov, 2013.
the jump to incorporating computers into the recording process is something i always wanted to do, it's just that it wasn't really previously feasible. first, there was a learning curve. i was a smart kid, though; the learning curve was just a time concern. the larger problem was simply access to a pc. i did have a pc at my disposal, but it did not have a modem and it was only equipped to run windows 3.1, which basically meant i could run civ 2 and wolfenstein and little else. the windows 95 computer had dial up but it was in a central location for family use.
when we moved across the city, my dad bought a new computer and i happily inherited his old one. this gave me internet access, which allowed me to download some freeware. it also gave me the time i needed to learn how to do certain things.
i'm separating out a handful of my first electronic sound experiments and collecting them together into an ep. what these blasts of noise have in common is that they were constructed on a windows 95 computer out of samples or generated sound and with very primitive software while i was waiting to get some kind of recording equipment. most of it was pasted together meticulously using the windows 95 sound recorder; the rest of it was constructed in cool edit, which i used as a sort of a synthesizer.
for the most part, these weren't really ever meant to be songs. i ended up using them as connectors, introductions, background. "continuity". yet, i find the idea of throwing them together here to be interesting from an autobiographical perspective.
created in mid 1997. sequenced and converted to stereo in november, 2013. released on nov 9, 2013. corrected in september, 2014. finalized on july 5, 2016. first liner note released added on dec 23, 2019. as always, please use headphones.
this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (1997, 2013, 2016). as of dec 23, 2019, the release includes an 8 page booklet in doc, pdf & html, with an html5 audio frontend, that includes journal entries from the remastering process over nov, 2013.
credits
released December 1, 1997
j - cool edit (wave synthesis, digital wave editing), windows 95 sound recorder (sampling, digital wave editing), yamaha ry30 drum machine (programming)
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inrisampled
j - cool edit (wave synthesis, digital wave editing), windows 95 sound recorder (sampling, digital wave editing), yamaha ry30 drum machine (programming)
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inrisampled
at
22:43
first liner note release for inri001
my second
demo, recorded over the second half of the tenth grade, is a
considerably more polished recording. by this time, i had learned a lot
about how to record things and had improved my drumming and keyboard
playing. while the vocals remain highly erratic, ranging from
precociously insightful to devastatingly stupid, the music here is
actually not far from a professional recording.
recorded in spring 1997, remastered in fall 2013. finalized on july 3, 2016. first liner note release added on dec 23, 2019. as always, please use headphones.
i consider this an archival release with little direct listening value. i've pointed out repeatedly that i was 16. however, various segments have been isolated and pulled out for a higher listenability value over here:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inricycled-a
this release also includes a printable j-card insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (1997, 2013-2019). as of dec 23, 2019, the release includes a 35 page booklet in doc, pdf & html, with an html5 audio frontend, that includes journal entries from the remastering process over nov, 2013.
recorded in spring 1997, remastered in fall 2013. finalized on july 3, 2016. first liner note release added on dec 23, 2019. as always, please use headphones.
i consider this an archival release with little direct listening value. i've pointed out repeatedly that i was 16. however, various segments have been isolated and pulled out for a higher listenability value over here:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inricycled-a
this release also includes a printable j-card insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (1997, 2013-2019). as of dec 23, 2019, the release includes a 35 page booklet in doc, pdf & html, with an html5 audio frontend, that includes journal entries from the remastering process over nov, 2013.
credits
released June 1, 1997
j - guitars, effects, bass, drums, keyboards, tapes, vocals, found sounds, metronomes, production
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-cassette-demo-2
j - guitars, effects, bass, drums, keyboards, tapes, vocals, found sounds, metronomes, production
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-cassette-demo-2
at
17:37
so, there has been some communication between the oiprd and the court, which is also open tomorrow.
i need to ask the parties for consent to file the addendum to the factum, and i may not get it until after christmas. if they don't give me consent, i'll have to ask the judge to file a motion.
i'll look at this tomorrow or friday.
i need to ask the parties for consent to file the addendum to the factum, and i may not get it until after christmas. if they don't give me consent, i'll have to ask the judge to file a motion.
i'll look at this tomorrow or friday.
at
15:59
inri001 is basically done, but i have to test it first.
no response regarding the court case, yet.
i'm going to call the divisional court next, to see if they're open. if i can, i basically want to just push forward without them.
no response regarding the court case, yet.
i'm going to call the divisional court next, to see if they're open. if i can, i basically want to just push forward without them.
at
15:31
so, i've now updated inri000 to include some posts from nov, 2013.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-cassette-demo-1
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-cassette-demo-1
at
09:45
i'm running into some chronological contradictions.
one of the last things i did before i stopped for legal stuff was add the inri000 liner notes to the october music journal download. i've now added some posts from nov, 2013 to that liner note package, which also has notes from sept, 2013 and will eventually have notes from various periods between 1996-2026. so, what do i do now?
i was initially considering leaving half finished versions strewn across the downloads, but that doesn't make sense and will end up messy - that's a bad idea. the other approach would be to update everything as it comes up, so that this liner note package would appear everywhere it intersects with, but that strikes me as overkill and difficult to maintain.
rather. i think i've demonstrated to myself that these are different ideas. the music journal is just that; the liner notes are a subset of the broader journal, and need to exist in their proper context.
therefore,
1) i am going to remove the inri000 liner notes from the october, 2013 music journal download, and i will not be uploading the liner notes to further journal entries.
2) i will need to update the liner notes for each relevant release at the end of each subsequent month, which could be messy, but is necessary.
so, i'll need to update the language for october first, and then for november, and then reupload the new notes for inri000, before i get to inri001.
one of the last things i did before i stopped for legal stuff was add the inri000 liner notes to the october music journal download. i've now added some posts from nov, 2013 to that liner note package, which also has notes from sept, 2013 and will eventually have notes from various periods between 1996-2026. so, what do i do now?
i was initially considering leaving half finished versions strewn across the downloads, but that doesn't make sense and will end up messy - that's a bad idea. the other approach would be to update everything as it comes up, so that this liner note package would appear everywhere it intersects with, but that strikes me as overkill and difficult to maintain.
rather. i think i've demonstrated to myself that these are different ideas. the music journal is just that; the liner notes are a subset of the broader journal, and need to exist in their proper context.
therefore,
1) i am going to remove the inri000 liner notes from the october, 2013 music journal download, and i will not be uploading the liner notes to further journal entries.
2) i will need to update the liner notes for each relevant release at the end of each subsequent month, which could be messy, but is necessary.
so, i'll need to update the language for october first, and then for november, and then reupload the new notes for inri000, before i get to inri001.
at
08:49
listen.
i'm an introvert, and an atheist. i never had time for christmas; i always thought it was kind of stupid. even when i lived with family, it would generally be difficult to try to convince me to come out and sit with people - i genuinely disliked the premise.
and, while it is true that, on some years, i may prefer to spend the solstice slowly eating into a quarter, i am actually eager for sobriety, right now. i don't really believe in resolutions. but, i've been pointing out for a while that i'm getting older and starting to feel it. i can't promise you that i'll spend future solstices sober, but i think i'm leaning more in that direction. we'll see how i feel.
what i'm getting at is that i'm actually enthusiastic about spending my time this week typing in a basement by myself. this is where i'm in my element, it's where i'm happiest.
i'm just hoping the guy upstairs takes off somewhere so i don't have to deal with him smoking.
speaking of which, i'm still not really at full strength, although i'm fairly close.
now that i have the template finished, i'm hoping to publish several liner notes today. i will need to stop briefly mid-afternoon to give the divisional court a call, but i don't expect them to actually be open.
i'm an introvert, and an atheist. i never had time for christmas; i always thought it was kind of stupid. even when i lived with family, it would generally be difficult to try to convince me to come out and sit with people - i genuinely disliked the premise.
and, while it is true that, on some years, i may prefer to spend the solstice slowly eating into a quarter, i am actually eager for sobriety, right now. i don't really believe in resolutions. but, i've been pointing out for a while that i'm getting older and starting to feel it. i can't promise you that i'll spend future solstices sober, but i think i'm leaning more in that direction. we'll see how i feel.
what i'm getting at is that i'm actually enthusiastic about spending my time this week typing in a basement by myself. this is where i'm in my element, it's where i'm happiest.
i'm just hoping the guy upstairs takes off somewhere so i don't have to deal with him smoking.
speaking of which, i'm still not really at full strength, although i'm fairly close.
now that i have the template finished, i'm hoping to publish several liner notes today. i will need to stop briefly mid-afternoon to give the divisional court a call, but i don't expect them to actually be open.
at
06:18
Sunday, December 22, 2019
i finally have the template for the html5 frontend done, and have
uploaded it to the bandcamp site. this is not a formal rerelease, but an
addition to the previous rerelease. the formal rereleases moving
forward will include the html5 frontends by default.
there is an instructions file, but you basically just unzip and load the index into your browser.
this is overdue, but there should be some more releases up over the next few days.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-cassette-demo-1
there is an instructions file, but you basically just unzip and load the index into your browser.
this is overdue, but there should be some more releases up over the next few days.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-cassette-demo-1
at
22:34
yeah. i'm done testing.
i made a minor update to the autoplay to reset when it's done:
Player.onended = function(){
if(++elm < nextsrc.length){
Player.src = nextsrc[elm]; Player.play();
txtOutput.value = titles[elm];
}
else if(elm == nextsrc.length){
Player.src=nextsrc[0];
txtOutput.value=titles[0];
elm=0;
}
}
and, that's that.
you may use my html5 player freely, as much as you'd like. just mention my bandcamp page somewhere (jasonparent.bandcamp.com), if you feel like it.
the player is of course intended for use with bandcamp downloads, so the next post will be....it won't be a final update for inri000, but it will be the last one for quite a while.
i made a minor update to the autoplay to reset when it's done:
Player.onended = function(){
if(++elm < nextsrc.length){
Player.src = nextsrc[elm]; Player.play();
txtOutput.value = titles[elm];
}
else if(elm == nextsrc.length){
Player.src=nextsrc[0];
txtOutput.value=titles[0];
elm=0;
}
}
and, that's that.
you may use my html5 player freely, as much as you'd like. just mention my bandcamp page somewhere (jasonparent.bandcamp.com), if you feel like it.
the player is of course intended for use with bandcamp downloads, so the next post will be....it won't be a final update for inri000, but it will be the last one for quite a while.
at
21:23
you have to test things. programming is empirical.
there is one scenario where this breaks, and it's because i just let the user push the counter in any direction they want, for as long as they want. it really didn't matter, before, it was just a counter going up and down. but, now i have a listener on the play error, so pushing the counter out of bounds breaks the player.
specifically, if i let the player push forward or backward past the bounds of the playlist, it generates the same error that i'd get if i didn't have the right array. this was creating a lot of confusion.
so, now the button doesn't work when you get past the bounds, it just stops, leaving the error for the situation where i don't have the right array.
clearly, this would suggest that any other situation that generates a play error is going to wreak similar havoc. the thing is that i can't think of any other situation that would do that. the assumption is that the html file is in the same directory as the mp3 files; if they aren't there, you'd get an error, but you're not getting very far without them, anyways. i'm not done testing yet, let's see if i can find something else.
i also dropped the boolean around the script as a troubleshooting step and didn't put it back. it can just pause on massive error. you'll have to refresh to restore functionality, but that should only happen when the files aren't there, anyways.
for now, here's the new and hopefully final script:
<p align="center">
//the display box
<input disabled type = "text" style="width:300px;background-color:#000000;border-width:0px;" id = "txtOutput"/>
<br>
//the onclick now calls a function. i need a conditional. it was getting messy.
<button type="button" style="font-size:50px;" onclick="backClick()"><</button>
//the html5 audio control is the same/
<audio autoplay controls style="width:500px;height:50px" id="Player">
<source id=flac src="path to first flac file" type='audio/flac; codecs="flac"'>
<source id=mp3 src="path to first mp3 file" type='audio/mpeg; codecs="mp3"'>
<source id=aac src="path to first m4a file" type='audio/mp4'>
<source id=wav src="path to first wav file" type='audio/wav'>
<source id=ogg src="path to first ogg file" type='audio/ogg; codecs="vorbis"'>
</audio>
//there's now a function here, too
<button type="button" style="font-size:50px;" onclick="forwardClick()">></button>
//this is the two row table
<table>
<tr><td width=200 onclick="Player.src = nextsrc[0]; Player.play(); elm=0; txtOutput.value = this.innerHTML">track 1 </td><td onclick="Player.src = nextsrc[8]; Player.play(); elm=8; txtOutput.value = this.innerHTML">track 9</td></tr>
.
.
.
</table>
<script>
var elm = 0; //counter
var Player = document.getElementById('Player'); //player
var titles =[array of song titles];
txtOutput.value = titles[0]; //autoload track 1
var nextsrc = ["array of paths to mp3 files"]; //default
Player.onerror=function(){ //if the file can't play
nextsrc = ["array of paths to flac files"]; //try flac
Player.src=nextsrc[elm]; //set current path
Player.play(); /play
Player.onerror=function(){ //if the player throws another error
nextsrc = ["array of paths to ogg files"]; /try oggs
Player.src=nextsrc[elm];
Player.play();
Player.onerror=function(){
nextsrc = ["array of paths to m4a files"]; //try mp4
Player.src=nextsrc[elm];
Player.play();
Player.onerror=function(){
nextsrc = ["array of paths to wav files"]; //try wav
Player.src=nextsrc[elm];
Player.play();
Player.onerror=function(){Player.pause();} //give up
}
}
}
}
function backClick(){ //here's the onclick script moved to a function
if(elm>=1){ //the index has to be in bounds.
Player.src = nextsrc[--elm];
Player.play();
txtOutput.value = titles[elm];
}
else{
elm=0; //or set it to 0
}
}
function forwardClick(){ //here's the other button script
if(elm<=(nextsrc.length-2)){ //the index must be in bounds
Player.src = nextsrc[++elm];
Player.play();
txtOutput.value = titles[elm];
}
else{
elm=nextsrc.length-1; //or set to the end
}}
Player.onended = function(){ //autoplay
if(++elm < nextsrc.length){
Player.src = nextsrc[elm]; Player.play();
txtOutput.value = titles[elm];
}
}
</script>
</p>
there is one scenario where this breaks, and it's because i just let the user push the counter in any direction they want, for as long as they want. it really didn't matter, before, it was just a counter going up and down. but, now i have a listener on the play error, so pushing the counter out of bounds breaks the player.
specifically, if i let the player push forward or backward past the bounds of the playlist, it generates the same error that i'd get if i didn't have the right array. this was creating a lot of confusion.
so, now the button doesn't work when you get past the bounds, it just stops, leaving the error for the situation where i don't have the right array.
clearly, this would suggest that any other situation that generates a play error is going to wreak similar havoc. the thing is that i can't think of any other situation that would do that. the assumption is that the html file is in the same directory as the mp3 files; if they aren't there, you'd get an error, but you're not getting very far without them, anyways. i'm not done testing yet, let's see if i can find something else.
i also dropped the boolean around the script as a troubleshooting step and didn't put it back. it can just pause on massive error. you'll have to refresh to restore functionality, but that should only happen when the files aren't there, anyways.
for now, here's the new and hopefully final script:
<p align="center">
//the display box
<input disabled type = "text" style="width:300px;background-color:#000000;border-width:0px;" id = "txtOutput"/>
<br>
//the onclick now calls a function. i need a conditional. it was getting messy.
<button type="button" style="font-size:50px;" onclick="backClick()"><</button>
//the html5 audio control is the same/
<audio autoplay controls style="width:500px;height:50px" id="Player">
<source id=flac src="path to first flac file" type='audio/flac; codecs="flac"'>
<source id=mp3 src="path to first mp3 file" type='audio/mpeg; codecs="mp3"'>
<source id=aac src="path to first m4a file" type='audio/mp4'>
<source id=wav src="path to first wav file" type='audio/wav'>
<source id=ogg src="path to first ogg file" type='audio/ogg; codecs="vorbis"'>
</audio>
//there's now a function here, too
<button type="button" style="font-size:50px;" onclick="forwardClick()">></button>
//this is the two row table
<table>
<tr><td width=200 onclick="Player.src = nextsrc[0]; Player.play(); elm=0; txtOutput.value = this.innerHTML">track 1 </td><td onclick="Player.src = nextsrc[8]; Player.play(); elm=8; txtOutput.value = this.innerHTML">track 9</td></tr>
.
.
.
</table>
<script>
var elm = 0; //counter
var Player = document.getElementById('Player'); //player
var titles =[array of song titles];
txtOutput.value = titles[0]; //autoload track 1
var nextsrc = ["array of paths to mp3 files"]; //default
Player.onerror=function(){ //if the file can't play
nextsrc = ["array of paths to flac files"]; //try flac
Player.src=nextsrc[elm]; //set current path
Player.play(); /play
Player.onerror=function(){ //if the player throws another error
nextsrc = ["array of paths to ogg files"]; /try oggs
Player.src=nextsrc[elm];
Player.play();
Player.onerror=function(){
nextsrc = ["array of paths to m4a files"]; //try mp4
Player.src=nextsrc[elm];
Player.play();
Player.onerror=function(){
nextsrc = ["array of paths to wav files"]; //try wav
Player.src=nextsrc[elm];
Player.play();
Player.onerror=function(){Player.pause();} //give up
}
}
}
}
function backClick(){ //here's the onclick script moved to a function
if(elm>=1){ //the index has to be in bounds.
Player.src = nextsrc[--elm];
Player.play();
txtOutput.value = titles[elm];
}
else{
elm=0; //or set it to 0
}
}
function forwardClick(){ //here's the other button script
if(elm<=(nextsrc.length-2)){ //the index must be in bounds
Player.src = nextsrc[++elm];
Player.play();
txtOutput.value = titles[elm];
}
else{
elm=nextsrc.length-1; //or set to the end
}}
Player.onended = function(){ //autoplay
if(++elm < nextsrc.length){
Player.src = nextsrc[elm]; Player.play();
txtOutput.value = titles[elm];
}
}
</script>
</p>
at
20:56
are there problems with that code?
well, i shut off the loop. that's the biggest thing i could see going wrong.
as mentioned, i'd have much rather tried to figure out what the file type is first, but the api doesn't want you to do that - it forces you to do shit like this. it's cringey, in a sense, yes - you don't want to be pushing errors like this too much, as it opens up security issues. i wouldn't be surprised if i essentially just emulated a hacker routine. but, these files are local, and at least one of the arrays should work, or why are you doing this? as was the case with the buttons, the error handling is not good, but who cares, functionally? it works, and it will work so long as you don't get stupid about it.
i'm not sure i'd recommend this for any kind of internet application, though.
well, i shut off the loop. that's the biggest thing i could see going wrong.
as mentioned, i'd have much rather tried to figure out what the file type is first, but the api doesn't want you to do that - it forces you to do shit like this. it's cringey, in a sense, yes - you don't want to be pushing errors like this too much, as it opens up security issues. i wouldn't be surprised if i essentially just emulated a hacker routine. but, these files are local, and at least one of the arrays should work, or why are you doing this? as was the case with the buttons, the error handling is not good, but who cares, functionally? it works, and it will work so long as you don't get stupid about it.
i'm not sure i'd recommend this for any kind of internet application, though.
at
17:27
so, i was completely right about approaching the javascript frontend like it's a...script...rather than trying to fuck around with objects. and, the right error listener was the onerror, too.
let's do this one more time.
so, i posted the thing here, initially:
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2019/11/im-going-to-post-last-update-to-this.html
the changes are as follows.
//this is the html5 control. it now checks for each of the filetypes, and either plays the file or throws an error.
<audio autoplay controls style="width:500px;height:50px" id="Player">
<source id=flac src="path to first flac file" type="audio/flac">
<source id=mp3 src="path to first mp3 file" type="audio/mp3">
<source id=aac src="path to first m4a file" type="audio/mp4">
<source id=wav src="path to first wav file" type="audio/wav">
<source id=ogg src="path to first ogg file" type="audio/ogg">
</audio>
//here is the script.
<script>
var elm = 0; //this is the counter. the snippet used elm. i don't really know why. you can change it to c...
var t=0; //this is a boolean to prevent infinite looping through the error handling
var Player = document.getElementById('Player'); //this gets the player from the html doc
//so, let's try to set the file paths to mp3 files
var nextsrc = [array of mp3 file paths];
//if they aren't accessible, the player will throw an error
Player.onerror=function(){
if (t=0){
nextsrc = [array of flac file paths]; //well, let's try flac, then.
Player.src=nextsrc[elm]; //then, let's set the path
Player.play(); //try to play. if it works, great. if not, it errors:.
Player.onerror=function(){
nextsrc = [array of ogg file paths]; //well, if it's not mp3 & not flac, maybe it's ogg...
Player.src=nextsrc[elm]; //so, set the path
Player.play(); /try to play. if it doesn't work, it errors:
Player.onerror=function(){
nextsrc = [array of m4a file paths]; //next, try the m4as
Player.src=nextsrc[elm]; //set the path again
Player.play(); //try to play. if it doesn't work, it'll error one more time...
Player.onerror=function(){
nextsrc = [array of wav file paths]; //last try.
Player.src=nextsrc[elm]; //set the path
Player.play(); //play
Player.onerror=function(){t=1;} //if it's still erroring, give up
}
}
}
}
}
</script>
=============
the rest is the same.
i think that's done, now, so i should get that uploaded soon and should be able to move forward pretty quickly. just some more testing, still...
let's do this one more time.
so, i posted the thing here, initially:
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2019/11/im-going-to-post-last-update-to-this.html
the changes are as follows.
//this is the html5 control. it now checks for each of the filetypes, and either plays the file or throws an error.
<audio autoplay controls style="width:500px;height:50px" id="Player">
<source id=flac src="path to first flac file" type="audio/flac">
<source id=mp3 src="path to first mp3 file" type="audio/mp3">
<source id=aac src="path to first m4a file" type="audio/mp4">
<source id=wav src="path to first wav file" type="audio/wav">
<source id=ogg src="path to first ogg file" type="audio/ogg">
</audio>
//here is the script.
<script>
var elm = 0; //this is the counter. the snippet used elm. i don't really know why. you can change it to c...
var t=0; //this is a boolean to prevent infinite looping through the error handling
var Player = document.getElementById('Player'); //this gets the player from the html doc
//so, let's try to set the file paths to mp3 files
var nextsrc = [array of mp3 file paths];
//if they aren't accessible, the player will throw an error
Player.onerror=function(){
if (t=0){
nextsrc = [array of flac file paths]; //well, let's try flac, then.
Player.src=nextsrc[elm]; //then, let's set the path
Player.play(); //try to play. if it works, great. if not, it errors:.
Player.onerror=function(){
nextsrc = [array of ogg file paths]; //well, if it's not mp3 & not flac, maybe it's ogg...
Player.src=nextsrc[elm]; //so, set the path
Player.play(); /try to play. if it doesn't work, it errors:
Player.onerror=function(){
nextsrc = [array of m4a file paths]; //next, try the m4as
Player.src=nextsrc[elm]; //set the path again
Player.play(); //try to play. if it doesn't work, it'll error one more time...
Player.onerror=function(){
nextsrc = [array of wav file paths]; //last try.
Player.src=nextsrc[elm]; //set the path
Player.play(); //play
Player.onerror=function(){t=1;} //if it's still erroring, give up
}
}
}
}
}
</script>
=============
the rest is the same.
i think that's done, now, so i should get that uploaded soon and should be able to move forward pretty quickly. just some more testing, still...
at
17:02
this article repeats the fallacy that nuclear is carbon-neutral, which is the actual crux of the debate, and something i've already thoroughly debunked.
we can have a debate on the broader merits of including nuclear in the grid. but, if your candidate is telling you that nuclear is carbon neutral, you should investigate who their donors are - because that is wrong.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/9/6/20852313/december-democratic-debate-nuclear-power-energy
we can have a debate on the broader merits of including nuclear in the grid. but, if your candidate is telling you that nuclear is carbon neutral, you should investigate who their donors are - because that is wrong.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/9/6/20852313/december-democratic-debate-nuclear-power-energy
at
11:49
yeah.
this is out of nowhere. but i'll take it.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/12/19/21029902/open-access-trump
this is out of nowhere. but i'll take it.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/12/19/21029902/open-access-trump
at
11:35
no. breaking the law and going to prison doesn't cost anybody anything at all, except the person getting arrested, who now has legal costs.
do you know what the balance of probabilities is? it's that roger hallam is actually a police officer, an agent provocateur, which is a tactic that was invented by bismarck to trick the communists of the time into getting arrested. once they arrest you, you'll be under surveillance for the rest of your life.
there is a core of truth in what he's saying - the reason that the sit down strikes were effective was that it crippled production, forcing management to negotiate. i haven't read this research directly, but i've made these arguments independently. writing letters and marching peacefully doesn't work, but getting arrested doesn't either, or at least it doesn't without something worthwhile attached to it.
one thing that's been effective in canada, and to a lesser extent in the united states, is launching litigation against the oil companies. that is something that really hits them at the bottom line. if you make the cost of business so high that there's no longer any profit, they will withdraw voluntarily. we've had a lot of serious victories in canada by pushing litigation as a political tactic.
but, if you want to go out of your way to get arrested on the basis that you're trying to disrupt the system, make sure that you're actually disrupting the system! blockade a refinery. sabotage a train (and tell them before they use it). reverse the flow of a pipeline.
you need to think bigger than sitting in the streets and smoking drugs and getting arrested for the sake of it. that's just walking into a trap.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/12/20/21028407/extinction-rebellion-climate-change-nonviolent-civil-disobedience
do you know what the balance of probabilities is? it's that roger hallam is actually a police officer, an agent provocateur, which is a tactic that was invented by bismarck to trick the communists of the time into getting arrested. once they arrest you, you'll be under surveillance for the rest of your life.
there is a core of truth in what he's saying - the reason that the sit down strikes were effective was that it crippled production, forcing management to negotiate. i haven't read this research directly, but i've made these arguments independently. writing letters and marching peacefully doesn't work, but getting arrested doesn't either, or at least it doesn't without something worthwhile attached to it.
one thing that's been effective in canada, and to a lesser extent in the united states, is launching litigation against the oil companies. that is something that really hits them at the bottom line. if you make the cost of business so high that there's no longer any profit, they will withdraw voluntarily. we've had a lot of serious victories in canada by pushing litigation as a political tactic.
but, if you want to go out of your way to get arrested on the basis that you're trying to disrupt the system, make sure that you're actually disrupting the system! blockade a refinery. sabotage a train (and tell them before they use it). reverse the flow of a pipeline.
you need to think bigger than sitting in the streets and smoking drugs and getting arrested for the sake of it. that's just walking into a trap.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/12/20/21028407/extinction-rebellion-climate-change-nonviolent-civil-disobedience
at
11:20
and, to be clear.
liberals aren't supposed to uphold the value of the state, they're supposed to argue for self-sufficiency without it. socialism is about setting up an algorithm where the state eventually withers away, and anarchism is just socialism in a hurry.
so, who argues for the value and role of government in society?
conservatives.
liberals aren't supposed to uphold the value of the state, they're supposed to argue for self-sufficiency without it. socialism is about setting up an algorithm where the state eventually withers away, and anarchism is just socialism in a hurry.
so, who argues for the value and role of government in society?
conservatives.
at
10:09
i'd be happy to do my part if the system was equitable and free.
but, i'm not buying into the slave-master propaganda that tells me i'm a piece of shit for refusing to participate in capitalism, and fuck you for suggesting i should.
but, i'm not buying into the slave-master propaganda that tells me i'm a piece of shit for refusing to participate in capitalism, and fuck you for suggesting i should.
at
09:55
ok.
so, i didn't get anything done today.
and now i'm very sleepy...
let's hope i can get by with a nap and get up early.
so, i didn't get anything done today.
and now i'm very sleepy...
let's hope i can get by with a nap and get up early.
at
03:13
regarding the issue of arrest, this case would appear to also supersede Storrey, but i can't bring in new evidence...
....i'd have to just bring it to the court's attention.
https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/17947/index.do
....i'd have to just bring it to the court's attention.
https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/17947/index.do
at
01:35
i understand that there are some groups of people that may feel as though the court may discriminate against them, and may want a way out. whatever.
but, i should not be forced to suffer as a result of their claims of discrimination.
the law should be changed to allow for an option. if some people feel that they'll get a more fair trial through an extrajudicial process, good for them; if some people want the issue dealt with in a court instead of via a tribunal, they should have that option, too.
but, i should not be forced to suffer as a result of their claims of discrimination.
the law should be changed to allow for an option. if some people feel that they'll get a more fair trial through an extrajudicial process, good for them; if some people want the issue dealt with in a court instead of via a tribunal, they should have that option, too.
at
01:10
i have confidence that the court will instantly realize the absurdity i've been put through, once it sees the case.
but, i shouldn't have had to go through this process to get the case into the court in the first place.
i should have had the option to file in court, immediately.
but, i shouldn't have had to go through this process to get the case into the court in the first place.
i should have had the option to file in court, immediately.
at
01:08
i was arrested on an unarrestable offence without a warrant and held without cause more than a year ago, and the statutes in this country have forced me to:
1) defer the issue to the police force that arrested me (which is absurd)
2) ask a civilian body (that is explicitly not trained to deal with this) to review the decision of the police force (which is equally absurd)
3) only allow for a request for judicial review after receiving the report from the civilian body.
i have experienced months worth of delays, in the process.
an illegal arrest is a breakdown in the rule of law, by definition.
as such, i have not been able to get anybody with any kind of substantive legal training to look at what is clearly a collapse in the rule of law, allowing the police to break the law with impunity.
and, if this continues, it is going to be a constitutional right challenge, because i need to be able to get this in front of a judge, in the end. this cannot be left up to an unelected body with no training. that would be despotic - it would be like living in iran.
1) defer the issue to the police force that arrested me (which is absurd)
2) ask a civilian body (that is explicitly not trained to deal with this) to review the decision of the police force (which is equally absurd)
3) only allow for a request for judicial review after receiving the report from the civilian body.
i have experienced months worth of delays, in the process.
an illegal arrest is a breakdown in the rule of law, by definition.
as such, i have not been able to get anybody with any kind of substantive legal training to look at what is clearly a collapse in the rule of law, allowing the police to break the law with impunity.
and, if this continues, it is going to be a constitutional right challenge, because i need to be able to get this in front of a judge, in the end. this cannot be left up to an unelected body with no training. that would be despotic - it would be like living in iran.
at
01:05
even up until recently, there were ways out.
in the 40s, you had the kibbutz, if you were jewish. in the 60s and 70s and most of the 80s, you had hippie and punk communities out there where life on the margins of capitalism was possible, even if life outside of it wasn't.
but, everything got bought up in the 90s.
and, there really is nothing left - no way out.
well, unless you want to join a cult, i guess.
but, the basic question - why do so many poor people hate the government when they're so reliant on it? - is not so hard to understand. they know that the reason they're reliant on the government is that the government has passed policies that make them reliant on it, and then enforced those policies with extreme violence. you can't make that go away with bread and circuses. you can't force them to love their masters, or push the stockholm syndrome down with conditioning. the resentment is entirely rational.
in the 40s, you had the kibbutz, if you were jewish. in the 60s and 70s and most of the 80s, you had hippie and punk communities out there where life on the margins of capitalism was possible, even if life outside of it wasn't.
but, everything got bought up in the 90s.
and, there really is nothing left - no way out.
well, unless you want to join a cult, i guess.
but, the basic question - why do so many poor people hate the government when they're so reliant on it? - is not so hard to understand. they know that the reason they're reliant on the government is that the government has passed policies that make them reliant on it, and then enforced those policies with extreme violence. you can't make that go away with bread and circuses. you can't force them to love their masters, or push the stockholm syndrome down with conditioning. the resentment is entirely rational.
at
00:34
i don't want into the system.
i don't want a chance to succeed, to do well - a fair playing field.
i want out of the society...
but, it's ubiquitous. the only way out is to take the check.
i don't want a chance to succeed, to do well - a fair playing field.
i want out of the society...
but, it's ubiquitous. the only way out is to take the check.
at
00:11
essentially, it seems like the author of that book is expecting people to demonstrate a level of stockholm syndrome in regards to people's attitudes towards the government, which both enslaves it and feeds it, and is confused as to why people aren't overlooking the slavery in response to the food.
but, she's missing the basic point - that we wouldn't need to rely on the state if it wouldn't force us to, by upholding these systems of market economics that force you to work or die trying.
if there was somewhere where people could go to escape the coercion of state-controlled capitalism, a large percentage of the people that currently rely on the state to exist would jump at the chance, and no doubt live quite happily without it.
i know i would, that's for sure.
but, so long as the government puts all of these rules in place forcing me to waste all of my time generating surplus value for somebody else, and offers me this pittance as the only way to avoid the slavery, then i'm going to end up reliant on it.
but, i'm not going to be happy about it, though.
i'm not going to love my oppressor.
but, she's missing the basic point - that we wouldn't need to rely on the state if it wouldn't force us to, by upholding these systems of market economics that force you to work or die trying.
if there was somewhere where people could go to escape the coercion of state-controlled capitalism, a large percentage of the people that currently rely on the state to exist would jump at the chance, and no doubt live quite happily without it.
i know i would, that's for sure.
but, so long as the government puts all of these rules in place forcing me to waste all of my time generating surplus value for somebody else, and offers me this pittance as the only way to avoid the slavery, then i'm going to end up reliant on it.
but, i'm not going to be happy about it, though.
i'm not going to love my oppressor.
at
00:03
Saturday, December 21, 2019
the reason i support a gai is not because i think it's ideal. ideally, you tear down the wage system altogether. ideally, you abolish currency.
the reason i support a gai is because it's the fastest way to approximate what life would be like in a post-market society, with the full understanding that i'll never experience that, in my lifetime.
i'm never going to experience communism in my lifetime. but, i might get to a gai, if the situation aligns. so, pragmatically, it makes sense for me to support it, out of self-interest.
but, i'd rather that we didn't have money at all than that they send me a little every month, absolutely.
the reason i support a gai is because it's the fastest way to approximate what life would be like in a post-market society, with the full understanding that i'll never experience that, in my lifetime.
i'm never going to experience communism in my lifetime. but, i might get to a gai, if the situation aligns. so, pragmatically, it makes sense for me to support it, out of self-interest.
but, i'd rather that we didn't have money at all than that they send me a little every month, absolutely.
at
23:53
it may be the only thing reagan ever said that was actually true, but for all the wrong reasons.
i live on disability; i "need the government", and i know it. but, the reason i need the government is because it's passed all of these laws regarding property rights. reagan was, of course, an advocate of property rights; anarchists consider property to be an impossible abstraction within the confines of an actually free society.
so, i need the government, but i only need the government because the government forces me to need the government, because i don't want to get a pointless job. so long as the government continues to exist and force free-market capitalism on everybody at the end of a gun, i will remain absolutely dependent on it, by design; if it were to cease to exist, i wouldn't need it at all.
what i would need is the support of a free commune that prioritizes the kind of freedom that i value, and allows me to live the kind of lifestyle that i want. and, i'd be happy to help grow some food and clean the toilets, despite refusing to be a wage slave.
anarchism is hard for capitalists to understand, because it really does pull the rug out in just about every way imaginable. but, the basic problem - and it's what anarchists have been saying for centuries - is rooted in the government's enforcement of property with the use of force. if they'd stop policing property, we could live freely without them; so long as they uphold their system of violence with force, we're all enslaved, one way or another.
https://www.vox.com/2018/8/17/17675100/suzanne-mettler-government-citizen-disconnect-welfare
i live on disability; i "need the government", and i know it. but, the reason i need the government is because it's passed all of these laws regarding property rights. reagan was, of course, an advocate of property rights; anarchists consider property to be an impossible abstraction within the confines of an actually free society.
so, i need the government, but i only need the government because the government forces me to need the government, because i don't want to get a pointless job. so long as the government continues to exist and force free-market capitalism on everybody at the end of a gun, i will remain absolutely dependent on it, by design; if it were to cease to exist, i wouldn't need it at all.
what i would need is the support of a free commune that prioritizes the kind of freedom that i value, and allows me to live the kind of lifestyle that i want. and, i'd be happy to help grow some food and clean the toilets, despite refusing to be a wage slave.
anarchism is hard for capitalists to understand, because it really does pull the rug out in just about every way imaginable. but, the basic problem - and it's what anarchists have been saying for centuries - is rooted in the government's enforcement of property with the use of force. if they'd stop policing property, we could live freely without them; so long as they uphold their system of violence with force, we're all enslaved, one way or another.
https://www.vox.com/2018/8/17/17675100/suzanne-mettler-government-citizen-disconnect-welfare
at
23:45
do i really think the cops are trying to break my computer and keep me off the internet?
maybe it's more likely that they're trying to install some kind of logging software, and keep breaking it by accident, because my image is so broken, already.
i'm speculating. you'd have to ask them. all i know is that my computer is frequently working when i leave and frequently broken when i get home....
maybe it's more likely that they're trying to install some kind of logging software, and keep breaking it by accident, because my image is so broken, already.
i'm speculating. you'd have to ask them. all i know is that my computer is frequently working when i leave and frequently broken when i get home....
at
22:44
so, where am i? what happened?
as noted, i went grocery shopping yesterday afternoon. i left a little before 12:00 and was back around 21:00. so, my computer was off around 10:00. i did a lot of walking yesterday on an empty stomach (i hadn't eaten since tuesday night) and it took a toll on my legs. so, i got something to eat, took a shower and sat down to type, hoping to implement some of the ideas i had thought through regarding the html frontend for the liner notes.
i stated previously that i haven't done any scripting, but that wasn't entirely true; i have taken courses in functional programming, and i was actually unusually good at it. i actually found functional programming to be conceptually easier to understand and work with than object-oriented programming, which is unusual and says something about how i think, in comparison to how others think. it's a sort of a proof that i really am an anarchist to my core being, rather than it being a decision i made as something to identify with, as an adult. i'm more of a concrete thinker and less of an abstract one; i think in terms of very specific and precise details and dwell on those precise details, rather than in terms of lofty principles or generalized concepts, which, in most contexts, i would broadly reject as non-existent. in almost every application and context in reality, generalized concepts and lofty principles have no empirical basis but rather only exist in our minds, and can consequently only lead to confusion and poor outcomes when applied usefully in any conceivable way at all. there is no forest, there are only trees. for that reason, i will almost always reject the application of any sort of generalized knowledge, and will instead look at each situation entirely uniquely, in order to understand the situation as a unique situation, isolated from the situations around it. when i was in school, this tendency would frequently upset my math professors, as i used to prove everything from first principles rather than apply the theorems because i found it easier to work through the specific logic on a case-by-case basis in each precise scenario than apply broad ideas abstractly, which led them to question if i even understood what they were doing, even as i was clearly demonstrating that i did. they were frequently confused as to how a student could make it as clear that they understood the material as i routinely did, yet make it equally clear that they didn't understand how to apply the results of it, which i also did. was i not able to generalize? i ultimately didn't trust the theorems - i felt the need to show everything on a case-by-case basis, instead, to be sure it was actually true. merely citing a theorem struck me as an insufficient way to demonstrate a claim, and i think that is a broader truth to hold to that is more useful in every day life. was it that i couldn't generalize, or was it that i realized that, in truth, generalization is an intellectually invalid process, contrary to the general opinion of historical scholarship? citing theorems is in truth not a good epistemology; your theorem is almost certainly wrong, and attempting to apply it to reality will almost certainly lead to poor outcomes. i did not initially realize any of this, but, at the end of my time studying math, i became cognizant of my identification with a school of mathematics called constructivism, which is an obscure view that rejects much of the platonism underlying the field of mathematics in favour of the requirement of explicit demonstration, every time. i actually prefer the linearity of functional programming and find it easier to follow than the often opaque abstraction of oop, which i'm less adept at understanding. it's just how my brain is wired, but our brains are plastic, and it's consequently a result of experience, and not genes. i've trained myself to think like this. most people would find it difficult to follow the complexity of functional programming and instead prefer the relative simplicity of oop because they've trained themselves (or been trained by the school system) to think in simplified generalizations. we used scheme instead of lisp, but scheme is very similar to lisp and most people would take lisp as their reference point rather than scheme.
as noted, i went grocery shopping yesterday afternoon. i left a little before 12:00 and was back around 21:00. so, my computer was off around 10:00. i did a lot of walking yesterday on an empty stomach (i hadn't eaten since tuesday night) and it took a toll on my legs. so, i got something to eat, took a shower and sat down to type, hoping to implement some of the ideas i had thought through regarding the html frontend for the liner notes.
i stated previously that i haven't done any scripting, but that wasn't entirely true; i have taken courses in functional programming, and i was actually unusually good at it. i actually found functional programming to be conceptually easier to understand and work with than object-oriented programming, which is unusual and says something about how i think, in comparison to how others think. it's a sort of a proof that i really am an anarchist to my core being, rather than it being a decision i made as something to identify with, as an adult. i'm more of a concrete thinker and less of an abstract one; i think in terms of very specific and precise details and dwell on those precise details, rather than in terms of lofty principles or generalized concepts, which, in most contexts, i would broadly reject as non-existent. in almost every application and context in reality, generalized concepts and lofty principles have no empirical basis but rather only exist in our minds, and can consequently only lead to confusion and poor outcomes when applied usefully in any conceivable way at all. there is no forest, there are only trees. for that reason, i will almost always reject the application of any sort of generalized knowledge, and will instead look at each situation entirely uniquely, in order to understand the situation as a unique situation, isolated from the situations around it. when i was in school, this tendency would frequently upset my math professors, as i used to prove everything from first principles rather than apply the theorems because i found it easier to work through the specific logic on a case-by-case basis in each precise scenario than apply broad ideas abstractly, which led them to question if i even understood what they were doing, even as i was clearly demonstrating that i did. they were frequently confused as to how a student could make it as clear that they understood the material as i routinely did, yet make it equally clear that they didn't understand how to apply the results of it, which i also did. was i not able to generalize? i ultimately didn't trust the theorems - i felt the need to show everything on a case-by-case basis, instead, to be sure it was actually true. merely citing a theorem struck me as an insufficient way to demonstrate a claim, and i think that is a broader truth to hold to that is more useful in every day life. was it that i couldn't generalize, or was it that i realized that, in truth, generalization is an intellectually invalid process, contrary to the general opinion of historical scholarship? citing theorems is in truth not a good epistemology; your theorem is almost certainly wrong, and attempting to apply it to reality will almost certainly lead to poor outcomes. i did not initially realize any of this, but, at the end of my time studying math, i became cognizant of my identification with a school of mathematics called constructivism, which is an obscure view that rejects much of the platonism underlying the field of mathematics in favour of the requirement of explicit demonstration, every time. i actually prefer the linearity of functional programming and find it easier to follow than the often opaque abstraction of oop, which i'm less adept at understanding. it's just how my brain is wired, but our brains are plastic, and it's consequently a result of experience, and not genes. i've trained myself to think like this. most people would find it difficult to follow the complexity of functional programming and instead prefer the relative simplicity of oop because they've trained themselves (or been trained by the school system) to think in simplified generalizations. we used scheme instead of lisp, but scheme is very similar to lisp and most people would take lisp as their reference point rather than scheme.
i had an epiphany walking out to get some salami today when i realized i should be approaching this problem less like it's oop and more like it's functional programming, as i worked the logic through during the walk. java is inherently oop, so you wouldn't think to do functional java programming, but the solution became apparent immediately once i did make that shift in mindset.
as mentioned, this is a tricky issue. i'm fighting against the api; i'm asking it to do something it was designed to prevent. in a sense, i'm breaking it. it looks like an easy task, and it would be in any other context, but javascript isn't supposed to be aware of what's happening locally, and it isn't supposed to run without user input. it's supposed to compile remotely. but, as stated, i don't want any of that.
and, no, i don't want to tell people to install some other language, like python. everybody has java; it's baked into the browser. i might have some fun with a lisp-centric browser, though. there was a time when lisp was all over the internet.
if i approach this from a functional programming perspective instead, i should be able to get the right listener to launch on a play error. i was trying to get it to react to the canplay(), which is a haphazard error testing, but it just wouldn't load. i was emulating what the standard pushed down; if you look at the source code in the html5 repository, it must essentially be running a try...catch block in just throwing out the different file types. however, i can't even get it to do that without prompting for a click. it's just the api. it needs some kind of user input.
if i can set the variable to the mp3 array by default and then listen for an error when it tries to play a different file type, i should be able to introduce some adhoc error handling when the error triggers (it will look like an expanded recursion, but i can't recurse because the array is hardcoded, and that's actually the point - it's more like an expanded lisp routine) that checks all of the options and exits when it finds the right one. what i'm imagining doing is really just expanding the built-in error handling by inserting a block of code that handles the error how i want it to, which relies on the ability to write that code functionally, as it exists at run-time, which is not how javascript is supposed to behave (it is how lisp is supposed to behave).
i'm not 100% sure that javascript will do this the same way that lisp or scheme would, but so long as it does, i think it should work.
if not, i'm going to have to ask for the click. so be it.
anyways.
i got out of the shower around midnight and sat down to type, when i went to turn the machine back on to find that same rpcrtremote.dll error. ugh.
we have a pattern here, don't we? it seems to break when i go out. why is that?
why was my chromebook parallel to my bed? it's always perpendicular. always.
as mentioned, this is a tricky issue. i'm fighting against the api; i'm asking it to do something it was designed to prevent. in a sense, i'm breaking it. it looks like an easy task, and it would be in any other context, but javascript isn't supposed to be aware of what's happening locally, and it isn't supposed to run without user input. it's supposed to compile remotely. but, as stated, i don't want any of that.
and, no, i don't want to tell people to install some other language, like python. everybody has java; it's baked into the browser. i might have some fun with a lisp-centric browser, though. there was a time when lisp was all over the internet.
if i approach this from a functional programming perspective instead, i should be able to get the right listener to launch on a play error. i was trying to get it to react to the canplay(), which is a haphazard error testing, but it just wouldn't load. i was emulating what the standard pushed down; if you look at the source code in the html5 repository, it must essentially be running a try...catch block in just throwing out the different file types. however, i can't even get it to do that without prompting for a click. it's just the api. it needs some kind of user input.
if i can set the variable to the mp3 array by default and then listen for an error when it tries to play a different file type, i should be able to introduce some adhoc error handling when the error triggers (it will look like an expanded recursion, but i can't recurse because the array is hardcoded, and that's actually the point - it's more like an expanded lisp routine) that checks all of the options and exits when it finds the right one. what i'm imagining doing is really just expanding the built-in error handling by inserting a block of code that handles the error how i want it to, which relies on the ability to write that code functionally, as it exists at run-time, which is not how javascript is supposed to behave (it is how lisp is supposed to behave).
i'm not 100% sure that javascript will do this the same way that lisp or scheme would, but so long as it does, i think it should work.
if not, i'm going to have to ask for the click. so be it.
anyways.
i got out of the shower around midnight and sat down to type, when i went to turn the machine back on to find that same rpcrtremote.dll error. ugh.
we have a pattern here, don't we? it seems to break when i go out. why is that?
why was my chromebook parallel to my bed? it's always perpendicular. always.
why was my universal power adapter, which i use for my laptop, pulled out of it's socket?
why was my (admittedly dilapidated) converted desk all disheveled, as though somebody had tried to move it?
i have checked the power usage, and there's no obvious spike when i was gone. however, it seems like somebody was down here, probably around the same time that the cops were circling around me at the store. the thought crossed my mind, even then.
what, exactly, can i do besides turn the router off and reimage? i got a start on it before i passed out, and got to finishing it this morning. it took a few tries this time, which is making me wonder what they did. i know that what worked was a three-pass format of the drive, indicating that they may have inserted something in there pretty deeply.
when i got back up, i checked my email and found a response from the oiprd, who were supposed to provide an application record by thursday but are instead offering to redo the review around the question of the arrest. i rejected their request outright. they are continuing to insist on this reductionist perspective, and they're still refusing to consider the pattern of harassment by the officer, which is the actual crux of the complaint. i fully expect that if i were to allow them to conduct a second review, they'd miss every deadline, and i'd either be back in divisional court for delay or in divisional court for review. that strikes me as a pointless waste of time, and i don't want to go through with it - i want the issue dealt with by an actual judge, and i think i should have had the right to get the thing in court from the fucking getgo.
why was my (admittedly dilapidated) converted desk all disheveled, as though somebody had tried to move it?
i have checked the power usage, and there's no obvious spike when i was gone. however, it seems like somebody was down here, probably around the same time that the cops were circling around me at the store. the thought crossed my mind, even then.
what, exactly, can i do besides turn the router off and reimage? i got a start on it before i passed out, and got to finishing it this morning. it took a few tries this time, which is making me wonder what they did. i know that what worked was a three-pass format of the drive, indicating that they may have inserted something in there pretty deeply.
when i got back up, i checked my email and found a response from the oiprd, who were supposed to provide an application record by thursday but are instead offering to redo the review around the question of the arrest. i rejected their request outright. they are continuing to insist on this reductionist perspective, and they're still refusing to consider the pattern of harassment by the officer, which is the actual crux of the complaint. i fully expect that if i were to allow them to conduct a second review, they'd miss every deadline, and i'd either be back in divisional court for delay or in divisional court for review. that strikes me as a pointless waste of time, and i don't want to go through with it - i want the issue dealt with by an actual judge, and i think i should have had the right to get the thing in court from the fucking getgo.
they pointed out that a case was released yesterday that updates dunsmuir, so i had to take a look at it. as mentioned, i don't think the new rules really affect this particular case, but i hope that the outcome isn't a lessening of judicial oversight. the oiprd is a good example of the kind of tribunal that needs serious judicial oversight. it may have statutory powers, but it has no relevant expertise, whatsoever. i poked around a little, and some for-profit style lawyers are claiming they love it, but i'm not sure the reasons they're providing are very well thought through. if their optimism pans out, the result could be an americanizing of the law, which would be deeply catastrophic, for canada. i don't want to be an american. i'm afraid of americans.
so, for example, the language about not needing to check the expertise of the panel is very worrying on the surface (i would strongly support the use of judicial review in scenarios where the tribunal does not have the expertise to rule correctly, and who could argue otherwise?), but so long as the judiciary continues to pull these cases on the basis that the rulings are unreasonable, it might be less of a problem than i'm imagining that it could be. i think the previous precedent is more thorough, but i do acknowledge that there is sometimes a redundancy in worrying about whether the panel did do it right or whether the panel can do it right; if the panel can't do it right, they almost certainly didn't do it right, so this scenario where they don't have the expertise and somehow get the right answer is going to be exceedingly rare. but, the law should be thorough, and if this is a taste of the direction that the court is moving in, there should be some critical essays written about it to try and pull them back from it. there's no purpose in hardcoding logical shortcuts into the law, like that.
frankly, the truth is that it's lazy, and that's maybe the easy way to state what's wrong with the changes they made. there may not be serious, substantive differences, but it's far less rigorous, and it just comes off as lazy and haphazard.
the thing those lawyers wanted to see was a precedent that didn't bother assessing the abilities of the panel, and you can imagine scary outcomes resulting from the judiciary mindlessly deferring to these unqualified juntas "because legislation". the worst case scenario is a perfect algorithm for third-world backwardsness. it's potentially devastating, but only if they actually defer this way (and, my case is actually an example of this, as the judiciary should not be deferring to "members of the community" on issues of law, that would be retarded), and, so long as they continue to defer properly to the reasonableness standard, they really shouldn't.
likewise, abolishing the correctness standard is at first glance a pretty frightening proposition. certiorari is one of the oldest rules that we have. the supreme court should hardly be gutting 2500 year old roman precedent; this is the heart of our legal system, arguably the most important legal precedent that we have, anywhere, ever. certiorari does exist in ontario statute, but this is a part of the "unwritten rules and conventions" in the preamble of the constitution, really. a western legal system would no longer be a western legal system, without it.
however, taking a closer look at it pulls out that they aren't actually doing that. rather, they're just fucking with the language and, in the end, they might even be giving themselves more power, if they no longer have to rely on anything besides a broad and purposefully undefined concept of "reasonableness".
obviously, the judiciary needs a check on it, too - the principle of judicial independence is paramount, but they can't have absolute power. however, i think the balance of power should lie in the courts, and not in these panels and tribunals. i'm in favour of activist judges; what i'm worried about is giving these "independent bodies" too much power. so, i would appear to be directly ideologically opposed to the new chief justice on this matter. and, again this is frustrating, because the guy was put in power by the liberals, and he's carrying through with a reform party style harperist agenda.
so, for example, the language about not needing to check the expertise of the panel is very worrying on the surface (i would strongly support the use of judicial review in scenarios where the tribunal does not have the expertise to rule correctly, and who could argue otherwise?), but so long as the judiciary continues to pull these cases on the basis that the rulings are unreasonable, it might be less of a problem than i'm imagining that it could be. i think the previous precedent is more thorough, but i do acknowledge that there is sometimes a redundancy in worrying about whether the panel did do it right or whether the panel can do it right; if the panel can't do it right, they almost certainly didn't do it right, so this scenario where they don't have the expertise and somehow get the right answer is going to be exceedingly rare. but, the law should be thorough, and if this is a taste of the direction that the court is moving in, there should be some critical essays written about it to try and pull them back from it. there's no purpose in hardcoding logical shortcuts into the law, like that.
frankly, the truth is that it's lazy, and that's maybe the easy way to state what's wrong with the changes they made. there may not be serious, substantive differences, but it's far less rigorous, and it just comes off as lazy and haphazard.
the thing those lawyers wanted to see was a precedent that didn't bother assessing the abilities of the panel, and you can imagine scary outcomes resulting from the judiciary mindlessly deferring to these unqualified juntas "because legislation". the worst case scenario is a perfect algorithm for third-world backwardsness. it's potentially devastating, but only if they actually defer this way (and, my case is actually an example of this, as the judiciary should not be deferring to "members of the community" on issues of law, that would be retarded), and, so long as they continue to defer properly to the reasonableness standard, they really shouldn't.
likewise, abolishing the correctness standard is at first glance a pretty frightening proposition. certiorari is one of the oldest rules that we have. the supreme court should hardly be gutting 2500 year old roman precedent; this is the heart of our legal system, arguably the most important legal precedent that we have, anywhere, ever. certiorari does exist in ontario statute, but this is a part of the "unwritten rules and conventions" in the preamble of the constitution, really. a western legal system would no longer be a western legal system, without it.
however, taking a closer look at it pulls out that they aren't actually doing that. rather, they're just fucking with the language and, in the end, they might even be giving themselves more power, if they no longer have to rely on anything besides a broad and purposefully undefined concept of "reasonableness".
obviously, the judiciary needs a check on it, too - the principle of judicial independence is paramount, but they can't have absolute power. however, i think the balance of power should lie in the courts, and not in these panels and tribunals. i'm in favour of activist judges; what i'm worried about is giving these "independent bodies" too much power. so, i would appear to be directly ideologically opposed to the new chief justice on this matter. and, again this is frustrating, because the guy was put in power by the liberals, and he's carrying through with a reform party style harperist agenda.
it's not as bad as it looks at first; i honestly don't think it will be nearly as substantive as some commenters are suggesting.
i've been at that all afternoon.
now i need to get back to the html frontend; let's hope this new approach works,
what to do about this thing? i've kept the image unmodified from the backup, to see what happens. will it stay stable for a while? a strict reimage doesn't take that long, but how long can i avoid it for?
now i need to get back to the html frontend; let's hope this new approach works,
what to do about this thing? i've kept the image unmodified from the backup, to see what happens. will it stay stable for a while? a strict reimage doesn't take that long, but how long can i avoid it for?
at
22:26
It has been brought to my attention that there has been a new precedent that affects the way that judicial review is interpreted by the divisional court, which is available here: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18078/index.do
While it may appear on first glance that this ruling has implications for my case, I do not believe that it does. I am not going to be withdrawing or altering my existing arguments, but I can add the following addendum to clarify my interpretation of the new ruling.
First of all, let us question where the expertise in the matter is. The premise underlying the new basis of review is that the legislature invested decision making authority in the hands of specialized councils, and the judiciary ought not interfere with that. However, the author of the report in question is a police officer that likely has minimal training, and the review was carried out by a civilian oversight panel of “members of the community”. Meanwhile, the divisional court consists of three learned judges with decades of experience, no doubt, between them. The issue at hand is an interpretation of the criminal code. It would be patently unreasonable for the court to defer to the expertise of the civilian oversight body, in this matter.
Second, let us be clear in understanding that the issue at hand is, in fact, a question of upholding the rule of law. The new ruling is not very specific regarding the question of what is of “central importance to the legal system”, but i think that the premise that the police should uphold the law is of pretty central importance to society, in general. I would propose that this is a situation where the correctness exception ought to apply, and that while the recent ruling does not explicitly list issues of the sort, it does implicitly do so, and this is ultimately an oversight. I would hope that the supreme court would interpret the situation as meeting the grounds for exception that are outlined in the case.
However, my interpretation of the ruling is that it is actually mostly merely a shift in semantics. While the ruling does make it clear that the correctness basis is to be utilized carefully, it also presents a long list of examples where the reasonableness basis is to be used that kind of look a lot like correctness reviews, to me. If the difference is procedural, this strikes me merely as an exercise in political correctness. With all due respect to everybody involved, I did not file this review to get into a semantic debate over whether misapplying Storrey to a hybrid offence would be considered to be incorrect, or merely unreasonable. In all honesty, I am not sure that I entirely understand why something would not be considered to be incorrect if it doesn’t fall into a range of possible outcomes, when that range of possible outcomes has one possibility. Nonetheless, this is the strange Carrolian path that the court has set out for us, as it takes us all down the rabbit hole of political correctness.
I will quote the case, only briefly:
” It is evident that both statutory and common law will impose constraints on how and what an administrative decision maker can lawfully decide: see Dunsmuir, at paras. 47 and 74. For example, an administrative decision maker interpreting the scope of its regulation-making authority in order to exercise that authority cannot adopt an interpretation that is inconsistent with applicable common law principles regarding the nature of statutory powers: see Katz Group Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Health and Long Term Care), 2013 SCC 64, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 810, at paras. 45-48. Neither can a body instructed by legislation to determine what tax rate is applicable in accordance with an existing tax system ignore that system and base its determination on a “fictitious” system it has arbitrarily created: Montréal (City), at para. 40. Where a relationship is governed by private law, it would be unreasonable for a decision maker to ignore that law in adjudicating parties’ rights within that relationship: Dunsmuir, at para. 74. Similarly, where the governing statute specifies a standard that is well known in law and in the jurisprudence, a reasonable decision will generally be one that is consistent with the established understanding of that standard: see, e.g., the discussion of “reasonable grounds to suspect” in Canada (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities) v. Farwaha, 2014 FCA 56, [2015] 2 F.C.R. 1006, at paras. 93-98.” [@ p. 111]
Again - procedural questions aside, it would seem to be that this is a correctness basis by any other name, but if the court insists on calling it a reasonableness basis instead, then we can do that. It really changes nothing in any meaningful, substantive way - it’s just an issue of semantics, of language.
So, I am still requesting a general certiorari on a correctness basis due to the obvious incompetence of the reviewing body, and claim the court has the expertise, not the panel. But, we can cite the rule of law to get to a correctness basis instead, if insisted upon, and we can run ctrl+H and replace “correctness” with “reasonableness”, in light of para 111, if you insist, too.
I will leave it to the court to sort out my arguments in light of the new precedent.
While it may appear on first glance that this ruling has implications for my case, I do not believe that it does. I am not going to be withdrawing or altering my existing arguments, but I can add the following addendum to clarify my interpretation of the new ruling.
First of all, let us question where the expertise in the matter is. The premise underlying the new basis of review is that the legislature invested decision making authority in the hands of specialized councils, and the judiciary ought not interfere with that. However, the author of the report in question is a police officer that likely has minimal training, and the review was carried out by a civilian oversight panel of “members of the community”. Meanwhile, the divisional court consists of three learned judges with decades of experience, no doubt, between them. The issue at hand is an interpretation of the criminal code. It would be patently unreasonable for the court to defer to the expertise of the civilian oversight body, in this matter.
Second, let us be clear in understanding that the issue at hand is, in fact, a question of upholding the rule of law. The new ruling is not very specific regarding the question of what is of “central importance to the legal system”, but i think that the premise that the police should uphold the law is of pretty central importance to society, in general. I would propose that this is a situation where the correctness exception ought to apply, and that while the recent ruling does not explicitly list issues of the sort, it does implicitly do so, and this is ultimately an oversight. I would hope that the supreme court would interpret the situation as meeting the grounds for exception that are outlined in the case.
However, my interpretation of the ruling is that it is actually mostly merely a shift in semantics. While the ruling does make it clear that the correctness basis is to be utilized carefully, it also presents a long list of examples where the reasonableness basis is to be used that kind of look a lot like correctness reviews, to me. If the difference is procedural, this strikes me merely as an exercise in political correctness. With all due respect to everybody involved, I did not file this review to get into a semantic debate over whether misapplying Storrey to a hybrid offence would be considered to be incorrect, or merely unreasonable. In all honesty, I am not sure that I entirely understand why something would not be considered to be incorrect if it doesn’t fall into a range of possible outcomes, when that range of possible outcomes has one possibility. Nonetheless, this is the strange Carrolian path that the court has set out for us, as it takes us all down the rabbit hole of political correctness.
I will quote the case, only briefly:
” It is evident that both statutory and common law will impose constraints on how and what an administrative decision maker can lawfully decide: see Dunsmuir, at paras. 47 and 74. For example, an administrative decision maker interpreting the scope of its regulation-making authority in order to exercise that authority cannot adopt an interpretation that is inconsistent with applicable common law principles regarding the nature of statutory powers: see Katz Group Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Health and Long Term Care), 2013 SCC 64, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 810, at paras. 45-48. Neither can a body instructed by legislation to determine what tax rate is applicable in accordance with an existing tax system ignore that system and base its determination on a “fictitious” system it has arbitrarily created: Montréal (City), at para. 40. Where a relationship is governed by private law, it would be unreasonable for a decision maker to ignore that law in adjudicating parties’ rights within that relationship: Dunsmuir, at para. 74. Similarly, where the governing statute specifies a standard that is well known in law and in the jurisprudence, a reasonable decision will generally be one that is consistent with the established understanding of that standard: see, e.g., the discussion of “reasonable grounds to suspect” in Canada (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities) v. Farwaha, 2014 FCA 56, [2015] 2 F.C.R. 1006, at paras. 93-98.” [@ p. 111]
Again - procedural questions aside, it would seem to be that this is a correctness basis by any other name, but if the court insists on calling it a reasonableness basis instead, then we can do that. It really changes nothing in any meaningful, substantive way - it’s just an issue of semantics, of language.
So, I am still requesting a general certiorari on a correctness basis due to the obvious incompetence of the reviewing body, and claim the court has the expertise, not the panel. But, we can cite the rule of law to get to a correctness basis instead, if insisted upon, and we can run ctrl+H and replace “correctness” with “reasonableness”, in light of para 111, if you insist, too.
I will leave it to the court to sort out my arguments in light of the new precedent.
at
18:19
on second thought, i'm going to write an addendum and email it to the interested parties. i'll then mail that to toronto.
the reason i'm doing this is because the ruling actually clarifies my argument.
the reason i'm doing this is because the ruling actually clarifies my argument.
at
17:39
so, yeah.
i'm going to show up in court and yell for twenty minutes that they're FUCKING WRONG.
and, if the judge wants to politely suggest that they're merely "unreasonable", then whatever.
i'm going to show up in court and yell for twenty minutes that they're FUCKING WRONG.
and, if the judge wants to politely suggest that they're merely "unreasonable", then whatever.
at
17:17
and, if the question is "expertise", let's look at the situation, in context.
the report was written by a police officer that probably has no legal training. the review was done by a civilian oversight body.
i'm asking for a ruling on an interpretation of the criminal code. so, where is the expertise, here? in the oiprd or in the judiciary?
i don't like this ruling, and i don't think it'll last very long. the exceptions for correctness are far too limited. and, if this is the case that opens it back up, so be it.
i will appeal this if i lose.
the report was written by a police officer that probably has no legal training. the review was done by a civilian oversight body.
i'm asking for a ruling on an interpretation of the criminal code. so, where is the expertise, here? in the oiprd or in the judiciary?
i don't like this ruling, and i don't think it'll last very long. the exceptions for correctness are far too limited. and, if this is the case that opens it back up, so be it.
i will appeal this if i lose.
at
17:01
note, dated to sept 26, 2022.
i am taking posts down due to concerns about back-end editing by governments. one of the posts that made me aware of what was happening was edits to the vavilov sequence of posts from dec, 2019.
this was a real-time/contemporary analysis of a landmark ruling in canada, and that it might be edited to advance the interests of a sitting government is of extreme concern to freedom of thought in this country. this would be an extreme abuse of power, an extreme abuse of technology and severe infringement of several of my basic constitutional and even natural rights as a human being. i'm left with no paper trail, but suspect google could clarify the point on subpoena.
i want to collect the versions of the post i have here for insertion into three (i suppose four) separate archives. i do not want to write this now, as i'm typing into the backend and there's no point. i will need to wait until this is on a more stable system before i attempt to rewrite it again.
---
on aug 11, 2022 i posted the following:
(a) as recovered from email sent to my google account from the blogger ui on aug 11, and collected on sept 26:
see, i'm baffled by this.
i remember re-writing my dec, 2019 analysis of vavilov when i reposted it in jan, 2022. so, my records of the post for 2019, from 2019, should be different than the post as it exists today, and that should be different than the repost in 2022.
bafflingly, they're all the same, and i don't think any of them were the original post.
that would suggest that:
1) somebody altered the version in my email from 2019, which is dated to 2019
2) somebody then put that edited version in the blog
3) somebody then edited the version in two of my email boxes, which are dated to 2022
4) that version ended up in the 2022 post.
the really baffling thing is that the version dated to 2019 at the blog is the same is in the email. that should not be true - they should be substantively different.
so, i'm going to have to rewrite it, and there's not going to be any note, and i'm not going to concern myself with that. i think i have an absolute right to alter my own writing, that the time stamps are not important and that a footnote that indicates altering the writing is not required.
but, this is exceedingly sophisticated - or i'm just tricking myself, but i'm not just tricking myself. this editor is able to manipulate existing messages in my gmail folder, which means they're hacking it at the server level.
my only tactic is resiliency - i need to keep rewriting these posts, and hope the author gives up.
8:27
this memory of rewriting an old post is specific.
i'm not trying to guess what i wrote in 2019. i'm explicitly remember opening the document in 2022, altering it and reposting it in 2022. yet, it actually seems like the stored version from 2019 was updated to reflect an alteration in 2022, at some point after i reposted it in jan. that is, it seems like the editor took the post from the repost, altered it and then re-inserted it into my email from 2019.
that's crazy. that's somebody with total control over the google servers, or i'm imagining. but, i'm not imagining it - and i have no way to demonstrate it.
ugh.
8:30
what would you do when faced with this?
8:32
the idea that is being eradicated from the post is that what vavilov is really about is political correctness.
what vavilov says isn't that the correctness precedent is to be eliminated, so much as that it's rude to question whether somebody is correct or not. a more polite way to question authority is to question their reasonableness. so, if something is factually wrong, the review is to argue that it's unreasonable because it's wrong.
that analysis seems to be threatening to the editors, so it therefore must be absolutely correct.
i'm not going to pretend that i remember exactly what i wrote in december 2019 about the new judicial review precedent, but the edits are always incomplete; they may give me enough of my thoughts to realize there's a conclusion without a premise, and i need to reconstruct the premise. they don't tend to remove entire posts, so much as they take out specific paragraphs, probably thinking i've forgotten, which is of course mostly true.
is this serious? am i crazy?
if i find myself unable to follow my own argument, i have to rewrite it, regardless. i can't prove anything. but, the result is the same either way: i have a conclusion without a premise and need to insert a premise.
keep this in mind, though: this idea that vavilov is really about questioning authority appears to be threatening enough that it must be true.
9:20
(b) as recovered from the blogger draft post on sept 26:
aug 11
see, i'm baffled by this.
i remember re-writing my dec, 2019 analysis of vavilov when i reposted it in jan, 2022. so, my records of the post for 2019, from 2019, should be different than the post as it exists today, and that should be different than the repost in 2022.
bafflingly, they're all the same, and i don't think any of them were the original post.
that would suggest that:
1) somebody altered the version in my email from 2019, which is dated to 2019
2) somebody then put that edited version in the blog
3) somebody then edited the version in two of my email boxes, which are dated to 2022
4) that version ended up in the 2022 post.
the really baffling thing is that the version dated to 2019 at the blog is the same is in the email. that should not be true - they should be substantively different.
so, i'm going to have to rewrite it, and there's not going to be any note, and i'm not going to concern myself with that. i think i have an absolute right to alter my own writing, that the time stamps are not important and that a footnote that indicates altering the writing is not required.
but, this is exceedingly sophisticated - or i'm just tricking myself, but i'm not just tricking myself. this editor is able to manipulate existing messages in my gmail folder, which means they're hacking it at the server level.
my only tactic is resiliency - i need to keep rewriting these posts, and hope the author gives up.
8:27
this memory of rewriting an old post is specific.
i'm not trying to guess what i wrote in 2019. i explicitly remember opening the document in 2022, altering it and reposting it in 2022. yet, it actually seems like the stored version from 2019 was updated to reflect an alteration in 2022, at some point after i reposted it in jan. that is, it seems like the editor took the post from the repost, altered it and then re-inserted it into my email from 2019.
that's crazy. that's somebody with total control over the google servers, or i'm imagining it. but, i'm not imagining it - and i have no way to demonstrate it.
ugh.
8:30
what would you do when faced with this?
8:32
the idea that is being eradicated from the post is that what vavilov is really about is political correctness.
what vavilov says isn't that the correctness precedent is to be eliminated, so much as that it's rude to question whether somebody is correct or not. a more polite way to question authority is to question their reasonableness. so, if something is factually wrong, the review is to argue that it's unreasonable because it's wrong.
that analysis seems to be threatening to the editors, so it therefore must be absolutely correct.
i'm not going to pretend that i remember exactly what i wrote in december 2019 about the new judicial review precedent, but the edits are always incomplete; they may give me enough of my thoughts to realize there's a conclusion without a premise, and i need to reconstruct the premise. they don't tend to remove entire posts, so much as they take out specific paragraphs, probably thinking i've forgotten, which is of course mostly true.
is this serious? am i crazy?
if i find myself unable to follow my own argument, i have to rewrite it, regardless. i can't prove anything. but, the result is the same either way: i have a conclusion without a premise and need to insert a premise.
keep this in mind, though: this idea that vavilov is really about questioning authority appears to be threatening enough that it must be true.
9:20
aug 12, 2022
this is a rewritten vavilov write-up, dated to today.
am i playing tricks on myself? i have to acknowledge that i might be playing tricks on myself via rationalizing it, too.
========
(this was never posted but left as a draft until it was reposted in the august archive. this post has now been posted to the space this post is in, as a reminder to rewrite the initial post)
8:04
==============
the jan 15, 2022 posts, at 9:27, as i can recover them, are as follows:
(a) from blogger, as recovered on sept 26, 2022 and edited after aug 11, 2022:
i want to repost my analysis of vavilov from late 2020.
===
(edit: this was removed on aug 11, 2022 and should be replaced with the updated version)
---
and, if the question is "expertise", let's look at the situation, in context.
the report was written by a police officer that probably has no legal training. the review was done by a civilian oversight body.
i'm asking for a ruling on an interpretation of the criminal code. so, where is the expertise, here? in the oiprd or in the judiciary?
i don't like this ruling, and i don't think it'll last very long. the exceptions for correctness are far too limited. and, if this is the case that opens it back up, so be it.
i will appeal this if i lose.
--
so, yeah.
i'm going to show up in court and yell for twenty minutes that they're FUCKING WRONG.
and, if the judge wants to politely suggest that they're merely "unreasonable", then whatever.
--
it's the ruling i want, not this semantic debate about language.
(b) from email, resent from the blogger ui on jan 17th at 1:42. the email was resent with spaces in the hyperlink, suggesting that i may have reposted it because the initial post wasn't sent due to the existence of the link.
i want to repost my analysis of vavilov from late 2020.
===
we'll talk soon.
for now...
this is relevant to me right now:
h t t p s :/ / sc c -c s c . l e x u m .c o m / sc c - c s c / s c c -c s c / e n / i t e m / 1 8 0 7 8 / i n d e x. d o
a naive flip through this might suggest that they've more or less dismantled the correctness basis of review, but what they're really doing is redefining correctness issues as reasonableness issues. there is a slightly different procedural approach, but it should more or less come out in the wash.
so, where i may have argued last month that the report fucked up it's use of r. v. storrey, and the result was consequently incorrect, i may now need to argue that fucking up a precedent the way the report did lead to an unreasonable outcome. the ruling is really quite bizarre, in that sense - the supreme court seems to have gone down a sort of a rabbit hole in the absence of beverly mclaughlin, who is responsible for a great deal of what has made canada what it is. but, it shouldn't lead to different outcomes.
with a reasonableness review, the court can't ask what the right answer is, but can only ask what a range of correct answers is. that means you can't tell a panel that they fucked up and they're wrong - you can only tell them that the outcome does not follow from the precedent, and is not in an acceptable range of possibilities. it's really exactly the same fucking thing, it's just a whole lot more polite in this bullshit politically correct sort of manner.
more specifically, in my precise example, the new precedent would render a review that relies on a statement such as "the report was reasonable because it cited case law" to be an unreasonable report, but it won't let the judge explicitly question the correctness of the outcome, because that would be rude. as such, i may want to modify my argument a little bit in terms of the language i'm using.
i'm not going to, though.
see, the thing about a judicial review is that the judge doesn't look at the precise arguments. i could make an argument about x, y and z and the judge could rule on a, b, c and d instead. most of this is just empty procedural pomp, at this point - the only thing that's really important is the application record, because that's where the actual facts are.
so long as i can get the thing to a fucking judge, she should rule the error of law as unreasonable, even if i'm arguing that the outcome of the report is incorrect.
yeah.
well, welcome to canada. next exit - dark ages, ontario. 50 km.
if i'm going to alter my argument, i'd actually rather argue for an expansion of the rule of law section of the exceptions. this isn't a constitutional question, or at least it isn't one yet. but, the fundamental issue here is whether the rule of law is being upheld or not. i don't want to play these language games. really. i want the court to uphold the rule of law, declare the report wrong and confirm that the arrest was illegal. but, like i say, the judges will more or less ignore what everybody says and do their own analysis from scratch.
so, it looks like a really backwards ruling, but it's just rooted in some weird, pc language and it shouldn't really actually change much
---
and, if the question is "expertise", let's look at the situation, in context.
the report was written by a police officer that probably has no legal training. the review was done by a civilian oversight body.
i'm asking for a ruling on an interpretation of the criminal code. so, where is the expertise, here? in the oiprd or in the judiciary?
i don't like this ruling, and i don't think it'll last very long. the exceptions for correctness are far too limited. and, if this is the case that opens it back up, so be it.
i will appeal this if i lose.
--
so, yeah.
i'm going to show up in court and yell for twenty minutes that they're FUCKING WRONG.
and, if the judge wants to politely suggest that they're merely "unreasonable", then whatever.
--
it's the ruling i want, not this semantic debate about language.
======
this is the version of this original post from my email, which was dated to dec 21 @ 4:22 but was actually sent on dec 22 at 10:02. i do not believe that i was having difficulty archiving posts at this time, so this is actually a little bit alarming. that post should have been sent from the google ui and dated correctly.
[dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja] 12/21/2019 4:22:00 PM
we'll talk soon,
for now...
this is relevant to me right now:
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18078/index.do
a naive flip through this might suggest that they've more or less
dismantled the correctness basis of review, but what they're really
doing is redefining correctness issues as reasonableness issues. there
is a slightly different procedural approach, but it should more or
less come out in the wash.
so, where i may have argued last month that the report fucked up it's
use of r. v. storrey, and the result was consequently incorrect, i may
now need to argue that fucking up a precedent the way the report did
lead to an unreasonable outcome. the ruling is really quite bizarre,
in that sense - the supreme court seems to have gone down a sort of a
rabbit hole in the absence of beverly mclaughlin, who is responsible
for a great deal of what has made canada what it is. but, it shouldn't
lead to different outcomes.
with a reasonableness review, the court can't ask what the right
answer is, but can only ask what a range of correct answers is. that
means you can't tell a panel that they fucked up and they're wrong -
you can only tell them that the outcome does not follow from the
precedent, and is not in an acceptable range of possibilities. it's
really exactly the same fucking thing, it's just a whole lot more
polite in this bullshit politically correct sort of manner.
more specifically, in my precise example, the new precedent would
render a review that relies on a statement such as "the report was
reasonable because it cited case law" to be an unreasonable report,
but it won't let the judge explicitly question the correctness of the
outcome, because that would be rude. as such, i may want to modify my
argument a little bit in terms of the language i'm using.
i'm not going to, though.
see, the thing about a judicial review is that the judge doesn't look
at the precise arguments. i could make an argument about x, y and z
and the judge could rule on a, b, c and d instead. most of this is
just empty procedural pomp, at this point - the only thing that's
really important is the application record, because that's where the
actual facts are.
so long as i can get the thing to a fucking judge, she should rule the
error of law as unreasonable, even if i'm arguing that the outcome of
the report is incorrect.
yeah.
well, welcome to canada. next exit - dark ages, ontario. 50 km.
if i'm going to alter my argument, i'd actually rather argue for an
expansion of the rule of law section of the exceptions. this isn't a
constitutional question, or at least it isn't one yet. but, the
fundamental issue here is whether the rule of law is being upheld or
not. i don't want to play these language games. really. i want the
court to uphold the rule of law, declare the report wrong and confirm
that the arrest was illegal. but, like i say, the judges will more or
less ignore what everybody says and do their own analysis from
scratch.
so, it looks like a really backwards ruling, but it's just rooted in
some weird, pc language and it shouldn't really actually change much
===========
finally, this is the version was left stranded in aug, 2022:
====
this is relevant to me right now:
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18078/index.do
a naive analysis of the ruling would suggest that they're dismantling the correctness basis of review, but what they're really doing is redefining correctness reviews as reasonableness reviews. there is a slightly different procedural approach attached to this, but it should more or less come out in the wash.
in a correctness review, the reviewing judge is expected to determine whether the lower body of law (often a panel of non-judges) committed an error of law or not; the issue at law is whether or not the decision is correct. in a reasonableness review, the court can not ask what the correct answer is, it can only ask what a "range" of correct "outcomes" is, whatever that even means. the idea was supposed to be deference to an expert, but the concept has become corrupted via the application of irrational precedents, and has now lost any coherency in application. unfortunately, the legal system in canada has adopted the frightening and backwards idea that facts do not exist, so
so, in a reasonableness review, you can't tell the judge that the panel done fucked up and is fucking wrong like i want to - you can only argue that the outcome is not in an acceptable "range of possibilities". outcomes that are legally, factually or logically wrong may be upheld by the court if the court decides that being wrong is "reasonable". this essentially undoes any concept of law, and instead converts the court into an authoritarian body that is dictating random, arbitrary proclamations, which it gets to self-regulate as "reasonable" or not. it's a complete absence of law, elevated to judicial precedent.
what the new ruling really seems to be saying is that telling somebody they're wrong is impolite, so you have to suggest that they're merely being unreasonable, instead, even if what you're really saying is that they're wrong; being wrong is only meaningful if they're also being unreasonable, so the issue at law becomes whether they're reasonable or not rather than whether they're correct or not.
so, where i may have argued last month that the report was incorrect in it's application of r. v. storrey, i will now need to argue that incorrectly applying a precedent the way the report did led to an unreasonable outcome, instead. it's really exactly the same fucking thing, it's just a whole lot more polite in this bullshit politically correct sort of manner. the ruling is really quite bizarre, in that sense; the supreme court seems to have fallen down a rabbit hole of political correctness in the absence of beverly mclaughlin, who is responsible for a great deal of what has made canada what it is. but, it shouldn't lead to substantively different outcomes.
what the new precedent decides is that being incorrect might be unreasonable.
in my precise example, the new precedent would allow a review that relies on a statement such as "the report was reasonable because it cited case law" to potentially be an unreasonable report, but it won't let the judge explicitly question the correctness of the outcome, because that would be rude. as such, i may want to modify my argument a little bit in terms of the language i'm using.
i'm not going to, though.
in a judicial review, the judge doesn't actually look at the precise arguments. i could make an argument about x, y and z and the judge could rule on a, b, c and d instead. most of this is just empty procedural pomp, at this point - the only thing that's really important is the application record, because that's where the actual facts are.
so long as i can get the thing to a fucking judge, she should rule the error of law as unreasonable, even if i'm arguing that the outcome of the report is incorrect.
yeah.
well, welcome to canada. next exit - dark ages, ontario. 50 km.
if i'm going to alter my argument, i'd actually rather argue for an expansion of the rule of law section of the exceptions. this isn't a constitutional question, or at least it isn't one yet. but, the fundamental issue here is whether the rule of law is being upheld or not. i don't want to play these language games. really. i want the court to uphold the rule of law, declare the report wrong and confirm that the arrest was illegal. but, like i say, the judges will more or less ignore what everybody says and do their own analysis from scratch.
so, it looks like a really backwards ruling, but it's just rooted in some weird, pc language and it shouldn't really actually change much
in a judicial review, the judge doesn't actually look at the precise arguments. i could make an argument about x, y and z and the judge could rule on a, b, c and d instead. most of this is just empty procedural pomp, at this point - the only thing that's really important is the application record, because that's where the actual facts are.
so long as i can get the thing to a fucking judge, she should rule the error of law as unreasonable, even if i'm arguing that the outcome of the report is incorrect.
yeah.
well, welcome to canada. next exit - dark ages, ontario. 50 km.
if i'm going to alter my argument, i'd actually rather argue for an expansion of the rule of law section of the exceptions. this isn't a constitutional question, or at least it isn't one yet. but, the fundamental issue here is whether the rule of law is being upheld or not. i don't want to play these language games. really. i want the court to uphold the rule of law, declare the report wrong and confirm that the arrest was illegal. but, like i say, the judges will more or less ignore what everybody says and do their own analysis from scratch.
so, it looks like a really backwards ruling, but it's just rooted in some weird, pc language and it shouldn't really actually change much
at
16:22
Friday, December 20, 2019
the only other thing i could do is write some actual functions and do some error handling, but that's exactly what i don't want to do.
i should be able to just load the object, and determine if it exists or not, without having to write a fucking book about it.
i should be able to just load the object, and determine if it exists or not, without having to write a fucking book about it.
at
09:45
so, what i'll need to do when i get back is ask: how do i run a local, hardcoded script automatically when the page loads?
can i put it in the header, even?
can i put it in the header, even?
at
09:39
to be clear about the javascript frontend....
when i sat down to do this, the rule was that it had to be self-contained. so, i didn't want to have any *.js files - i wanted everything to be hardcoded into the html. i also didn't want to call any external routines or force the user to have to go online to connect to any websites. i don't want to use any servers at all. this should work when the user is disconnected from the internet altogether. so these are the parameters i'm working with, and i'm not interested in trying to work around them. i didn't even want to use javascript at all, but it's easy enough for the basic script...
i'm able to get all the information i need from the built-in commands, but i can't get the object to load without explicit user input. or, at least, i can't find the right listener. so, the script knows where the file is. it knows how to load it. but, it won't actually load it unless the user clicks something.
what i want the script to do, though, is figure out which file the player needs to load when the user clicks. so, the script has to do something before i get any user input. and, none of the listeners i've tried up to this point want to let me do that - they all get the right pointers in place, and then wait for the user to click.
so, is this possible? well, security risks aside, it's a pretty basic level of functionality. i'm used to programming with an actual compiler; i have minimal experience scripting anything at all. but, if javascript can't do something this simple without calling a bunch of libraries, it's kind of useless, isn't it?
if i conclude, after trying a few more things, that i can't do what i want, then i'll have to prompt the user to tell me what file type they bought. and, you can blame the awkwardness of it on the language.
when i sat down to do this, the rule was that it had to be self-contained. so, i didn't want to have any *.js files - i wanted everything to be hardcoded into the html. i also didn't want to call any external routines or force the user to have to go online to connect to any websites. i don't want to use any servers at all. this should work when the user is disconnected from the internet altogether. so these are the parameters i'm working with, and i'm not interested in trying to work around them. i didn't even want to use javascript at all, but it's easy enough for the basic script...
i'm able to get all the information i need from the built-in commands, but i can't get the object to load without explicit user input. or, at least, i can't find the right listener. so, the script knows where the file is. it knows how to load it. but, it won't actually load it unless the user clicks something.
what i want the script to do, though, is figure out which file the player needs to load when the user clicks. so, the script has to do something before i get any user input. and, none of the listeners i've tried up to this point want to let me do that - they all get the right pointers in place, and then wait for the user to click.
so, is this possible? well, security risks aside, it's a pretty basic level of functionality. i'm used to programming with an actual compiler; i have minimal experience scripting anything at all. but, if javascript can't do something this simple without calling a bunch of libraries, it's kind of useless, isn't it?
if i conclude, after trying a few more things, that i can't do what i want, then i'll have to prompt the user to tell me what file type they bought. and, you can blame the awkwardness of it on the language.
at
09:30
i actually think it's time we put the (doubting) t'mas back in christmas.
we don't need another odin post this year. there's too many, already.
i got paid today, but i'm still sick and i'm probably not doing anything this year at all except catching up on the work i've been putting off for too long.
as of today, the oiprd is predictably late on their response to the appeal. i have sent them an email and will call the divisional court on monday to follow up.
for today, i actually need to get some groceries. and, i could be inside for the bulk of the next month...
we don't need another odin post this year. there's too many, already.
i got paid today, but i'm still sick and i'm probably not doing anything this year at all except catching up on the work i've been putting off for too long.
as of today, the oiprd is predictably late on their response to the appeal. i have sent them an email and will call the divisional court on monday to follow up.
for today, i actually need to get some groceries. and, i could be inside for the bulk of the next month...
at
09:13
this is actually kind of tricky.
i know what i need to do, but it just won't load the file. it knows the path. i'm telling it to load. it won't do it...
it's because i'm trying to force it do it on pageload. if i was reacting to any kind of user input at all, it would be easy.
so, i could set it up so that the user tells me what file they're using, but i don't actually want to do that. i want the javascript to be able to figure it out.
so, i think it's best if i try to take a nap and come at it fresh in the morning.
the smoke down here this evening has been horrific.
the smoke down here this evening has been horrific.
at
04:00
on second thought, i had tricked myself with a boolean with that. that object isn't reading that variable at all; my testing was built around a false positive.
as mentioned previously, i'm not interested in doing error handling or writing a complicated script. i want this to be very, very simple and clean, so i need to find the right bit.
if i could get it to read the type attribute, but it doesn't want do that, either.
i'm sure there's an easy answer. i need to figure that out by the end of the night.
at
00:10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)