Previous Blogs: (2007 - 2008) / (2008 - 2014)
It's not so much that I favor or don't favor tight gun control laws, I'm actually on the fence about the topic and continue to mull it over. However I am fascinated how a mass murder that involved the deaths of nine good people and involving a single handgun failed to spur gun control debate so conspicuously. It seems that even before the bodies had cooled America was blabbing about a flag, not guns. That can't be an accident - it feels like a deliberate manipulation.
I wonder if that flag is hiding a shoulder holster.
It's manipulation that benefited politicians (including Obama - who at least made a decent post-shooting speech) and the NRA, neither of which really wants to dance in the media over guns. Pumping up an artifact in the background of a photo as a major issue was absolutely the work of someone's media strategy on either side that both sides wound up appreciating.
My family in Florida complains of a ghost that walks around the house from time to time. This is not unsual since as a family we tend to be "ghost believers" in general for a variety of stories and evidence I won't get into in this particular post. Recently my brother installed an outdoor security camera that, lo and behold, appears to actually capture the image of, as described by our mother before the camera's install, a lean man taking a stroll past the window. My brother described the semblance of this photographic anomaly to a man which was easy to discount until I received the actual image. Evidence of the existence of ghosts mounteth.
You can click image or here for the bigger image.
This is annoying. I'm experimenting with Periscope and went on a two minute rant about the escaped fugitives. Turns out Periscope didn't send out a link that my Periscope session was live! I checked and it turns out that in order for Twitter to announce you, you need to tap the Twitter icon in order to specify that you in fact want to do that. But when I go to do so, I get "Twitter Post unavailable". (UPDATE: I uninstalled Periscope at the time of this posting but reinstalled a week later and this particular function now works) Look for yourself!:
If there';s one thing I thought Periscope would do without issue it';s share to Twitter
Periscope is really striking me as kind of botched. I'm thrilled that Twitter finally saw fit to come up with a way to integrate live stream videos on the fly, but I'm annoyed that, much as was the case with Vine they focused on novel gimmickry insisting, for some reason, that doing something serious with social media such as breaking a news event or livestreaming a medical conference, has to be "funned out" in a "teenage girl" sort of way. In the case of Periscope it defaults to letting people send a flow of hearts and commentary over one's live imagery. Oh, and let's not forget the biggest woe of all which is that it defaults to a portrait presentation versus the more sensible and visually compatible landscape mode. Apparently we're all supposed to accept that vertical video is a bonafide thing now, not a mistake on the part of photographers that we've been graciously tolerating. Ugh!
Finally I don't like the fact that there does not appear to be any easy way in which to mine for new livestreams from the phone app. On the web you can construct Twitter search queries to zero in on them so that you can watch weird veritical videos to the pages the search results link you to, but in the actual phone app where it is difficult to manipulate Twitter search this way, you land on the "Global search" screen and the universe of what's being streamed is limited to the most recent streams, of which I'm not entirely sure isn't there based on algorithm (i.e., a filtered, controlled offering of what Twitter approves you to see). You can of course notify your followers that you're broadcasting, or be notified of the same from your friends, but my friend roster simply doesn't roll the way of neat things like this, so that leaves me out.
Meh - work on this Twitter. It's promising but only if you take my rant here seriously and pursue the changes I've called out.
The articles below are a little old, relatively speaking, but are spot on and heartbreaking. Not enough people discovered or utilized the powerful self-publishing platform known as the "web" in time to demand and defend a permanent place for it in their regular lives.
The articles articulate perfectly what I've been independently sensing: That people spend their limited funds on mobile devices while back-burning or outright skipping desktop or laptop PC purchases. And for that and for other reasons they live in mobile apps rather than skittering out to the World Wide Web, which is bad for independent voices.
I recently launched a new blog and went through a period of marketing to introduce the locals. The hit count was astonishingly high (in a relative way mind you, I don't attract thousands of readers) but nearly all of them were from mobile devices. Having not launched a new blog and sought to attract readers in years I was flabbergasted. Bear in mind that I use a custom blogging engine written before mobile browsing was dominant and thus never took the potential for mobile presentational rendering let alone the potential for WWW pages being considered such an "odd" destination that people might never bother to visit at all if a specific "app" didn't lead them. Luckily my presentation renders well on mobile browsers by sheer happenstance but the point is even my own publishing efforts are no longer ubiquitously presented by default, and it was a punch to the gut to actually see that in raw data.
Mobile apps are tightly controlled via the app stores they are distributed through, and indeed, by the very methodology of their construction (it's much harder to build a mobile app than it is to build a web page), but they are more profitable. Advertisers can see more and do more with you and your data than they can with web pages they point you to.
It's unlikely the web will ever "return" in the same way as one of the articles speculates because people who experienced the exhilaration of the open web have turned into a diminishing demographic bubble in time. The fresh blood going online today, only X-teen years after the raw web came to be, only knows of "apps" and closed proprietary systems like Facebook. When they think of what a powerful thing it is to speak online, they think of a Facebook post, not a web page that they themselves control and monitor.
The Free Market has clamped down on the web and its meddling people-power with more dignity and praise than the methods employed by the great China firewall.
|Dog Shooting Made Worse by Demand to Shoot Dog|
|4/25/2015 7:49:31 AM|
| by Dave |
|Comments (0) Hits: (167) Promote (0) Demote (0) Score (0) Permalink |
Bodycam footage shows deputy shooting dog, and woman demanding he finish the job.
I love animals and hate to see anything happen to them. In this case maybe the officer should have used some kind of spray or something first if he had any.
But that being said I'm not cutting this lady, Carla Gloger, any slack. The video shows that as soon as she runs out she declares that the dogs were not running after the officer - as if there were any way she could have known that. She only began moderating her position after the officer mentioned he had a body camera (score one for body cameras by the way). This tells me she had a cantankerous attitude toward public safety at the outset. Were it not for the footage, Groger seems angry enough, and frankly free enough, to lie about what happened if it means her being right and the officer being wrong.
Then, and much worse, instead of insisting on medical help for the poor animal who is clearly alive and quite functional, she demands that it be shot! This is maybe the only other mistake the officer made because I have to assume there is a protocol for attempting medical rescues for animals like there is for people. Not saying that's absolute, I just assume the better course of action would be rushing the dog to a vet immediately rather than killing it. Apparently the woman loves the power of the dogs, but not laying out the money it takes to care for them properly. But I guess that's what happens when one takes living creatures and objectifies them as extensions of their paranoia against society or whatever.
So the FBI is going to take animal cruelty seriously now.
Fun fact: I suspect some people believe that when I "became a private investigator" (for like three months) it was because I have that kind of simplistic mind that would figure being a "private eye" would be like "being a cop". Of course my simpleton mentality would thus endear me to the effort and heck, before long maybe I'd also purchase one of those ex-police cruisers at auction, sport it with my loudly squawking police scanner, and drive around just being all "cop feeling". You know, because Dave's psychology is that simple.
To be fair, it isn't like there isn't a lot to my personal profile that might support that to what I would deem an equally simple analysis. For example, I actually do like police scanners and would love one in my car if it were legal.
It's serious now.
In fact, the real goal was to build up a profession in humane investigative services involving pets and animals. I forecasted a market need for such a person and I have a Criminology degree which meant I could shave a year off official private investigatory sponsorship (two years sponsorship is typically required in Florida otherwise). It all made great sense. Clearly I did not stick with it, but I am enamored that even at the most sophisticated ends of law enforcement, crimes against animals now has a serious and lethal investigatory attitude. Hats off to the FBI!
What's SUPER creepy is that the other officer rendering aid must have understood, having seen the first officer throw down the stun gun in an obvious attempt to frame the story, that saving the victim would mean killing the lie. So the question becomes, was he properly administrating first aid or facilitating assassination of the suspect to protect the other officer. He needed to make a choice, right?
Got out to a beach for the holiday weekend. Much like hurricanes, the irony is I have more contact with beaches here in the northeast than I ever did living in Florida.
I might be exaggerating there.
So, based on the monument can anyone guess which beach this is?
Yes I returned to Facebook over a month after deactivating my account. For these attempts, that's a record I believe.
Same reasons I've gone back before:
- Feeling isolated, unable to spread my content to "where the people are"
- Tired of not being able to comment at websites that use Facebook as their comment engine
- Related to above, having my PAST comments deleted from comment sections when I deleted my Facebook account (note to content owners, seriously, stop using Facebook as your comment engines. It's much preferable to use something like Disqus or LiveFyre which are universal)
- Felt "shady" while looking for an apartment - potential landlords couldn't vet my deep history. None asked or made issue to, but I felt they might try on their own and be all the more distrustful when they discovered they couldn't.
All that being said, the latest reason for leaving in the first place is still there. I hate having two e-mail channels, and Facebook whether largely viewed this way or not, is in fact a giant e-mail "system" that competes with my use of standard e-mail. I have no real answers about how to mitigate this other than to just surrender and declare that e-mail itself is dead for all personal use and communication.
From now on when I "try to leave" Facebook I am not simply going to not announce it on Facebook, I am not going to post it to my blog or any other channel. I'm not even going to speculate on what the chances are that I will or won't try again. It's all gotten just so damn embarrassing.