Category Archives: Uncategorized

Young Greens of America

They just formed at the Green Party convention in Chicago last week.

Unfortunately, they don’t have a website or a wiki….and they’re nowhere to be found on the Green Party site, nor on Google.

Which is kinda surprising and disturbing. You’d expect the Green Party to have at least some mention of what is carried on at their own convention on their own website.

In fact, the only messages which I’ve received from this group are through email. No listserv for this organization or anything.

I’ll begin publishing the messages I’ve received soon, at least to see if there’s anyone who’s willing to discuss it in public.

I’m late to this news but… (also, more ideas on an IDE)

Apple finally turned the iPhone (and iPod touch) into a Wi-Fi remote control for the Apple TV on the 10th.

Finally.

EDIT: I’m still trying to conceptualize a mobile OS IDE that can be used from within a mobile OS rather than the desktop.

I mean sure, extending a mobile OS to take on even more capabilities and interact with or control other devices is a good thing, but should software development for mobile device operating systems only reside on desktop operating system IDEs?

But if it shouldn’t, then how does one turn the mobile devices like the iPhone and iPod touch from perpetual receivers and consumers of software code into tools for production of software code?

Just like graphic and audio editing software, IDEs usually take up a number of windows on a desktop in order to keep the various options and functions perpetually within the relative periphery vision of the editing user. Furthermore, like the bare-bones text editors, they are also intensive upon the keyboard for input of source code into the text area.

On mobile devices, however, there is very little screen real estate for windowed applications. Even on the current iPhone OS, which has no physical keyboard, the virtual keyboard which pops up every time that one needs to type in a text field (say, for Google or Yahoo search) tends to take up around half of the screen from the bottom up.

So I look at the keyboard metaphor, and I wonder about how it could be best applied in the creation of content, or even software code.

What if the virtual keyboard in the iPhone OS can have dynamically-added extra buttons for code preset templates?

It could work similarly to how wiki articles on Wikipedia or Wetpaint allow one to highlight a word or set of words and choose a way to format the highlighted section, such as Bold, Italics, Underline, Strikethrough, <ref></ref> or Soft Redirect. The graphical cues for creating page templates are even more apparent on Wetpaint and Pbwiki, which uses alot more Ajax to generate such cues.

Even in desktop IDEs, code templates are selected for any new project through graphical means, as shown in the most recent iteration of Dashcode.

So graphical code template buttons are one way to extend the virtual keyboard’s functionality into creative territory. Such buttons could, upon being tapped, indicate the placing of an entire snippet of code for each tapped button in the top text area.

Another approach to developing software on the iPhone OS from within the iPhone OS is to develop brand new computer languages that would be entirely “graphical” or “non-textual”: in other words, while being rendered by software that was written and compiled in textual form, the code that would be tapped from the virtual keyboard’s dynamically-added symbol buttons would not result in a placing of text code, but rather a placing of graphical symbol code.

It’s alot like how one can talk to someone using symbol language, like “Eye Heart U” (with the respective symbols to indicate pronunciation) to say “I Love You”, or how keys on a game controller are marked with symbols to indicate the order by which the next secret move of your character will take place.

The downside of creating an entire computer language out of graphical symbols is that one must be familiar with what each symbol may indicate as an instruction in the greater source code. Does it indicate a single equivalent of a human language word, or does it indicate an entire idea that may be represented by a thousand human language words, such as the code template button idea that I suggested earlier?

Finally, a third idea to “create” something that can be installed on any iPhone OS device or within any pertinent iteration of an iPhone OS application as a “script” in order to render a same or similar action would be to “record” a workflow. This could be determined in a hypothetical “file type options” dialog box.

This would work by asking you exactly what you want to do with a file type or file tagged with a keyword: do you want to save an archive of each file at this time every few hours/days, and do you then want to publish your file’s stats on a local or external database?

However, this approach would demand that the application or OS provides as many properly laid out options as can be thought possible within an application. I’d favor the previous two anyway.

Anyway, just a few ideas on the perfect touchscreen mobile IDE on the iPhone OS.

More on CSS in SVG and SMIL: Wiring visible content together

CSS is most well known as a means of creating nifty-looking graphical effects and enhancements in W3C-compliant webpages. Also, it has been demonstrated that CSS can be embedded into both HTML (a text-oriented markup language) and SVG (a vector graphics-oriented markup language).

But while CSS can wire together embedded content (images, video, etc.) and text into a variety of harmoniously-compartmented displays on xHTML, it remains to be seen what CSS can wire together in an SVG file, apart from doing the same job in SVG (wiring text and embedded images together into specific positions) that it does in xHTML.

Sure, SVG can be approached in the same way that non-image MLs like xHTML are approached: text can be embedded into SVG just like SVG can be embedded into text. However, SVG embedded into HTML would be treated like any other image format like JPEG, PNG and SWF, while text embedded into SVG wouldn’t have anything to do with xHTML (at the moment, I don’t think it’s possible to embed HTML syntax into SVG, as there are very few to no resources via Google on the subject); instead, it would be treated as text from within SVG’s own approach.

However, I’m certain that other images and image/video formats can be embedded in SVG, just as images can be embedded into HTML. So a CSS-based layout of the images and the text would work similarly to, albeit not the exact same as, CSS-based layout of images and text in HTML.

I think that now, from the recent addition of animations and transformations into CSS on WebKit, the main issue of discussion on CSS’s role in vector graphics markup centers around how CSS and SMIL can be appropriated within both HTML and SVG without getting in each other’s way.

Like CSS and unlike HTML, SVG and other markup languages, SMIL (a markup language, abbreviation for “Synchronized Multimedia integration Language”), ironically pronounced as “smile”, doesn’t have a “face”; in other words, an SMIL file doesn’t have a visible output except when it is used to determine the sequential display of elements in another markup language, like SVG (thus being akin to Flash Player’s ActionScript in terms of its “animation” capabilities). In fact, the main purpose of SMIL in a markup language is to determine how the elements in a markup page are supposed to “act” when the page is “played”.

Also, it is most used by multimedia players such as QuickTime and RealPlayer to determine (or, dare I say, “daisy-chain”) a pre-determined playback sequence of audio and video, hence known as “playlists”. Also, a subset of SMIL, known as the Multimedia Messaging Service, is used primarily in the mobile device media industry to provide a variety of multimedia (video, images, audio, rich text) for messages between device rather than just the infamous “text message” allowed by the Short Message Service (SMS) protocol.

But what can CSS, even animated CSS, do for SMIL? Or what is the best relationship between the two?

At the moment, I’ve found this W3C resource on the interaction between CSS2 and SMIL (possibly for embedding); however, it was published exactly 10 years ago, while CSS animations were introduced this year as part of the drive toward an eventual CSS3 recommendation.

CSS, like SMIL, doesn’t have a “face” unless it is embedded or “inlined” correctly in a markup language; and to an extent, it does determine an exact layout for the markup file’s inner contents and embedded material. However, unlike SMIL, previous standards of CSS didn’t include provisions for animation, although animation in CSS has been proven to work in previous years at a very rudimentary and manual, mouse-driven (:hover) level prior to the introduction of larger animation attributes to the CSS implementation in WebKit this year.

At the same time, even with this recent CSS animation implementation, it is still (albeit slightly less) driven by the mouse, as the :hover and :mouseover tags’ capabilities have simply been expanded into the area of transformations (in other words, the attributes that allow for translations and rotations of elements).

So I could see the CSS3 transformations being geared exclusively to single hover-driven elements (like mousing over a hyperlink to see it expand or rotate into a bigger form), while SMIL’s animations can be applied to elements in the page that aren’t hover-driven, but click-driven (like clicking “play” to play a video and “stop” to stop it).

But that’s the best that I can see as far as a relationship between a transforming CSS3 and animating SMIL is concerned. There’s still no word yet on what embedding CSS into an SMIL file can do for the latter (vice versa, I believe, is impossible).

Neither of them have “faces” with which they can smile or style.

“Enhanced content”

OK, so in the movement away from proprietary source software models, you’ve had “free software” and “open source software” as a duo of thrilling buzzwords, with the accompanying licenses and license approval/endorsement non-profits, for the last decade or so, often meaning the same thing (also known as “FOSS”) more times than when they don’t. In recent years, Microsoft wanted to move in this direction with their term “shared source”, with the most liberal and mutual “shared source” licenses not being fully accepted by the OSI as being in the same spirit as other “open source” licenses.

However, who’d have known that there was a software license that contained more “free sauce” than what even the FSF and Debian-legal could stomach?

The HESSLA (Hacktivismo Enchanced-Source Software License Agreement), published by the Hacktivismo collective, intends to go further “left” of the common definitions of “free software” (as pursued by the FSF/GNU, BSDs, and Apache) by not only ensuring the mutual, sharing and openness of the software for all those who may download it, use it, modify it or sell it, but also placing restrictions on the usage of the software for the violation of human rights or making modifications to it that would be constituted in legal terms as “spyware”.

Of course, such clauses place the HESSLA outside of the DFSG and FSF’s fields of endorsement, as such clauses are seen as unnecessary and unrealistic in their enforcement.

But what if the HESSLA’s terms, notable for the idea of “enhanced source”, could be reapplied to a more popular (and enforceable?) realm of public acceptance as an “enhanced content” license?

As has the focus of software development shifted to a more volunteer/hobbyist/non-profit stance, the last few years have seen the growth in publishing and usage of “free content”, which grant mutual legal rights of access to recipients and developers in the same or similar spirit as “free software”; the same has happened with “open content” and “shared content”, which, like their software equivalents, allow for private and public viewing and usage of the content under increasingly restrictive terms in like order.

So what would an “enhanced content” (no, not the type that you see and hear on CDs and DVDs) license read like?

Well, like a few of the less-popular free content licenses out there, like the Against DRM 2.0 license, it would grant use of “related rights” in opposition to “reserved rights” and it would expressly prohibit the implementation of DRM controls in the modification of the content.

Also, like HESSLA, it would prohibit stuff like embedding spyware binaries inside image files, and that the file wouldn’t be used for communication that would be utilized by institutions with the purpose of violating human rights.

Such a license, I assume, would be popular for those who may frequent websites like Wikileaks, since information that is prohibited from usage or modification in the purpose of forcefully disrupting the freedom of information of any one individual would, theoretically, be useful in the resistance against such impending disruption.

At least, theoretically.

About the FSF’s stance on the iPhone and Embedded Mobile software

An FSF member has published his stance on the iPhone in the wake of the 3G release.

I’ll say that I agree with johns on his points concerning the iPhone blocking free software and free media; also I could see the problem with a phone that continues to provide feedback for proprietary mobile phone/navigation networks even when you turn it off.

However, then the article offers the FreeRunner device (which has the OpenMoko Linux distribution pre-installed) as an alternative to the iPhone.

Now, the OpenMoko platform has, for the last two years, been extolled on news websites as the quintessential free software smartphone OS, but I wonder about it and its proponents.

Primarily, I wonder why an “embedded” Linux distribution should be the poster child for the free software movement’s somewhat-consistent principle-based opposition to the devices preinstalled with the iPhone OS, considering that most times when we read about some GPL violation being taken to court by the Software Freedom Law Center, it is usually concerning some GPL’ed software being “embedded” into the hardware without full compliance with the GPL’s letter. When Richard Stallman talks about “Tivoization”, he is specifically talking about Embedded Linux being “too” locked down to comply fully with the GPL’s spirit.

Plus, when it was being extolled as the geek’s ideal mobile OS on Digg, one of the primary reasons for why the OpenMoko was extolled in such a way was because it supposedly followed the “PC” model where software and hardware modifications and extensions were allowable and addable.

So, if OpenMoko Linux is “more” extensible than the iPhone OS, then does it remain an “Embedded Linux” or does it become a simply “Mobile Linux” of the likes of Ubuntu MID?

And if the iPhone OS is “embedded” in how it supports SIM cards which are proprietary to the carrier (in this case, AT&T), then why should the FSF endorse an embedded Linux device that supports the same for a different carrier? Can you say “four more years“?

Instead, I wish that the FSF would endorse the development of PMP OSes that could compete with the iPhone OS via the iPod touch rather than via the iPhone.

Such PMP OSes like the iPod touch installation of the iPhone OS would be able to install free software, play/edit/distribute free media, and not give off a homing beacon that is proprietary to some carrier’s network.

Plus, it would (ideally) allow you to sync with any desktop client on any operating system of your choosing, not restrict you to syncing one library at a time, and even let you download files from the Internet from within the device’s browser.

Finally, the purpose of the speaker and receiver on the free software PMP OS would be to talk through open IM-based VOIP protocols, record conversations, and play sound out loud if the user chooses such an option.

It would essentially bypass the current focus of the majority of smartphone OSes on connecting with “data providers” and carriers, and give computing platforms to those who may not desire a laptop or anything bigger but aren’t as wild about getting cell phones (like myself).

At least, until cellular data plans are as cheap and as fast as a home Cable Internet plan (which won’t happen anytime soon).

More on furry and copyleft

I think I may have previously asked 

 about how WikiFur relates to copylefted media, but I don’t think that the topic of how the furry fandom makes use of copyleft/copycenter licenses hasn’t been fully explored yet.

I mean, sure, you already have the following freely-licensed media:

And also, the vast majority of text on WikiFur is licensed under the GNU FDL (which is also used by Wikipedia).

However, I wonder about other forms of furry media expression, such as sound and video. While the former hasn’t historically possessed an overbearing influence within the furry fandom (visual content reigns supreme), video and 2D/3D animation (via YouTube and other Flash video hosting services) is fast becoming an apparent, accessible and useful means for furry media expression.

The problems which I see with this rise of Internet-based furry video and animation are the following:

  • User licensing for the content uploaded to YouTube (currently the majority repository for furry video), say, if the user wants to license it under cc-by-sa-3.0, isn’t as explicit or standardized as on Flickr.
  • The user who makes the video may use clippings or samples from non-free, proprietary-licensed media (furry or non-), such as images, video, 3D models or sound, thus putting them into legal jeopardy.
  • The Flash video formats (FLV and SWF) are proprietary and legally restricted (until only recently) to the Adobe Flash player, while the Ogg Theora/Vorbis and SVG formats, which are open and freely-licensed formats, are in a very tiny minority in comparison to the usage frequency of FLV/SWF, Windows Media, DivX and QuickTime. Theora doesn’t even make a blip on the furry radar (not even on WikiFur, hence why almost all videos on WikiFur are either embedded or linked from elsewhere), AFAIK.

Thus, for Internet video posting, sharing and editing, the furry fandom is already in a deep, three-layer heap of legal shite.

(PS: For the record, I currently follow the “GNU school” in that I don’t consider any license that restricts Derivative or Commercial usage to be a copyleft license, hence the no-show of cc-by-nc and cc-by-nd in the above list of licenses).

BTW,

, Has WikiFur considered the idea of a “FurryMedia Commons” akin to the WikiMedia Commons as a repository for freely-licensed furry media that anybody can use in their own videos? This, of course, should probably only happen when WikiFur moves off to its own servers, whenever that may occur.

On a “Compiz Desktop Environment”

So Compiz/Fusion has gotten increasingly mature within the last few months, and the first demo of MPX+Compiz is up on YouTube. Also, a Compiz Fusion-based LiveCD (w/ Slax and GNOME) is in the works.

But what caught my eye in particular with all this hustle and bustle was this forum post by Oasisgames from May.

A Compiz Desktop Environment, he says?

Well, I think he has a point. A DE that builds off of a generic (and immensely popular) window manager like Compiz/Fusion by default could get a head start in comparison to the competing desktop environments which use their own in-house compositing window managers:

  • Xfwm (the first in-house WM with compositing capabilities) is used by XFCE
  • Metacity is used by GNOME
  • KWin is used by KDE

There aren’t that many other compositing window managers still in development, and the above-mentioned have only recently begun to expand their expandability in response from Compiz. Thus, Compiz is usually used to somewhat replace the default WMs in the above desktop environments.

But if those who’d wish for a Compiz-based desktop environment were to pick a widget toolkit, which one would they go with?

Well, at the moment, the dominant WTs in Linuxland are GTK+ and Qt: Qt4 was released last year (and with it, eventually, the controversial KDE4), and a GTK+ 3.0 is being currently discussed (and with its arrival, hopefully, will come GNOME 3.0 or GNOME 2.30…whatever).
Qt is seen as being much more young, hip, fresh and portable (and, much earlier on, proprietary and corporately-hogtied to Trolltech, now Nokia), while GTK+ is usually seen as the bothersome, doddering old coot that refuses to die (oh, and the developers of which complain “NO maynnnne…GTK+ 3.0 will break ABI stability, why can’t we stick with old faithful and just chill….”), but is cheaper to use.

For this reason, while Qt is almost exclusively identified with KDE, GTK+ is a tad bit more widespread, being used by GNOME, XFCE and ROX Desktop.

Oh, and it is used by the Cream Project, which plans to integrate Compiz-Fusion in the future.

I like how some free software engines are becoming more like modular commodities that can be used in a wide variety of settings. With Xandros buying Linspire (which bases their OS on Ubuntu) and potentially establishing Ubuntu (at a relatively infant stage in comparison to older proprietary operating system platforms) in the netbook market, and KDE and Apple’s WebKit becoming an extremely popular web rendering framework on a wide variety of operating system platforms (both FOSS and non-FOSS), the fact that free software falls into place for the purpose of longevity (in comparison to the proprietary, closed source software that is usually here today and gone next year) and still allows for a wider range of flexibility and extensibility makes it valuable for those who may prefer to take a different, more personally-appealing route with their own computing experience.

Also, someone’s finally developing a Linux take on Cover Flow: Gloobus.

Furry balkanization

Also known as: “The stuff you can find via WikiFur”

OK, long time since I’ve written something furry-related. But I wanted to ask about how the furry fandom and its associates (otherkin, ASFR, etc.) has tended to separate from the more mainstream websites and other services to create services of a similar purpose, but only catering to the furry fandom exclusively.

Of course, it started with the conventions, the text-based TELNET roleplaying kingdoms, and the IRC networks. Then you’ve had a myriad of furry specific art and story galleries (dating from the 90s), some of which have been created in the 2000s as reactions to what is often known as “fursecution” on more mainstream multimedia galleries, such as DeviantART, SheezyArt and y!Gallery. But it hasn’t stopped here.

Now, instead of just LiveJournal and MySpace, you have furry social networking sites. Instead of just Second Life and IMVU, you have furry graphical chat systems and virtual worlds. Also, furry news websites, furry image boards (in the style of 4chan and 2ch), furry auction sites, furry blog hosts, and other furry-specific manifestations of mainstream website types.

Now, IMO, furry communication does manage to attract a wider (and often, seemingly more “base”) audience and produce a potentially greater variety and amount of content when it is “forked” into its own communities. They also tend to attract and make contact with other interests that, previously, wouldn’t have had much to do with the furry fandom/genre/fetish/whatever except that they, also, have been informally classified as deviant, voyeuristic or simply strange and otherworldly.

It’s somewhat like trying to burrow into the earth to find gold, and then departing from your original party to seek out what other else may lie underneath, such as the mole men or something like that. Then the mole men hitch along in your auger vehicle to find other places and drill a hole that others can follow you through to the center of the Earth.

But what is to come of this furry forking that tends to occur mostly on the Internet? What if the ever-migratory furry fandom on the Internet ends up alot like, say, the Mormons who gradually inched further and further away from the solidly Protestant East Coast and Midwest of the United States to settle in that partly-desert area called Utah where they finally became the majority population (and became known for the Mormon Tabernacle choir’s Christmas singing on television)? Notably, along the way, the Latter-Day Saints left off a few communities that were led off the currently-dominant Brigham Young wing, some of which settled in other, more isolated areas of the Western United States; these particular, tiny church-centered communities, having secluded themselves in plain sight from the view of Protestant neighbors for years, have become infamous for the frequency of (“Bible-sanctioned”) polygamy that is found among the resident families, even though the Brigham Young wing of the CJCLDS had long ago abandoned the practice.

The furry fandom, long ago, crossed the threshold from general “art fandom” to “fetish fandom”, but has not yet finished that jump and probably will retain that dual nature for some time to come. But the furry fandom continues to accrue other fetishes, while maintaining a clear distinction between “mature” and “clean” (and sometimes “adult”).

So as it migrates further out “West” on the Internet, how will the furry fandom evolve? And where/when on the Internet will it become established as the de-facto subculture, with its own trends and mores and local sub-subcultures?

And how will the furry fandom’s Internet denizens, who are often stereotyped as thin-skinned and easily shaken in the face of criticism from non-furries (hence the creation of the separate, furry-optimized websites and networks), find settlement within it and with other furries? Will it happen once every fur’s interest and fetish is covered and addressed within a furry context? Will it happen once a distinct category of “furry personality/character”, or a personality that can successfully address any personal or social issue within an intra-furry context, is realized?

And why a “furry personality”, of all things? Stereotypically, when someone who is raised within a religious, political or ethnic group wants to give a personal view on a particular issue of a social, personal or environmental issue, the way that the person addresses that issue will be influenced in some form or fashion by his previous life experiences, a good deal of which took place within the social group and conditions in which he was raised. A Mormon will give his view of an issue in as far as what his life as a Mormon has dictated and impressed upon him, an Israeli will give his view from his experience as an Israeli, an African-American will give his view within his African-American experience, and so on.

Plus, any such social groups tend to congregate separately within their own geographical placements. This further generates the development of personal-social interactive features that are often only found within that group. Hence, the “personality” and the types of personality that are enjoyed and exhulted within that social group, while being either damned or not heard of in others.

So has the furry subculture gotten to that point where it has its own personalities, ideals and traditions that are distinct to it?

Apart from the “furry/anthropomorphic” part, I’d have to say No. From the beginning, the furry subculture has only been unique in its position as a metasubculture that draws from the strength of other subcultures and traditions: furry conventions were forked from the older comics/games/animation fandoms, furry online art galleries were forked from the general art galleries, furry roleplaying kingdoms were forked from the original MUDs, and so on. Furthermore, the furry fandom’s “mature” exhibitions tend to draw from other fetish subcultures, including BDSM, Bear, Hypnosis, etc. Even the cleaner depictions of furry multimedia have been based on older traditions, except that the “furry” part tends to be much more persistent and sticky for the individual than, say, the stereotypical Star Wars fan in the Imperial Stormtroopers uniform or the roaming children’s puppeteer troupes.

The balkanization of the furry fandom from the mainstream Internet has given visibility to this status as a persistent and multifaceted metasubculture that increasingly transcends boundaries of all sorts and purposes.

Probably the purpose of this balkanization of the furry fandom is to provide a “furry mirror” to the world, all that may dwell in it, and all the interests that they may possess and exhibit.

But is there more beyond the “furry Looking Glass”? Is there anything within the furry subculture that is only available within it and it alone?

Maybe we won’t find that out until the next decade comes.

WebKit, Mozilla, CSS and SVG

So now you have Apple’s WebKit pushing more for CSS extensions such as animations and transformations (at least because Apple would rather push for the <canvas> tag rather than endorse SVG) while you have Mozilla pushing SVG effects (at least because Mozilla would rather throw its support to SVG extensions rather than CSS, as seen with their relatively late tackling of the Acid2 test).

But where do the twain meet? How can SVG and CSS be reconciled as needing each other to create, say, better graphical web UIs?

Plus, what’s there to gain for Apple in the extension of CSS into the animation and variables department (which is already dominated by JavaScript and, to a lesser extent, vector graphics such as Flash/ActionScript and SVG/SMIL)?

Maybe CSS can be better used for HTML animation and effects while SMIL is better for SVG animation and effects?

Liberalization of domain naming

So today, ICANN unanimously approved a set of measures that are meant to liberalize the naming and ownership of domain names, such as .com and .org.

However, there have been quite a few previous initiatives which aimed for a liberalization of domain naming since the late 90’s. OpenNIC was one initiative, and it is cited on a WikiFur article because of the .fur domain name which never took off as a major alternative domain name due to the lack of recognition of OpenNIC domain names by major ISPs.

Does this mean that the alternative domain names pushed by OpenNIC and New.net can gain recognition if enough financial promotion comes their way?