Rabbit Creative

It’s sad when common sense is eaten alive by fear and a cover-your-ass attitude.

I’m glad I was given the opportunity to see it firsthand, but I’m disheartened that it was there to see in the first place.

An entity claiming responsibility for all happenings that lacks the resources, expertise or motivation to actually act responsibly is not an entity that should exist. Doing otherwise sounds like a narcissistic god delusion to me. Proponents of god, like those of big government, claim their benevolent dictator can do more that it can.

The government (state-level government, I’m assuming here) dipped its creeping fingers into something it didn’t understand, or, more likely, didn’t care to understand. The result is a free iPhone, some nice code, decent designs and another nail in the coffin of the “land of the free and the home of the brave”.

Free indeed.

I’ve loosely followed the happenings over at the Consumerist for about a year now. Reading articles here and there and reading about half the comments for each article.

The articles themselves are decent. They’re revealing and interesting to read.

Some of the comments, however, are a different story. The following were taken from this article:

Our bank has me properly trained.

All I had to do was upgrade my account to playa level, in accordance with the higher balance, and I could use a lot more of my money daily.

Wanting to make a purchase @ Best Buy, and he Banks with Bank of America?? That’s like admitting you are a stupid consumer.

If you can afford to put it on the debit card, you can just as well put it on the credit card and immeidately pay down the balance without incurring interest. This is credit cards 101 stuff here LOL.

They reek of playing by the rules and using workarounds to “correct” an issue that, in my mind, shouldn’t have been an issue in the first place.

On a positive note, there are some level-headed, reasonable commentators as well.

I think the OP has a right to be mad. It’s HIS money.

“OP” means “original poster,” and usually refers to the author of the article about which people are commenting.

I think it is a big deal that he was denied access to his own money. It’s not Bank of America’s money, it’s his money.

I’d like to focus on this comment for a moment:

I am so sick of consumers like you who think there’s no problem anywhere until something happens to you personally, and that if problems happen to others its their fault because they are not as slick or whatever as you are.

See anything odd?

This part, I am so sick of consumers like you…

I’ve been noticing this house of mirrors kind of dichotomy for quite some time.

It’s one in which I must be very careful about the language I use. Each word is both ally and enemy. Use a word in one context and it becomes a scholar of truth. The same word in a different context can turn on you like beaten dog. And some words, ought not be used at all.

In its common usage, “consumer” is one of them.

Using the term “consumer” as a description of a human being is like throwing your chips into the pile. You’ve agreed to play the game. Their game. A game you cannot win because of the very definition of the word.

Sure, everyone consumes. Consume food. Consume “goods.” Consume air. “Consumer” doesn’t seem like such a bad word. Does it?

Have you ever met someone that was able to argue their way into or out of anything? Regardless of how ridiculous their stance may have sounded in the beginning, you were eventually able to see their point of view.

Like most things, language isn’t permanent. Quite literally, a word means no more and no less than what I say it does. In my mind and in my communications. You can agree or disagree to use it in the same way. The practice of “rewiring” words is deceptive. It’s also common. The best defense is to be aware of it.

Words are like opinions. Opinions are subjective. You understand what I am saying because of the agreed upon definitions of the words I am using. Or you don’t. Or you understand some, but not all. Or you understand, but disagree. The last one is rare.

Now, imagine for a moment that you and I are good friends with staggering wealth. We agree to redefine a word, say, “consumer,” to mean “unit of consumption that leads to profit.”

With our financial influence we begin to use the word “consumer” in all communications. The word, to a degree, fits, or makes sense, in the contexts it is being used, and so catches on.

Finally, you take the bait. “I’m a consumer, damn it! I have rights!”

No, no you don’t. Humans have rights. Consumers, per the game (context) you’re playing, do not.

Same word, different contexts. I use the word context here to describe a social climate. By social climate I mean a rather large group of humans who subscribe to a certain set of rules. This is that. This is considered good form, that isn’t. So on and so forth. I don’t call it culture because I believe culture to mean something produced serendipitously over time, not arbitrarily as in my above example.

Now we come full circle. The very name of the website, “consumerist.com,” leads me to believe the people engaged therein have all agreed to step into yours and mine’s house of mirrors. No matter how much progress they make in “improving” it, we will always be the game masters. Should they come close to completion, with a stroke of the pen we will return them to the beginning. New restrictions, new technicalities, new rules. Unending rules. Arbitrary rules. Rules designed to keep them minimally satisfied, and always busy enough to prevent them from really thinking about the situation they’re in.

If you’ve come this far, and I trust you have because I believe you to be intelligent, it is of the utmost importance that you realize there are games within games. Breaking out of one is often not good enough. There are many games we have been fooled into playing.

I’ll end this by saying that simple is good. If a system is so big you can’t hold the entire thing in your head at once, it’s too complex. Break it down and distribute. The Constitution is a small, relatively simple document. The IRS tax code is a large, complex document.

I’m constantly at war with myself and other forces to “get the simplest thing that can work” up and running quickly and at the same time not writing absolutely shitty code that has to be massaged a week later.

Actually, it’s not the massaging that I mind — I like refactoring code. What bothers me is it never feels like there’s enough time or emphasis given to creating time to go back and refactor. It’s always about moving forward and making it work, regardless of the quality of work being done. So long as it looks good on the outside.

It feels like the only real option I have is to “slow down.” I think this coming week I’ll do that. Slow down, but remain steady. Slow and steady.

I was browsing various “time management” applications and found this doozy of a site by the name of Data Basics. They proudly flaunt this bit of fascist literature…

Control. Compliance. Acceptance. ROI.

I guess the people in charge believe ROI is achieved only by control, compliance and acceptance. What a world…

Die-hard Mechwarrior fans rejoice! I have a found a guy that has both soundtracks (scores, actually) available on his website: Battletech Sounds.

Make sure you drop homebrew a line (anakin.george NO-SPAM gmail) and let him know you love him and want to have his babies (but that he should stop endorsing Real Player).

If a problem becomes more difficult than I feel it should be I decompose it. I take a step back, look at my surroundings and ask, “what am I trying to solve? Who are the characters in my story and what guides them to do the things they do?”

It sounds epic, poetic and a little corny, but it’s how I think. And it’s how I program. I don’t like solving complicated tasks. I like breaking complicated tasks into many smaller, manageable tasks and solving those. Once each smaller task is solved, I script a dialog between them to achieve the desired effect.

Imagine a movie in which there was only one actor. That actor would have to play the good guy, the bad guy, the dame, all supporting characters and the director’s cameo. Such a movie would have to be classified as a psychological thriller, because it would take an insane person to be able to keep everything together. While the move may have been fun to make (for a sadist), few members of the audience would be able to follow the movie all the way through.

So as your audience leaves the theater, as your programmers leave your project, you realize that being clever and complicated may not have been the best choice.

No, I don’t think I’m a bad programmer. I think I’m a programmer with taste, my own style and a little class. Instead of banging the keys for eight hours, I spend an hour drawing with a pen and paper. Then I spent twenty minutes staring at the wall. I get up, walk around and stretch my legs. I take a piss. When I come back to the computer I have an intricate web of many, simple objects with obvious names and well-defined behaviors. At the end of the day I’m proud of the code I wrote.

And most importantly, I don’t dread coming back to it the next day.

Whether I’m programming, playing a game or reading online, that’s precisely what I’m doing on my Mac.

Whether I’m programming, playing a game or reading online, I’m reassuring Windows that yes, that is precisely what I want to do.

Hi guys! Some people are way too uptight about what they think is “critical information.” And don’t worry, I still believe it’s unethical to ever censor anything, but I promise I will get things straightened out. Until then, enjoy this picture of someone’s mom (maybe).

Fear is a powerful motivator. And it’s fear that has led us to where we are. Fear that if we don’t strike first, someone else will.

And that’s it. That’s our entire story. Groups of people, across great distances and long time periods were afraid that someone would come and usurp their way of life, so they sought to do the same to others. Only they would do it first.

“You’re with us or against us!” comes from behind locked doors. The speaker’s forehead sweaty and furrowed. Grimy, shaking hands wield knives they hope to use against those who feel differently. You might think that behind that door all is merry and bright, but I say nay, even amonst themselves they will cut and chew. Break each other’s necks and struggle internally about a notion unaccepted. A notion they lied about to get in in the first place. A notion that, voiced, would end their tenure inside that coveted room.

All this is in response to fear. Fear of the unknown. Fear of self. Absolute terror in being alive. Those that hate, fear the most.

Know fear. Know yourself. Know peace.

The world is like a ride in an amusement park…

A comment at Human Events:

Its all about power and control, freedom has to many elements which cannot be controlled, watch zeitgeist movie and learn! there is nothing you can do about it, the world will be better for it. your not Americans, your not Canadians, your not Mexicans, your humans and one day the world will be one place and one government. The world is a single organism and an organism at war with itself is doomed. Its all for the greater good. The revolution is now and you don’t even know it! mwah ha ha!

The part in bold was quoted from Zeitgeist.

I’m not certain of the commenter’s viewpoint or intentions, but it appears as though he’s using the film against itself.

But unified government is not the answer. The world is at war, not because people are inherently bad, but because we have been taught that we are inherently bad and need to be “governed.”

Again, that’s fear talking. Censorhsip is essentially not wanting, or stopping, someone from thinking or seeing something. Fear is an easy way to do that. Let’s not think about how things could be because the enemy is just over that hill, waiting to strike! Follow me, a ‘fraidy cat… believe as I do that someone out there is trying to hurt you… but if you don’t believe me, I’ll hurt you…

It’s just a ride. And rollercoasters are scary. Don’t hold me hostage though; it’ll be over soon.

This post is erratic. However, upon watching this, most importantly between the 25th and 29th minute, and then reading, or re-reading as the case may be, I feel you will better understand. That is, if you wish to understand.

The audience member’s question was that in people changing what the bill of rights says changes our actual rights. The speaker is saying that no, changing the text does not change rights, because rights transcend the text. He, like myself, and probably even you, have not grown with what the text implies; we have not embodied it. Because we are not fighting for those rights we do not define ourselves by those rights. Instead, we read the text, and then try to apply what we understand of it through our lens of reality — the reality of blockbuster movies, pathetic government, invasive advertising, TV and computer screens. Want for a lethal weapon could certainly seem unnecessary when the only bad guys are on your computer screen or tucked far away in another country.

The very concept of a right is just that — a concept. An idea. A notion. A belief. Your rights are gone the moment you cease to believe you have them.

It is here we get into the dirty details. If I believe I have a right to kill people, then I very well have that right. You, however, may disagree with that right. What happens after that I leave to you to decide.

In general the speaker is saying: here are ten rights that people who lived before us believed all people have at birth and forever more. I happen to agree with those ten rights, therefore I stand before you today telling you about them.

In a word, he’s marketing. He’s marketing the concept, idea, notion and belief that these ten rights are inalienable, that they are part of being alive.

What happens is that people agree or disagree with that belief. Those who agree will stand up and do what they feel is necessary to preserve those rights. Those who do not agree, or are uncertain, will let others act for them.

And that is where America stands. Uncertain, unaware, uncaring. It’s a cultural thing.

Compared to myself, and I bet compared to you who is reading this, our forefathers had difficult lives. They sailed across the sea. They fought battles. They argued amongst themselves on how to run a country. You and I sit in our chairs reading on the Internet, listening to radio on our stereos. If we’re thirsty we get up and grab a root beer.

Our mindset is probably very different than that of ANYONE who lived two-hundred-plus years ago. The idea that anyone can own and carry a weapon probably seems scary.

But have you ever asked why? And when you were provided with an answer, did you ask why again? And again and again, over and over until the person you were asking went mad?

I was recently called a rebel. I was offended. I’m not a rebel, I simply like asking questions. Questions that, I have good reason to believe, some would rather I not ask…