To Do List for a lazy computer tech sector


Wasp2Computers were designed to reduce labor and the internet was designed to survive a nuclear war, but neither seems to be able to survive the vast cosmic intellects of a brain-dead tech sector. This blog about computer tech isn’t going to be polite, so if you have a sensitive mind, sod off now and take your pet thought leader with you.

For the last couple of decades, the sector has been obsessed with tinker toy gadgets, mobiles, and other crap. Not a lot has been mentioned about functionality and efficiency.

We’re still talking about binary code, switches, and baseline performance here, not some mystic experience. This is the computer tech of the very early Stone Age. It’s like someone invented fire and forgot what they were supposed to do with it. We’re talking about things with all the innate inscrutability of a light switch – Most of which don’t work as well as a light switch.

Job page 25No multi-value coding. No nonary code. No better conductors. No multilevel logic and coding. No attempts to turn this absurd current pack of trilobite droppings in to something really revolutionary. The computer tech sector, like everything else, has become another mucking middle class trade for plodders, mediocrities, and “bad boys” whose brains didn’t survive kindergarten.

O noble tech-peasants, thou hath inherited the dung hill.

We’re also still talking about Diplodocus era things like disk drives, noisy computers, pernickety prehistorically-oriented operating systems that can’t run things that older systems could run with ease and “upgrades” which equate to doing the same things much less efficiently.

American Valhalla page 28There’s probably some psychological justification, however unacceptable, for this. Perhaps all those meetings have finally driven the entire sector over the edge into dribbling, cliché-fornicating madness. Perhaps the eternal mindless drone of hack marketing has killed off any chance of anyone paying actual attention to functional issues.

This slideshow logic has also apparently lost track of what this technology is about, let alone what it can do when someone with any talent lifts a finger. So perhaps a little update on what you bastards are supposed to be achieving is in order.

Let’s review the To Do list:

000_02801. Computers which can work at human speeds for productivity, not like comatose rocks. “Not responding”, “Script error on page, therefore world ends” and similar farcical runtime issues are not, repeat not, acceptable. These things should be responding instantly. Some of us are busy, you know.


2. Disk drives – Why do these fossils still exist? Too damn innovative to create something better?

3. Dysentery by code flow chart – If you’ve ever done even rudimentary coding, you have to wonder what all these damn useless extra steps on every process are supposed to achieve. Click > on/off is always going to be better than some damn runtime soap opera of processes. Justify your existences in some other way.

4. Tech issues – Nobody cares. Whatever it is should work instantly, no exceptions.

5. Massive memory usage – Why? Didn’t occur to the little diddums? How much of this crap in a box actually needs to be there?

You're looking sane today6. “Everything has to be cutesy-hootsey mobilesy wobilesy” – Take a flying leap back up your arse and beat yourself to death with a widget. Some people don’t want to evolve into mere platforms for thumbs with the attention span of a fruit fly.

7. Hardware, schmardware – OK, you executive clown-breeders have to make a living, too, but paying for your little “innovations” with every new OS is absurd. Make the new stuff “premium” or some other fabulous new thousand year old marketing ploy, and deliver the functional stuff that’s actually needed with fewer Oscar ceremonies for Least Credible Tech Culture. (Unless it’s decent hardware; in which case where is it?)

8. The Internet of Things as some sort of messianic achievement – Like hell it is. If you can’t get a basic PC to work efficiently, how’re you going to get toasters to deliver babies, or whatever this Internet of Things is supposed to do? Lose the hype and deliver.

Put it this way – It’s 20 years later, and Win 95 and 98 are still looking pretty good, because they worked. Subsequent OS by Hissy Fit didn’t, and don’t. People hated them, and still do. Any theories on why that might be so?

Ask some prepaid God, or whatever it is you believe in. Don’t ask the users. You won’t understand it, and won’t like it. Above all, do not engage in anything remotely resembling actual quality evaluation. It may eat you.

LOGO with Sydney Media Jam edit 300PPI



Why do poor people support conservatism?


Wasp2It’s one of the great mysteries. The people who are most despised by conservatives support conservatism. Maybe it’s upbringing, maybe it’s religion, maybe it’s just good ‘ol stupidity. The fact seems to be that these people support those who couldn’t be paid to spit on them.

Conservative policies target health, education, employment, and basic civil rights. They’re usually a minority with clout far beyond their democratic demographics. The NRA’s total membership is about 1% of the US population, yet they dictate gun policy to the GOP, which has about 20-25% of the popular vote, (bearing in mind that only about 40% of eligible people in the US actually vote)

The 1% has 60% of the wealth, and you can assume they won’t be sharing that wealth with the poor any time soon. 158 families in the US, (including, ironically someone with a family name which is part of the German side of my family) are providing 50% of the GOP donations for 2016.

American Valhalla page 28 Are we poor enough yet page 11 Are we poor enough yet page 12  Are we poor enough yet page 14 DC Doom page 28  DC Doom page 30Conservatism is about government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich. It always has been. The Roman Republic was split along economic/social lines, in the patricians and the plebeians. There’s only one way to cross this divide, and it’s with money, not democratic principles of equality.

When it comes to support, there’s also the “status” factor, aka the “social delusions” factor. Voting for the rich means “me too”, in many ways. Pathetic as this may be, it’s understandable, if you consider “me too” to mean aspirations.

Less credible is the fact that it’s also wishful thinking on the part of those whose social status needs some work. Modern conservatism is pretty trashy in some ways. It gives the illusion that even the sour little bastards in middle management and the self-promoters in finance and media are somehow turned in to conservatives by association.

They’re not. They’re still the same rat like, untrustworthy, backstabbing suburban slobs from Schmuck City, but they’re wearing suits and hobnobbing with real people, so they look like somebodies. They come and go. For every pathetic blue jacket and sycophantic boyish college hairstyle, about 100 of these pseudo-guys pass through the bowels of real conservative dynamics per day. They’re in, and then they’re out. Nobody knows or cares who they are, but they think they’re part of the machinery. A few may make careers out of it; most won’t.

(Compare these Santa’s Little Helpers to lobbyists, who make millions with a few friendly phone calls and some schmoozing. The party hacks are basically cornflakes in this environment.)

What’s really bizarre, and almost totally counterintuitive, is the superficiality of the conservative image in this regard. The forever-yelling-at-top-of-voice-online conservatism isn’t conservatism. It’s paid cheerleading, by people who are “political outworkers”. It’s also an invented ideology, telling people who to root for, and if you look at the online threads, they even use the same phrases all the time.

If you’re thinking that recruiting the wannabes, losers and underachievers in to this environment is easy with a whiff of money, bingo. They get to call themselves conservatives, which admittedly does sound a lot nicer than “social corpses”, and get to wear buttons, etc.

They are then pointed at “the enemy”, which in American politics is other Americans. They are told there’s such a thing as The Left, and that these people are trying to steal their rights, which like all good conformists, they’ve totally abrogated in the name of the word “conservativism”.

Check out the working logic:

  • Civil rights = Now whiter and brighter than ever.
  • Communism = Anything which involves paying with your own money for anything.
  • Constitution = Excuse for self.
  • Corporations = Good. Corporate laws and regulations = Bad.
  • Democrats = Bad.
  • Environment = Excuse for crimes and plea bargains.
  • Earth = Some place on the Discovery Channel.
  • Education = How to find FOX on the remote.
  • Eisenhower = Some guy.
  • Family values = Now with auditing options.
  • God = Excuse for anything, one of the best.
  • GOP = Good.
  • Guns = Good.
  • Hate groups = Downmarket.
  • Health = Illegal for anyone in lower income brackets.
  • Law enforcement = Highly profitable, good franchising opportunities.
  • Libertarians = Better than good.
  • Lincoln = Some guy.
  • Military budget = Self-made billionaires who did it their way.
  • Nixon = Good.
  • Not shooting people = Bad.
  • Oil = Good.
  • Organized crime = Never heard of it.
  • Pollution = Death for others. (Conservatives are immune to poisons and diseases)
  • Poor people = Bad criminals.
  • Poverty = Cheaper than jails for the poor.
  • Public money = Your very own personal property, grab a few truckloads.
  • Racism = The easy way to avoid actual democracy.
  • Reagan = Better than good.
  • Religion = Excuse for self and personal behavior.
  • Rich people = Good saints.
  • Roosevelt, Franklin Delano = The Anti-Christ, responsible for the New Deal and the theory of treating other Americans like human beings.
  • Roosevelt, Theodore = Some guy.
  • Taxes = Bad communism, especially if payable by you.
  • World War 2 = The triumph of democracy, forget FDR and Truman.

The fact that few people on the other side believe it’s worth talking to conservatives on any subject is based on this set of cookie cutter values. All issues boil down to these basic good/bad equations. Would you bother talking to anyone who’s going to instantly categorize any incident according to these values?

The poor are typically a few generations behind everyone else, in both amenities and social knowledge. They’re the economic hicks from the sticks, and if they support something because it looks good and pays money, it’s understandable. If it’s easier to understand than the multi-faceted, very unpleasant complexities of modern issues according to the other side, that’s understandable too. It’s just that it’s so absurd.

LOGO with Sydney Media Jam edit 300PPI

Why art and pomposity don’t mix


Wasp2I was looking at the term “outsider art” today with the natural cynicism of a person with two professional artists in the family. Apparently “outsider art” includes a large amount of ideas and content lifted from the art of the early and mid-20th century. To put it another way, just more recycling by people with no actual ideas, as usual.

The exact description of outsider art is “…a label created by French artist Jean Dubuffet to describe art created outside the boundaries of official culture; Dubuffet focused particularly on art by those on the outside of the established art scene, such as psychiatric hospital patients and children.”

Historically, as well as literally, outside the boundaries of official culture also invariably means decades out of date. Presumably, having been institutionalized, one may be considered “one of us” by that select group of cretins who’ve been holding back the creative arts for centuries.

The creative process coverInsider art, by contrast, usually has the warm spiritual glow of a supermarket and much higher prices. This is The Elite at work, and a sorry spectacle it usually is. I’ve actually seen quite good brush artists using rollers.

If art is expression, and new art is new expression, it may be safely assumed that being taught how to express is dangerous, probably fatal, to real creativity on any level. Apparently the mentally ill are more creative, or at least different, than those who aren’t, according to some theories.

The search for outsider art on Google produces a blaze of predictable stuff. If you’ve never actually used a brush, it seems eclectic. If you have, you can see a few issues with the levels of flow and spend quite a lot of time wondering if the artists even saw the flow of the paint. How paint behaves is a real journey of discovery, if you can be bothered to pay attention.

Subjects vary from a seeming fascination with the hideous to a fascination with acceptance. “It looks like…” has never been a recommendation for anything. How can there be an institutionalized way of expressing something individual, to start with? “Looks like” can’t be purely individual.

Meanwhile, a small but interesting gem emerged in this turgid search among the pompous and the pointless. This painting is credited by one site to Stephanie Louis, but it looks nothing like any of her other work.

Outsider artThe only site which has it is considered a risk by Firefox, so I won’t give the link, but check it out:

This is no trivial piece of work. If it was in gold leaf, it would be called ultra-rococo. If it had received any attention, it would be called great, even by the institutionalized morons. It’s no mere visual M&M, either. It’s a collage, with paint and considerable depth. It takes a while to really see it. If this person is mentally ill, most other painters are mentally dead. Forest floors, let alone artists, could take lessons from it.

… And how did I find it? By looking through the morass of outsider art, and finding the “mentally ill section” as though it was the canned soup section. It wasn’t on special, and there were no promos. Enough people liked it to put a total of about four pictures of it online, this one here being the fifth.

Job page 12How did art suddenly get so pompous? For a medium which developed on the walls of caves, this claim to superior status is pretty parlous, as well as annoying. I see no difference between the animals who talk about splashes of color and the infinitely patronizing “we” who define art by murdering it with descriptions.

A real institution would have encouraged the painter of this little yellow gem, and the idea would have blossomed in to a virtual garden of paintings. No such luck with the ideologically fossilized, of course.

This is the logic of artistic fossilization as applied to this painting:

The painter must have been mentally ill, because the painting technique is so different. We don’t teach people to paint like that. (Why not?)

Good, nice painters use the bloodsucking, bitchy global art racket to sell their paintings. (Thank god for eBay!)

No dogmatic, senile bastard has sponsored it, so it’s not insider art. (How awful.)

My questions –

Which would you rather hang on your wall, the little yellow painting or the sort of duly approved bit of mundane visual dung which is so inescapable in art galleries and museums? Which is more artistic and expressive?

Did ponderous, pretentious pomposity pay any role in your decision regarding what art you’d prefer to live with?

Did the “mental illness” angle enter in to your thinking?

Point made.

LOGO with Sydney Media Jam edit 300PPI

The awful risks of being articulate


Wasp2To be articulate is now a very risky occupation. People might think you know what you’re talking about. People might worry that you think you know what you’re talking about. It’s gruesome.

The truth is that being articulate is becoming far more diversified, evolving to fit new niches in society and other vacant spaces. Articulation is now even gnawing at management science and similar large ponderous entities on the fertile prairies of human/PR gibberish.

The diversification of articulate expression has now been systemized. Nobody had anything better to do, so they systemized it. It was either that or get paid for doing something.

The results, however, are interesting, providing a wealth of terminology which if nothing else will get fruit flies to avoid you:

Articulout- The sort of unsavoury person who will be articulate to the point of being considered a threat.

Articuloot- The material gains cause by being articulate until people pay you to stop.

Articulet- The process of renting out articulation to people who need it or who are sufficiently insane to pay for it.

Job page 13Articulose/Articuloser- The methodology of engaging in articulate discourse and beating yourself. Also rapidly becoming a popular method of suicide.

Articulust- The sexual form of articulate expression, usually encountered in dire fiction novels in which the description of the anatomy of non-existent people and too many verbs takes over from any possible form of information.

Articuless- The common, vulgar description of those who’ve taken vows to be as inarticulate as they can, in the interests of a better society.

Articuleaf- A generic term comparing articulate expressions. This includes deciduous expression, in which the articulated statement falls to the ground and rots, and evergreen articuleaves, which are the antithetic form.

Articulost- Person/persons so lost in articulation as to be totally unaware of the subject of articulation. Usually also very unsure why they should care.

The creative process coverArticulater– The brilliant statement you should have made at the time, normally at least a few decades too late.

Articulending- The method and process of borrowing articulation until lynched by its rightful owners.

Articulugubrious- The state of being simultaneously articulate and butt ugly.

Articuleer- The process of being a pervert while being articulate.

Articulapdance– A seductive form of articulate expression usually involving thematic G strings and unprovoked cosmetic surgery on a large scale.

Articulobotomy- Self expressive surgery methodology involving one or more of the above processes to the point at which your intellect gives up and leaves.

Articuliability- Risk management, usually lousy, in articulate expression.

Articuloathing- To be articulate about something you hate/despise and force everybody to listen to it.

So there, already, even.

LOGO with Sydney Media Jam edit 300PPI






Should religion be privatized? The Ellis Defence


Question crossOne of the most cynical, and arguably insane, recent legal efforts from “religion” is a thing called the Ellis Defence. This defence claims churches can’t be sued because they don’t exist as legal entities.

When you see the endless stories of abuse and criminal acts by “believers” of all faiths, you have to wonder about the Ellis Defence. Do these people believe a word of any of it? Do the “religions”? Child abuse, money laundering, terrorism, fraud, brainwashing, attacks with weapons, you name it; this word has a long rap sheet.

It’s a sort of character reference to modern religion at its worst. It holds that those operating schools, etc. can’t be sued because they’re not legal entities like incorporated bodies or natural persons. That means there’s nobody to sue. This spurious, arguably absurd, defence has resulted in a history of unsuccessful court claims by victims of abuse.

(Note: The Ellis Defence is cited here as a systematic approach to defending against sexual abuse claims. It’s the logic of the defence and its exceptional moral cynicism which is being addressed here. The Ellis Defence, if nothing else, is a symptom of a mindset which actively obstructs natural justice and a symptom of an institutional mentality. )

Fine, except non-existent entities can’t own property, can’t hold money, and can’t really claim to have any legal rights, either. The mentality of evading the law, and protecting abusers, not victims, meanwhile, is plainly evident. That can’t be, and usually isn’t, tolerated in any society. Nor is it a defence against vicarious liability.

Question crossAlso delusional to the nth degree is the fact that people can be sued for their own actions or complicity in those actions, quite regardless of the legal mumbo-jumbo of the Ellis Defence. The Ellis Defence effectively abrogates all claims to ownership or legal entitlements, too, and doesn’t/shouldn’t in fact even pretend to protect churches, perpetrators, or anyone else from lawsuits or prosecution. This defence is supposed to be clever, and courts have actually had to listen to it in all its turgid, unworkable majesty.

Which raises a much more fundamental issue – Should or can religions exist at all as undefined legal non-entities?

Maybe it’s my German Lutheran family background, but I’ve never been much impressed with institutionalized insanity. Much less so with insane institutions that won’t even admit they exist to avoid taking responsibility for actual crimes. This pile of evasions heaped upon delusions barely qualifies as third rate stand-up comedy, let alone a rational legal or moral argument.

The idea of privatizing religion comes with a few standout issues:

  1. A legal entity has responsibilities which cannot be divested.
  2. Churches or religious groups as private entities would have to take the onus of any legal claim.
  3. These groups, as part of larger, presumably also “legalized” entities, would effectively act as franchises, with the principle of vicarious liabilities applied to any malfeasances, crimes and malpractices by those entities.
  4. Courts don’t have to listen to mumbo-jumbo anyway. They can hold that any plaintiff has the right to claim damages for an injury, regardless of the patent absurdities of defendants claiming non-existence. Defendants may be defined by the claims. Privatization simply calls a spade a spade and applies the necessary legal dynamics.
  5. If religious groups are held to be or deemed to be entities for the purpose of legal action, privatization of these groups simply defines them as responsible parties.

Question crossAs you can see, this lengthy series of statements of the obvious has a point. The whole idea of practicing religion is directly affected in multiple ways. Does Religion R Us Inc., a Delaware company, have the Biblical status of the apostolic succession, for example? How about God’s Little Helpers LLC?

Better than a non-existent successor, for sure, but is it within the scope of religious traditions? No. Nor is being non-existent.

It can be argued that worship is also by legal definition a private thing. Nobody, let alone a non-existent legal entity, has the right to tell you what to believe. Freedom of worship is a basic right in most modern nations.

Those who have been given the right and the privilege to teach religion should be aware that claiming not to exist isn’t a great way of representing a belief or oneself. Maybe God’s Own Shelf Company doesn’t look too righteous on the face of the arguments so far, but it’s more righteous than the existing cowardly farce.

The question is whether the world’s religions have the sincerity, aka common sense, to admit they exist. Imagine this logic:

  • We teach the Word of God.
  • We refuse to admit we exist.
  • Therefore, you must believe us.

Not exactly sparkling logic, is it?

It can also be argued after all these thousands of years that religions owe humanity quite a lot. Without the support of people who do exist, they wouldn’t exist. All those billions and massive monuments around the world didn’t just happen. The moral debt is arguably higher. Why should non-existent entities be raised morally above those who do exist, legally or otherwise?

Question crossSo – Should people have the right to be “churches unto themselves”? They might as well be, if the churches and other groups actually refuse to exist.

There’s a less obvious pantheon of issues here. These are a few highlights:

These non-existent institutions refuse to acknowledge any other spiritual experiences other than those they “approve”. Imagine being approved by something that also says it doesn’t exist. Reassuring, eh?

  • They call other beliefs myths and denigrate them, while “not existing”.
  • They obstruct science and medicine, while refusing to exist themselves.
  • They accuse the victims of crimes of immorality which can be almost anything, while upholding their moral models.
  • They demand the right to dictate behaviors, while claiming not to exist.
  • They don’t even have the guts to claim to exist in this life, but claim to be the sole sources of knowledge about the afterlife?

Can something which actually doesn’t exist claim not to exist? There’s and old saying – “Where do you look for the Devil? In a church.”

Luther was probably right. Nobody needs non-existent institutions any more than they need extant corrupt institutions. If belief were truly free, would this situation arise? I doubt it.

LOGO with Sydney Media Jam edit 300PPI

What ARE humorless people?


Wasp2Ever have that strange instinctive impression that you’re dealing with something really weird, when you’re talking to humorless people? Have to say, as someone who cracks jokes on a more or less continuous basis, it’s a feeling I’ve had all my life, and I could do without it.

Humor is one of the orgasms of the soul. It’s like music, great books, having fun, and those truly magical experiences which mentally do last forever. There are jokes I’m still laughing about, decades later.

To clarify – By humorless, I don’t mean when you don’t find something funny. Some things aren’t funny. I mean when you don’t see absurdities, ridiculous situations, and the many strange manifestations of humorous thinking.

The things people don’t find funny can be a very mixed bag of situations, other people, and issues. The connection between “fun” and “funny” and “not fun” and “not funny”, not at all coincidentally, is the difference between what you like and what you avoid, respectively.

I just don’t get humorless people. Why would anyone sentence themselves to a life without laughter? I ask WHAT they are, not who they are, because people are supposed to have a sense of humor. Physically, laughter releases endorphins, the body’s equivalent of opium, a painkiller and recreational drug which many great writers and artists have used as a sort of perspective.

So it follows that people who don’t laugh miss out on these things. Completely. The trouble is that there’s such a thing as a humorless culture. You see it in the workplace. You see it in stand-up comedy, where either the comedians or the audience or both seem almost afraid to laugh. Continue reading