Okay, I discovered this great site some time ago, but for some reason, hesitated to blog about it. I guess I hate to gush over something, especially if I'm not getting paid anything for it, but it's really hard for me to be critical of this site. Comic Book Plus is a great site with tons of public domain comic material in their archive. Old comic books, comic strips, fanzines, pulp magazines, and a few other odd things are available at their site, free to read online or download. They currently have almost 18,000 books, and are adding more every day.
A lot of the material is the more obscure stuff that you've probably never heard of, but you'll also find some suprisingly well-known characters in the archive, due to carelessness or negligence or who knows what on the part of certain comic book companies. The original Captain Marvel, Plastic Man, The Spirit, Blackhawk, The Phantom Lady, and more.
You'll also find some great early work by many of comics' great artists, although unless you know what you're looking for, you'll merely stumble across them. For example, Wally Wood doing the artwork for an adaptation of one of the Fu Manchu novels, in the early '50s.
And naturally, there's much to explore for the historical buffs. See the earliest comics transition from illustrated pulps to superhero fare. Check out the wider variety of genre material from the 1950's, when superheroes were a dying fad. Horror, romance, westerns, funny animals and humor, science fiction, crime fiction, and even some decent detective fiction.
I've long been a fan of mysteries and detective fiction, since my childhood days of reading Nancy Drew and The Hardy Boys, and it's always bothered me how little detective fiction there's been in comics, at least since the 1970's, when I started reading comics. But there were more mysteries and detective fiction in the older comics. Not only were there short-lived comic book series of Charlie Chan, The Saint, and Sherlock Holmes, but there were others that were conceived as comic book characters, and not merely adaptations from prose, such as Ken Shannon, Private Detective.
Besides the large archive of a wide variety of material, the site itself has some nifty features, too. If you create an account, the site will track what you read for you, and let you create bookmarks and such. There's a forum for discussions, of course, and as I already mentioned, you can read the comics online if you want, without having to download and decompress them to your hard drive. Save the hard drive space for just your favorites.
There's probably more that I've forgotten to mention, but why don't you go check it out for yourself? You're bound to find something you'll like, whatever your tastes.
3/16/2013
A Libertarian View on Religion
Recently, a religious person asked me if I was happy about being an atheist. I wasn't expecting such a question, and mumbled something along the lines of "I guess so". But upon a moment's reflection, I realized that there's a problem not just with the answer, but with the question. Why should there be any significant emotional content in being an atheist?
Assuming that one is not simply being contradictory or rebellious for its own sake, atheism is merely a logical conclusion based upon available evidence (or lack of evidence). So why should I be particularly happy about being atheist anymore than I should be happy about the sun rising every morning, or that letting go of an object above ground level causes it to fall to the ground? Atheism is just a rational conclusion, and it is probably best not to invest too much emotion into it. There's no particular point in being smugly confident about being an atheist for example, or to be overly pessimistic about a lack of an afterlife. If you're too emotional about atheism, then you're probably believing in it for the wrong reasons, and should re-think why you are an atheist.
In a related point, there is the question of how libertarians "ought" to treat religion. From a strictly technical standpoint, libertarians should be probably be neutral about religion, as long as religion is not an excuse to initiate force or fraud against other people. In short, libertarianism is *merely* a political philosophy, and has little or nothing to say about anything that is not political. A person should thus be free to believe in any nonsense they want to believe in, as long as they are not aggressing against other people.
But if there is no God and no afterlife, aren't religious people perpetuating a fraud against other people? Not necessarily. While there are no doubt some people who are hypocrites or outright liars, and merely use religion as a means of controlling and manipulating other people, many religious people truly believe in the tenets of their religion, and thus cannot be said to be initiating fraud against others. You can't be engaging in fraud if you believe it yourself.
Nonetheless, even though libertarianism doesn't specifically preclude religious beliefs, there may still be a problem with having religious convictions. Libertarianism is essentially just a basic principle, the non-aggression principle, followed through to its logical implications and conclusions. Religious convictions are essentially beliefs held for decidedly non-logical reasons. Thus, while being an atheist doesn't require emotional content, being religious certainly does require an emotional investment on the part of the religious person, and a decided lack of reason and logic to continue to hold religious beliefs.
The mind tends to work hard to justify emotional beliefs, resulting in such things as alleged logic of Intelligent Design, and its supposed superiority over evolutionary theory. And if you can believe in one impossible thing, then why not two, or even, like Alice in Wonderland, six impossible things before breakfast?
The libertarian who holds illogical religious beliefs is thus at greater risk for distorting libertarian views to justify an illogical implication or conclusion. For example, libertarians who believe in immigration restrictions. Admittedly, religious belief is not the only illogical view that puts one at risk for distorting libertarianism. People who believe in the supernatural, UFO's, or conspiracy theories are also exhibiting illogical or irrational tendencies.
Religious people are still in the great majority of the mainstream, however, and religion still strongly influences our society. If you think about it, aren't devout Christians as much a threat, if not a greater threat, to our Western intellectual values and the Classical Liberal tradtion than are believers of other religions, like Muslims? Christians are in a much better position to distort and undermine the culture of science and free inquiry than any Muslim could be. Perhaps Christian Conservatives and liberal hippies are both on the wrong side of the Culture War.
Assuming that one is not simply being contradictory or rebellious for its own sake, atheism is merely a logical conclusion based upon available evidence (or lack of evidence). So why should I be particularly happy about being atheist anymore than I should be happy about the sun rising every morning, or that letting go of an object above ground level causes it to fall to the ground? Atheism is just a rational conclusion, and it is probably best not to invest too much emotion into it. There's no particular point in being smugly confident about being an atheist for example, or to be overly pessimistic about a lack of an afterlife. If you're too emotional about atheism, then you're probably believing in it for the wrong reasons, and should re-think why you are an atheist.
In a related point, there is the question of how libertarians "ought" to treat religion. From a strictly technical standpoint, libertarians should be probably be neutral about religion, as long as religion is not an excuse to initiate force or fraud against other people. In short, libertarianism is *merely* a political philosophy, and has little or nothing to say about anything that is not political. A person should thus be free to believe in any nonsense they want to believe in, as long as they are not aggressing against other people.
But if there is no God and no afterlife, aren't religious people perpetuating a fraud against other people? Not necessarily. While there are no doubt some people who are hypocrites or outright liars, and merely use religion as a means of controlling and manipulating other people, many religious people truly believe in the tenets of their religion, and thus cannot be said to be initiating fraud against others. You can't be engaging in fraud if you believe it yourself.
Nonetheless, even though libertarianism doesn't specifically preclude religious beliefs, there may still be a problem with having religious convictions. Libertarianism is essentially just a basic principle, the non-aggression principle, followed through to its logical implications and conclusions. Religious convictions are essentially beliefs held for decidedly non-logical reasons. Thus, while being an atheist doesn't require emotional content, being religious certainly does require an emotional investment on the part of the religious person, and a decided lack of reason and logic to continue to hold religious beliefs.
The mind tends to work hard to justify emotional beliefs, resulting in such things as alleged logic of Intelligent Design, and its supposed superiority over evolutionary theory. And if you can believe in one impossible thing, then why not two, or even, like Alice in Wonderland, six impossible things before breakfast?
The libertarian who holds illogical religious beliefs is thus at greater risk for distorting libertarian views to justify an illogical implication or conclusion. For example, libertarians who believe in immigration restrictions. Admittedly, religious belief is not the only illogical view that puts one at risk for distorting libertarianism. People who believe in the supernatural, UFO's, or conspiracy theories are also exhibiting illogical or irrational tendencies.
Religious people are still in the great majority of the mainstream, however, and religion still strongly influences our society. If you think about it, aren't devout Christians as much a threat, if not a greater threat, to our Western intellectual values and the Classical Liberal tradtion than are believers of other religions, like Muslims? Christians are in a much better position to distort and undermine the culture of science and free inquiry than any Muslim could be. Perhaps Christian Conservatives and liberal hippies are both on the wrong side of the Culture War.
2/04/2013
Imagination, Art & Entertainment, and Interactivity
There's always a certain degree of interactivity between the viewer or consumer of art and entertainment and the work. I'm not going to try to define art, nor will I try to make a sharp distinction between art and entertainment. Instead, I will suggest that such distinctions are best made by the viewer of the work.
Whether we're talking about a novel, a movie, a comic book, a song, or even a painting or sculpture, in all cases, the creator's work is meaningless until the viewer or consumer of the work brings their own ideas and imagination to bear upon the work. Of course, the work has meaning to the creator, but the creator is also a view/consumer of his own work, so the creator actually has a dual role, both in creating the work, and in attributing his own meaning or interpretation to the work. And this meaning or interpretation may be quite different from how others view his work.
Art is largely subjective, because the viewer brings their own meaning or interpretation to the works that they view. Oh, sure, there are objective aspects of art that can be defined and measures, but these only have to do with the "production quality" of the work, which can be affected by the training and experience of the creator, as well as by technology. An obvious example of technology is how film quality has changed since its inception, with improved filming cameras and techniques, and now computer processing, but even writers may have been subtly affected by the development of the typewriter, and later the word processor and personal computer in how they go about writing novels and stories.
Nonetheless, the meaning and interpretation of a work is largely independent of the technology used to create the work, and rests solely with each individual viewer of the work, and thus is subjective. This goes a long ways towards explaining differences in artistic tastes, not only from person to person, but between different cultures, separated by distance or time. A person growing up in the United States will be familiar with various pop music icons like Elvis or the Beatles, while a person growing up in India may be more familiar with their own native ragas than with Elvis.
But these environmental and cultural influences are only tendencies towards certain influences and styles--people are still individuals capable of choice and change. If your parents listened to country music while you were growing up, you may have rebelled as a teen and listened to rock, instead. But even if you did, you might still find that as an adult you like country music. Or you may have encountered jazz or classical as you got older and decided that you liked those styles of music instead of, or in addition to, country and rock. In any case, it's a sure bet that you wouldn't like Indian ragas if they were unavailable to you and you had never heard them.
One thing I find interesting is how variable this attribution of meaning can be even within the same person. If you're tired or ill, you may find it more difficult to enjoy even a favorite novel, movie, or song than if you were well-rested and focusing on the work. Or you may find new meaning upon repeated viewings/readings/listenings of the work. Having supplemental or background material about the work and creator may also influence how you view the work. That's one of the reasons I like the special features that are often included with dvds. I like seeing things like how the movie was made, or what the producer/director or principal actors thought about the movie they made.
There also seems to be a degree of interactivity that can be brought to bear upon the work. What was the Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky really trying to show the reader in The Brothers Karamazov? What was its theme? When Randy Newman wrote the song "Short People", was he really trying to offend short people, or was he trying to highlight the bigotry of not liking short people? In the science fiction movie "Total Recall" (either version, they're quite similar in regards to the plot), is the main character Douglas Quaid really a deep-cover secret agent, or is his espionage adventure just an implanted dream or memory? These are the types of questions each individual has to think about and decide for themselves.
Even the medium can affect the degree of interactivity. When reading a prose story, the author can describe characters and settings, but it still requires the reader to imagine what things look like, and how certain things described in the story actually work. With film, actors, props, and settings are all visible to the viewer, so less imagination is necessary. Still, a good movie like "The Matrix", "Inception", or the previously mentioned "Total Recall" can make the viewer question if what he is seeing is "real" or not.
This idea of subjective interactivity can also be brought to bear upon non-fiction, or even upon reality itself. When reading an account of a scientific event, for example, you have to know enough science and the terms they use to understand what the article or account is telling you. When watching or reading a news story, you have to understand if they are reporting facts for you to interpret, or if they are merely giving you a second-hand account or interpretation of the events. Is that National Enquirer headline really reporting the fact that Elvis is alive and living incognito in North Dakota, or are they merely reporting that someone else is saying that Elvis is alive, without sufficient evidence of their assertion? Is history really a set of facts written down? Or is it a set of facts that the historian deemed as important, and thus ignoring the rest of the available facts? Or is it even just the historian's interpretation of a set of facts, and not the facts themselves? Again, just like fiction, the individual has to bring their own understanding and interpretation to bear upon what is presented to them.
And isn't that how reality itself works? Your senses perceive raw data, such as the light that reaches your eyes, and your mind interprets that data to tell you what you've seen. Thus, reality itself may indeed be quite objective, but our perception of reality is subject to how we interpret the data of reality, the meaning that we individuals ascribe to our circumstances and situations.
What is the difference between fiction and nonfiction, then? Fiction could be said to be an attempt to create meaning by describing a set of facts or events, while nonfiction attempts to find meaning by discovering and interpreting a set of facts or events.
And now I believe I've strayed far from my original starting point. I suppose I should be providing my grand conclusion or thesis at this point, but I don't really have one. I've presented my interpretation of various facts, tried to see if there's a connection or relationship between them, and I now leave it up to you to come up with the conclusion to be derived from it.
Whether we're talking about a novel, a movie, a comic book, a song, or even a painting or sculpture, in all cases, the creator's work is meaningless until the viewer or consumer of the work brings their own ideas and imagination to bear upon the work. Of course, the work has meaning to the creator, but the creator is also a view/consumer of his own work, so the creator actually has a dual role, both in creating the work, and in attributing his own meaning or interpretation to the work. And this meaning or interpretation may be quite different from how others view his work.
Art is largely subjective, because the viewer brings their own meaning or interpretation to the works that they view. Oh, sure, there are objective aspects of art that can be defined and measures, but these only have to do with the "production quality" of the work, which can be affected by the training and experience of the creator, as well as by technology. An obvious example of technology is how film quality has changed since its inception, with improved filming cameras and techniques, and now computer processing, but even writers may have been subtly affected by the development of the typewriter, and later the word processor and personal computer in how they go about writing novels and stories.
Nonetheless, the meaning and interpretation of a work is largely independent of the technology used to create the work, and rests solely with each individual viewer of the work, and thus is subjective. This goes a long ways towards explaining differences in artistic tastes, not only from person to person, but between different cultures, separated by distance or time. A person growing up in the United States will be familiar with various pop music icons like Elvis or the Beatles, while a person growing up in India may be more familiar with their own native ragas than with Elvis.
But these environmental and cultural influences are only tendencies towards certain influences and styles--people are still individuals capable of choice and change. If your parents listened to country music while you were growing up, you may have rebelled as a teen and listened to rock, instead. But even if you did, you might still find that as an adult you like country music. Or you may have encountered jazz or classical as you got older and decided that you liked those styles of music instead of, or in addition to, country and rock. In any case, it's a sure bet that you wouldn't like Indian ragas if they were unavailable to you and you had never heard them.
One thing I find interesting is how variable this attribution of meaning can be even within the same person. If you're tired or ill, you may find it more difficult to enjoy even a favorite novel, movie, or song than if you were well-rested and focusing on the work. Or you may find new meaning upon repeated viewings/readings/listenings of the work. Having supplemental or background material about the work and creator may also influence how you view the work. That's one of the reasons I like the special features that are often included with dvds. I like seeing things like how the movie was made, or what the producer/director or principal actors thought about the movie they made.
There also seems to be a degree of interactivity that can be brought to bear upon the work. What was the Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky really trying to show the reader in The Brothers Karamazov? What was its theme? When Randy Newman wrote the song "Short People", was he really trying to offend short people, or was he trying to highlight the bigotry of not liking short people? In the science fiction movie "Total Recall" (either version, they're quite similar in regards to the plot), is the main character Douglas Quaid really a deep-cover secret agent, or is his espionage adventure just an implanted dream or memory? These are the types of questions each individual has to think about and decide for themselves.
Even the medium can affect the degree of interactivity. When reading a prose story, the author can describe characters and settings, but it still requires the reader to imagine what things look like, and how certain things described in the story actually work. With film, actors, props, and settings are all visible to the viewer, so less imagination is necessary. Still, a good movie like "The Matrix", "Inception", or the previously mentioned "Total Recall" can make the viewer question if what he is seeing is "real" or not.
This idea of subjective interactivity can also be brought to bear upon non-fiction, or even upon reality itself. When reading an account of a scientific event, for example, you have to know enough science and the terms they use to understand what the article or account is telling you. When watching or reading a news story, you have to understand if they are reporting facts for you to interpret, or if they are merely giving you a second-hand account or interpretation of the events. Is that National Enquirer headline really reporting the fact that Elvis is alive and living incognito in North Dakota, or are they merely reporting that someone else is saying that Elvis is alive, without sufficient evidence of their assertion? Is history really a set of facts written down? Or is it a set of facts that the historian deemed as important, and thus ignoring the rest of the available facts? Or is it even just the historian's interpretation of a set of facts, and not the facts themselves? Again, just like fiction, the individual has to bring their own understanding and interpretation to bear upon what is presented to them.
And isn't that how reality itself works? Your senses perceive raw data, such as the light that reaches your eyes, and your mind interprets that data to tell you what you've seen. Thus, reality itself may indeed be quite objective, but our perception of reality is subject to how we interpret the data of reality, the meaning that we individuals ascribe to our circumstances and situations.
What is the difference between fiction and nonfiction, then? Fiction could be said to be an attempt to create meaning by describing a set of facts or events, while nonfiction attempts to find meaning by discovering and interpreting a set of facts or events.
And now I believe I've strayed far from my original starting point. I suppose I should be providing my grand conclusion or thesis at this point, but I don't really have one. I've presented my interpretation of various facts, tried to see if there's a connection or relationship between them, and I now leave it up to you to come up with the conclusion to be derived from it.
1/21/2013
A change of perspective in politics
Ever since I discovered the simplicity of the libertarian non-aggression principle, I've been forced to reconsider everything political in terms of the principle. However, getting other people to see things from my perspective, however simple it seems to me, has been a difficult task. I can't pretend that things are really the way they seemed to be before discovering libertarianism, and I don't know if I should be more angry at the politicians and power-mongers who continue to foster the illusions for their own purposes and goals, or the large majority of mainstream people who buy into the illusions, or at least, pretend to go along with the illusions.
Part of the reason that governments have so much power over ordinary people is the perceived legitimacy they possess, given to them by ordinary people. This legitimacy will last as long as most people continue to believe that governments have some valid, moral authority to initiate force and fraud against people, and no longer than that.
Without that perceived legitimacy, governments and their agents would be recognized as the criminals that they really are. At best, they're terrorists who believe in some just or unjust cause. At worst, they're just thieves, murderers, con men, and mobsters on a larger scale than most thieves, murderers, con men, and mobsters.
What? You don't think this? You think government is a force for good? Well, consider this:
Who banned DDT so that we have to deal with the return of blood-sucking bedbugs?
Who removed phosphates from laundry detergent, making it harder to keep clothes clean?
Who forced television broadcasters to stop using analog transmissions and send digital broadcast signals instead, forcing consumers to get a digital converter or a newer, digital television?
Who forced manufacturers to stop making high-flow showerheads and high-capacity flush toilets, creating less satisfaction and more plumbing problems for consumers?
Who tried to ban incandescent light bulbs and force everyone to convert to compact flourescent light bulbs, and thus reduce lighting quality and increase the risk of mercury poisoning?
Who restricted the producers of the flu vaccine (which has to be created anew every year to keep up with the continual modification of the flu virus), and thus created shortages of the vaccine and increased the chances of people dying from the flu?
Not enough for you? There's plenty more:
Who creates almost all monopolies, especially the monopolies for your utility services: water/sewage, electricity, natural gas, garbage services, and cable television services?
Who controls the money supply, and ensures that we have a continual monetary inflation every year?
Who goes to war, with all the ensuing death and destruction that wars cause?
Or consider these simple facts:
Who makes you pay to drive a vehicle (driver's license)
Who makes you pay to go to work and earn a living (income taxes)?
Who makes you pay to buy goods and services (sales taxes)?
Who makes you pay to own land and property (property taxes)?
Who decides how you are allowed to use your property?
The answer to the above questions, and many other, similar questions should be obvious, and if that isn't enough to make you mad and wonder why so many people put up with it, then I'm not sure that I understand you or how you think.
The evils of government are simple and obvious, no conspiracy thinking is necessary, and it is high time that ordinary people stopped granting legitimacy to the government. We should stop pretending that governments are basically good, and started recognizing that governments create more problems than they solve. Government isn't even a "necessary evil", just an evil.
Once this happens, then the human race will be ready to progress to the next major step in our evolution and destiny. Or, to put it in a less grandiose way, more people will have more choices and opportunities for controlling their own lives and happiness.
Part of the reason that governments have so much power over ordinary people is the perceived legitimacy they possess, given to them by ordinary people. This legitimacy will last as long as most people continue to believe that governments have some valid, moral authority to initiate force and fraud against people, and no longer than that.
Without that perceived legitimacy, governments and their agents would be recognized as the criminals that they really are. At best, they're terrorists who believe in some just or unjust cause. At worst, they're just thieves, murderers, con men, and mobsters on a larger scale than most thieves, murderers, con men, and mobsters.
What? You don't think this? You think government is a force for good? Well, consider this:
Who banned DDT so that we have to deal with the return of blood-sucking bedbugs?
Who removed phosphates from laundry detergent, making it harder to keep clothes clean?
Who forced television broadcasters to stop using analog transmissions and send digital broadcast signals instead, forcing consumers to get a digital converter or a newer, digital television?
Who forced manufacturers to stop making high-flow showerheads and high-capacity flush toilets, creating less satisfaction and more plumbing problems for consumers?
Who tried to ban incandescent light bulbs and force everyone to convert to compact flourescent light bulbs, and thus reduce lighting quality and increase the risk of mercury poisoning?
Who restricted the producers of the flu vaccine (which has to be created anew every year to keep up with the continual modification of the flu virus), and thus created shortages of the vaccine and increased the chances of people dying from the flu?
Not enough for you? There's plenty more:
Who creates almost all monopolies, especially the monopolies for your utility services: water/sewage, electricity, natural gas, garbage services, and cable television services?
Who controls the money supply, and ensures that we have a continual monetary inflation every year?
Who goes to war, with all the ensuing death and destruction that wars cause?
Or consider these simple facts:
Who makes you pay to drive a vehicle (driver's license)
Who makes you pay to go to work and earn a living (income taxes)?
Who makes you pay to buy goods and services (sales taxes)?
Who makes you pay to own land and property (property taxes)?
Who decides how you are allowed to use your property?
The answer to the above questions, and many other, similar questions should be obvious, and if that isn't enough to make you mad and wonder why so many people put up with it, then I'm not sure that I understand you or how you think.
The evils of government are simple and obvious, no conspiracy thinking is necessary, and it is high time that ordinary people stopped granting legitimacy to the government. We should stop pretending that governments are basically good, and started recognizing that governments create more problems than they solve. Government isn't even a "necessary evil", just an evil.
Once this happens, then the human race will be ready to progress to the next major step in our evolution and destiny. Or, to put it in a less grandiose way, more people will have more choices and opportunities for controlling their own lives and happiness.
Amazing Grace Syndrome
I enjoy listening to music, and, as an amateur musician, playing and writing music. In my lifetime, there's no telling how many songs I've listened to, or how many times I've listened to them. It can sometimes be difficult for a songwriter to write a song that doesn't sound too much like another, already existing song. But there's another problem, even for the casual listener, in just remembering how a song or tune goes, even if you're just thinking about it or humming it.
A really distinctive tune or melody can be so powerful that it obliterates any other tune or melody that you're trying to play or remember. Amazing Grace is one such song. It has such a strong, simple melody that anything that sounds anything like it can just be obliterated out of your mind and taken over by its melody, instead. You can start humming the melody of another song, and it quickly turns into Amazing Grace. And then you can't get Amazing Grace out of your head.
I call this Amazing Grace Syndrome. Heh.
A really distinctive tune or melody can be so powerful that it obliterates any other tune or melody that you're trying to play or remember. Amazing Grace is one such song. It has such a strong, simple melody that anything that sounds anything like it can just be obliterated out of your mind and taken over by its melody, instead. You can start humming the melody of another song, and it quickly turns into Amazing Grace. And then you can't get Amazing Grace out of your head.
I call this Amazing Grace Syndrome. Heh.
12/05/2012
The Fun and Frustration of Operating Systems
I've played around with different computer operating systems over the years, although for the last few years, I hadn't done much with them. So recently I dug out my old multi-boot computer with five different operating systems on it and decided to make sure everything worked. It did. The computer has Partition Commander, with System Commander Personal Edition, to help me manage the partitions and booting. This computer has the following operating systems on it:
Or rather, it did have those until I started messing around with it. I upgraded its memory, and somehow I messed up my Win98 installation--it wouldn't boot. Alas, the computer also has some problems with it, such as not working with the cd-rom drive, and I'll be darned if I know what the problem is. I tried switching out drives, and while the new drive was recognized by the system, I couldn't get the os's to actually read cd's in the drive. So reinstalling from CD seemed to be out of the question.
However, I remembered that I had copied a Win98SE installation disc onto a Fat32 extended partition on the hard drive, I just had to get to it so that it could be started. I found an old Win98 boot floppy disk, used Partition Commander to hide the DOS/Win311 partition, and was able to boot up on the floppy and start the Windows 98 installation. Except that this was the upgrade version of Win98, not the OEM version. The installation couldn't find a previous version of Windows because of the hidden partition, and wouldn't let me install Win98. So, I went back and copied the Windows 3.11 files onto the newly created FAT32 partition, then rebooted with the floppy and started the installation. Success! This time it recognized the Windows for Workgroups 3.11 files, even though I couldn't possibly have run it on a FAT 32 partition.
So Windows 98 was fixed, but I really was wanting to install Windows 2000, as I wanted Win2K's better USB handling. USB works in Windows 98, but you still have to have a driver for your USB device for it to work. So I copied my Win2k OEM edition to an accessible FAT32 partition. Then I had an idea: why not keep Windows 98 and install Windows 2000 as a separate OS on the computer? Alas, Partition Commander informed me that I had too many primary partitions, and couldn't install another OS on a primary partition. So, I went ahead and installed Win2K over Win98. Except that I had to do a clean install, because it didn't like a couple of things I had installed on Win98, and then it tried to install it over the smaller DOS partition, until I told it to use the same partition Win98 was on. Finally, I had Windows 2000 installed over Windows 98.
But full of success, I couldn't leave well enough alone. I've long thought of installing BeOS on another computer, but my BeOS 5 Pro cd was messed up, and I cannot install or re-install from the cd. But I thought that I might be able to install BeOS onto another disk from my working installation of BeOS, and I decided to try it to make sure it works.
My multi-boot computer has two hard drives in it, one is 30 gigs and the other is 60 gigs. So I figured that I would try installing BeOS onto the other hard drive. I used Partition Commander to make sure I had a clear, roomy partition to install it on, then booted into BeOS and went to work. I initialized the partition as a BFS partition, then ran the Installer to install my current BeOS installation onto the new partition. The installation worked fine, and I soon had a second installation of BeOS on the computer. Except that I chose the wrong partition and installed BeOS over my FreeBSD installation! Argh.
So now, the computer has this installed:
So, being the determined and stubborn person I am, I've been trying to reinstall FreeBSD. I had downloaded a later version--this time 7.4--to install, but I still can't get the cd-rom drive to work, so I've been trying to figure out how to get around that problem. The install files are also on a FAT32 partition, but for some reason I can't seem to start the installation from there, even when I booted up on a PicoBSD floppy disk. So I made the FreeBSD 7.4 boot floppies from images, and booted up with them. It works up to a point, but then when probing the computer for devices, it seems to just hang, and not go any further.
So now, I need to figure out why the installation won't continue, or find another way to reinstall it on this older, messed up computer. Perhaps I can start the installation from Mandrake Linux? Anyway, fun stuff! ;-)
- MS-DOS 6.22/Windows For Workgroups 3.11
- Windows 98 (2nd Edition)
- FreeBSD 4.11
- Mandrake Linux
- BeOS 5 Professional
Or rather, it did have those until I started messing around with it. I upgraded its memory, and somehow I messed up my Win98 installation--it wouldn't boot. Alas, the computer also has some problems with it, such as not working with the cd-rom drive, and I'll be darned if I know what the problem is. I tried switching out drives, and while the new drive was recognized by the system, I couldn't get the os's to actually read cd's in the drive. So reinstalling from CD seemed to be out of the question.
However, I remembered that I had copied a Win98SE installation disc onto a Fat32 extended partition on the hard drive, I just had to get to it so that it could be started. I found an old Win98 boot floppy disk, used Partition Commander to hide the DOS/Win311 partition, and was able to boot up on the floppy and start the Windows 98 installation. Except that this was the upgrade version of Win98, not the OEM version. The installation couldn't find a previous version of Windows because of the hidden partition, and wouldn't let me install Win98. So, I went back and copied the Windows 3.11 files onto the newly created FAT32 partition, then rebooted with the floppy and started the installation. Success! This time it recognized the Windows for Workgroups 3.11 files, even though I couldn't possibly have run it on a FAT 32 partition.
So Windows 98 was fixed, but I really was wanting to install Windows 2000, as I wanted Win2K's better USB handling. USB works in Windows 98, but you still have to have a driver for your USB device for it to work. So I copied my Win2k OEM edition to an accessible FAT32 partition. Then I had an idea: why not keep Windows 98 and install Windows 2000 as a separate OS on the computer? Alas, Partition Commander informed me that I had too many primary partitions, and couldn't install another OS on a primary partition. So, I went ahead and installed Win2K over Win98. Except that I had to do a clean install, because it didn't like a couple of things I had installed on Win98, and then it tried to install it over the smaller DOS partition, until I told it to use the same partition Win98 was on. Finally, I had Windows 2000 installed over Windows 98.
But full of success, I couldn't leave well enough alone. I've long thought of installing BeOS on another computer, but my BeOS 5 Pro cd was messed up, and I cannot install or re-install from the cd. But I thought that I might be able to install BeOS onto another disk from my working installation of BeOS, and I decided to try it to make sure it works.
My multi-boot computer has two hard drives in it, one is 30 gigs and the other is 60 gigs. So I figured that I would try installing BeOS onto the other hard drive. I used Partition Commander to make sure I had a clear, roomy partition to install it on, then booted into BeOS and went to work. I initialized the partition as a BFS partition, then ran the Installer to install my current BeOS installation onto the new partition. The installation worked fine, and I soon had a second installation of BeOS on the computer. Except that I chose the wrong partition and installed BeOS over my FreeBSD installation! Argh.
So now, the computer has this installed:
- MS-DOS 6.22/Windows For Workgroups 3.11
- Windows 2000
- BeOS 5
- Mandrake Linux
- BeOS 5
So, being the determined and stubborn person I am, I've been trying to reinstall FreeBSD. I had downloaded a later version--this time 7.4--to install, but I still can't get the cd-rom drive to work, so I've been trying to figure out how to get around that problem. The install files are also on a FAT32 partition, but for some reason I can't seem to start the installation from there, even when I booted up on a PicoBSD floppy disk. So I made the FreeBSD 7.4 boot floppies from images, and booted up with them. It works up to a point, but then when probing the computer for devices, it seems to just hang, and not go any further.
So now, I need to figure out why the installation won't continue, or find another way to reinstall it on this older, messed up computer. Perhaps I can start the installation from Mandrake Linux? Anyway, fun stuff! ;-)
10/28/2012
The November Election - Disenfranchised and Disgusted
No, I haven't written anything political this year. Why should I bother? I would just be repeating my comments from the last election cycle. Perhaps I should have said something. Ron Paul ran for president again this time, and did seem to do better this time around. The Republican Party didn't merely ignore him this time, but went out of their way to actively snub and exclude him. Naturally, he still didn't get the Republican nomination, so I cannot vote for him in the general election, but I got to vote for him in the Republican primary, and I think a lot more people heard about him and his libertarian-oriented ideas, including the problems with our foreign policy and the economy. A healthy understanding of the economic basics, especially Austrian economics, can only be good.
Nonetheless, just like in 2008, my only presidential options are going to be the Democrat and Republican nominees, Obama and Romney, and neither one of them makes me thrilled to be an American, much less give me any good reason to vote for one of them. Their differences are minimal, and we should all be disgusted that, as voters, we have been given so few choices on the ballot. How can anybody claim we're truly free, when we are not free to choose the candidate of our choice? Where's the diversity, the plurality, the democracy that the United States is supposed to have?
I would vote for any third candidate on the ballot, just out of protest, although my preferred choice is the Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson. Unfortunately, I don't think any third party or independent candidates made it on Oklahoma's ballot this year, just like last time. So I am truly disenfranchised by our electoral system, even though I have the alleged "right" to vote. Oklahoma's ballot doesn't allow for write-ins, either. So all I can really do is vote in lower races but not for president, and hope that my undervote will be counted and noticed.
So I haven't bothered to write anything political this year. I could have. I could have really gotten upset trying to explain to people just how unfree we truly are. I could have talked till I was blue in the face, gotten my blood pressure up and had a heart attack. But many people would continue to mistakenly think that they are free, and that I'm just some cranky nut not worth worrying about.
Instead, I'll just take advantage of the relative freedom that I do have, and live my life as best I can, and hope enough people somewhere get the message and figure out something effective to do about our sorry state of affairs, because I'm not really sure what I can or should do about it. Living my own life is hard enough.
So come election day, why bother? Why should I have to vote in order to have the 'right' to complain, when I am not allowed to vote for the candidate(s) of my choice? How can I possibly be represented in the system without candidates who actually represent my positions? The electoral system is rigged in the most basic and fundamental way, and you have to be pretty blind not to see it.
Nonetheless, just like in 2008, my only presidential options are going to be the Democrat and Republican nominees, Obama and Romney, and neither one of them makes me thrilled to be an American, much less give me any good reason to vote for one of them. Their differences are minimal, and we should all be disgusted that, as voters, we have been given so few choices on the ballot. How can anybody claim we're truly free, when we are not free to choose the candidate of our choice? Where's the diversity, the plurality, the democracy that the United States is supposed to have?
I would vote for any third candidate on the ballot, just out of protest, although my preferred choice is the Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson. Unfortunately, I don't think any third party or independent candidates made it on Oklahoma's ballot this year, just like last time. So I am truly disenfranchised by our electoral system, even though I have the alleged "right" to vote. Oklahoma's ballot doesn't allow for write-ins, either. So all I can really do is vote in lower races but not for president, and hope that my undervote will be counted and noticed.
So I haven't bothered to write anything political this year. I could have. I could have really gotten upset trying to explain to people just how unfree we truly are. I could have talked till I was blue in the face, gotten my blood pressure up and had a heart attack. But many people would continue to mistakenly think that they are free, and that I'm just some cranky nut not worth worrying about.
Instead, I'll just take advantage of the relative freedom that I do have, and live my life as best I can, and hope enough people somewhere get the message and figure out something effective to do about our sorry state of affairs, because I'm not really sure what I can or should do about it. Living my own life is hard enough.
So come election day, why bother? Why should I have to vote in order to have the 'right' to complain, when I am not allowed to vote for the candidate(s) of my choice? How can I possibly be represented in the system without candidates who actually represent my positions? The electoral system is rigged in the most basic and fundamental way, and you have to be pretty blind not to see it.
10/10/2012
Coffee, Tea, or Soda Pop?
I've never been a coffee drinker. About the only way I can really stand it is by adding a LOT of creamer and sugar, and I figured if I have to do that to make it drinkable, then I'm not really drinking coffee. Of course, cappuccino and some other modern coffee-based drinks do have a lot of sugar and flavoring, so I'm usually okay with those, although I still haven't made them a regular habit.
Instead I'm a big iced tea drinker. My mother always had us drink iced tea at meals when I was growing up, and so that habit really stuck with me. But I prefer iced tea, as I've never been much of a fan of hot tea. Naturally, as I got older, I had to learn how to make my own iced tea. My mother would put the tea-bags in the pitcher, add hot water, and let them brew that way, before adding more water to fill up the pitcher. I had trouble doing it her way, and ended up breaking a few glass pitchers.
Instead, I developed the habit of using a 1-quart pot to heat the water, and then when the water starts boiling, I turned off the heat and added the tea bags to the pot. Then I let it sit. For a long time, until the liquid has cooled. Only then do I half-fill a pitcher with water, then add the brewed tea, and then add more water to top off the pitcher. Of course, I put sugar in first, and then the water, then tea. In that sense, at least, I'm a Southern boy--gotta have my sweet tea! And the way I make it, it's pretty strong.
I generally use Cain's, a brand produced here in Oklahoma. I've used other brands, but there really does seem to be a difference, even though I know they all use orange or orange pekoe tea (the common "black tea"). Not only does Cain's taste better to me, it's also generally cheaper than the other brands.
Of course, as a fan of Star Trek: The Next Generation, I was curious about how Earl Grey tea tasted. Earl Grey is basically just black tea with oil of bergamot added to it for a citrus-y flavor. Again, I wasn't too fond of hot tea, but I found out that Earl Grey makes an excellent iced tea! Of course, they don't make quart-sized bags of Earl Grey tea, only those small, one-cup bags. You can use 5 or 6 of the small bags to make up a two-quart pitcher of Earl Grey tea, but I came up with a more cost-effective solution. I'll use 2 quart-size bags of my regular Cain's tea, and I'll add two of the small bags of the Earl Grey tea. Not only does this give it that Earl Grey flavor, but it also makes the tea a little stronger, which is fine by me. The tea you can get at restaurants just can't compare to what I make at home.
Soda pop, on the other hand, is a different issue. Of course, as a kid, I really liked the sweet stuff, even if we had tea at dinner. No doubt soda pop contributed greatly to my dental problems, especially when you consider that I usually got free soda pop when I worked at fast food places in my younger days. I have since given up drinking soda pop on a regular basis, but the damage is already done.
For my part of the Cola War debate, I preferred Coca-Cola to Pepsi. Better than Coke, though, is Royal Crown Cola (RC), which I like best of all. When we were teens, my sister and I did our own blind taste test, and both agreed that, among Pepsi, Coke, RC, and Jolt Cola, RC was the best-tasting. As an adult, though, I've found that I usually prefer a bit more sophisticated flavor, so now, when I do drink soda pop, I'll usually go for Dr. Pepper, if it's available.
I keep referring to them as "soda pop" so that most people will know what I'm talking about. Personally, I grew up thinking of them as "soft drinks", not as soda, pop, or soda pop. However, most people aren't really familiar with the term 'soft drink'. Here's an interesting link on the Great Soda vs. Pop controversy. Isn't that an impressive looking map? ;-)
Instead I'm a big iced tea drinker. My mother always had us drink iced tea at meals when I was growing up, and so that habit really stuck with me. But I prefer iced tea, as I've never been much of a fan of hot tea. Naturally, as I got older, I had to learn how to make my own iced tea. My mother would put the tea-bags in the pitcher, add hot water, and let them brew that way, before adding more water to fill up the pitcher. I had trouble doing it her way, and ended up breaking a few glass pitchers.
Instead, I developed the habit of using a 1-quart pot to heat the water, and then when the water starts boiling, I turned off the heat and added the tea bags to the pot. Then I let it sit. For a long time, until the liquid has cooled. Only then do I half-fill a pitcher with water, then add the brewed tea, and then add more water to top off the pitcher. Of course, I put sugar in first, and then the water, then tea. In that sense, at least, I'm a Southern boy--gotta have my sweet tea! And the way I make it, it's pretty strong.
I generally use Cain's, a brand produced here in Oklahoma. I've used other brands, but there really does seem to be a difference, even though I know they all use orange or orange pekoe tea (the common "black tea"). Not only does Cain's taste better to me, it's also generally cheaper than the other brands.
Of course, as a fan of Star Trek: The Next Generation, I was curious about how Earl Grey tea tasted. Earl Grey is basically just black tea with oil of bergamot added to it for a citrus-y flavor. Again, I wasn't too fond of hot tea, but I found out that Earl Grey makes an excellent iced tea! Of course, they don't make quart-sized bags of Earl Grey tea, only those small, one-cup bags. You can use 5 or 6 of the small bags to make up a two-quart pitcher of Earl Grey tea, but I came up with a more cost-effective solution. I'll use 2 quart-size bags of my regular Cain's tea, and I'll add two of the small bags of the Earl Grey tea. Not only does this give it that Earl Grey flavor, but it also makes the tea a little stronger, which is fine by me. The tea you can get at restaurants just can't compare to what I make at home.
Soda pop, on the other hand, is a different issue. Of course, as a kid, I really liked the sweet stuff, even if we had tea at dinner. No doubt soda pop contributed greatly to my dental problems, especially when you consider that I usually got free soda pop when I worked at fast food places in my younger days. I have since given up drinking soda pop on a regular basis, but the damage is already done.
For my part of the Cola War debate, I preferred Coca-Cola to Pepsi. Better than Coke, though, is Royal Crown Cola (RC), which I like best of all. When we were teens, my sister and I did our own blind taste test, and both agreed that, among Pepsi, Coke, RC, and Jolt Cola, RC was the best-tasting. As an adult, though, I've found that I usually prefer a bit more sophisticated flavor, so now, when I do drink soda pop, I'll usually go for Dr. Pepper, if it's available.
I keep referring to them as "soda pop" so that most people will know what I'm talking about. Personally, I grew up thinking of them as "soft drinks", not as soda, pop, or soda pop. However, most people aren't really familiar with the term 'soft drink'. Here's an interesting link on the Great Soda vs. Pop controversy. Isn't that an impressive looking map? ;-)
8/13/2012
ManyBooks - Free ebooks
If you like free ebooks, you probably already know about Project Gutenberg, and maybe a few other places where you can find them. Like PG, ManyBooks.net offers free, public domain books and stories. However, the ManyBooks site offers a few additional improvements that PG doesn't have.
Like PG, you can search by author or title. However, ManyBooks also has their books sorted by genre, so you can focus on the particular types of stories you want to read, even if you're not familiar with the author or title. Crawling through the genre listings is a great way to discover new authors and titles that you may be interested in.
Furthermore, ManyBooks offers additional "meta-information", including a short description of the book, an excerpt from the book, and the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease scale, which gives you a relative idea of how easy it is to read the book. Readers can also add their own reviews of the book, so you can know what other people think, or give your own feedback on it.
They also offer the book in over 2 dozens formats, from plain text to epub, or even as an audiobook, if such a version is available.
Last, but not least, if you create an account with ManyBooks, you can create your own "bookshelves" or lists of books. You can create multiple bookshelves and name them whatever you want. This allows you to keep track of books you want to read, or have read, or just to make books easier to find instead of having to search for them again.
And, of course, it's all free, although they appreciate donations to keep the site running. Check it out.
Like PG, you can search by author or title. However, ManyBooks also has their books sorted by genre, so you can focus on the particular types of stories you want to read, even if you're not familiar with the author or title. Crawling through the genre listings is a great way to discover new authors and titles that you may be interested in.
Furthermore, ManyBooks offers additional "meta-information", including a short description of the book, an excerpt from the book, and the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease scale, which gives you a relative idea of how easy it is to read the book. Readers can also add their own reviews of the book, so you can know what other people think, or give your own feedback on it.
They also offer the book in over 2 dozens formats, from plain text to epub, or even as an audiobook, if such a version is available.
Last, but not least, if you create an account with ManyBooks, you can create your own "bookshelves" or lists of books. You can create multiple bookshelves and name them whatever you want. This allows you to keep track of books you want to read, or have read, or just to make books easier to find instead of having to search for them again.
And, of course, it's all free, although they appreciate donations to keep the site running. Check it out.
4/11/2012
Sufficiently Justified Belief
This is a rewrite of an article that I had on my personal web site, which is now long gone.
At some point, philosophers came up with a general formula for knowledge, called Justified True Belief. K = JTB. In essence, they said that one has knowledge IFF (If and only if) one has a belief that is justified and true. Then Edmund Gettier came along and showed that it was possible to have a justified true belief that was not, in fact knowledge. I didn't care much for his own examples, although I guess they worked well enough for his purpose. Instead, let us consider this story/joke:
Gettier's point was that the students had good justification for thinking that their professor had a lot of books, and the professor confirmed for them that he did indeed have a lot of books. However, since the books they saw really belonged to Professor Jones, and not their professor, they didn't really "know" that their professor had a lot of books.
Gettier has a point, but it seems to hinge on what one means by "justified", and could be modified to repair the fault. If, for example, the students had verified if the office was their professor's, or that the books were his, then they would be properly justified in their belief that he has a lot of books. In fact, they are properly justified in their belief when he tells them that he does have a lot of books, for how else would they have known the truth of their belief?
And this brings me to my own point. Gettier's problem presents difficulties about the justification for a belief. However, a more formidable objection presents itself to me about the Truth component of JTB. Suppose we have a justification for a belief. JTB requires us to have a belief that is both justified and true in order to have knowledge. Okay, how is it possible to know the truth of a belief independently of our justification for the belief?
As far as I can tell, it's impossible. Any information we have about a belief is always part of our justification for the belief, and more importantly, we have no way of knowing anything about a belief except for what justification we have for the belief. There is no mystical insight into truth, nor can we peek at the answers in the back of the book. We only think we know something through our justification for it, and for no other reasons.
In our example above, the students found out that their belief was true because the professor told them. Yet his telling them becomes part of their justification for their belief, along with the general idea that professors tend to have a lot of books and that professors tend to be truthful and not tell lies. However, if they wanted more justification, they could go to his office and verify how many books he has.
Since the truth of a belief is unknowable independent of our justification for it, the Truth component of JTB becomes either useless or redundant to the justification component.
Instead, we are reduced to saying that knowledge is merely a justified belief, and in order to get around Gettier's problems, we could require it to be a sufficiently justified belief, or SJB. Of course, how much justification is sufficient is a much more difficult question, and I don't really have a good answer for that. All I know for sure is that JTB = K is a flawed formula, and must be scrapped or modified.
At some point, philosophers came up with a general formula for knowledge, called Justified True Belief. K = JTB. In essence, they said that one has knowledge IFF (If and only if) one has a belief that is justified and true. Then Edmund Gettier came along and showed that it was possible to have a justified true belief that was not, in fact knowledge. I didn't care much for his own examples, although I guess they worked well enough for his purpose. Instead, let us consider this story/joke:
Two college students were passing through a campus building when they spotted their philosophy professor in an office. They stopped to talk to him. Noticing all the shelves in the office lined with books, one student says, "Wow, you sure do have a lot of books."
The professor replied, "Yes, I do have a lot of books, but these aren't my books. This is Professor Jones' office, not mine, and I'm just waiting for him to return so I can talk to him."
Gettier's point was that the students had good justification for thinking that their professor had a lot of books, and the professor confirmed for them that he did indeed have a lot of books. However, since the books they saw really belonged to Professor Jones, and not their professor, they didn't really "know" that their professor had a lot of books.
Gettier has a point, but it seems to hinge on what one means by "justified", and could be modified to repair the fault. If, for example, the students had verified if the office was their professor's, or that the books were his, then they would be properly justified in their belief that he has a lot of books. In fact, they are properly justified in their belief when he tells them that he does have a lot of books, for how else would they have known the truth of their belief?
And this brings me to my own point. Gettier's problem presents difficulties about the justification for a belief. However, a more formidable objection presents itself to me about the Truth component of JTB. Suppose we have a justification for a belief. JTB requires us to have a belief that is both justified and true in order to have knowledge. Okay, how is it possible to know the truth of a belief independently of our justification for the belief?
As far as I can tell, it's impossible. Any information we have about a belief is always part of our justification for the belief, and more importantly, we have no way of knowing anything about a belief except for what justification we have for the belief. There is no mystical insight into truth, nor can we peek at the answers in the back of the book. We only think we know something through our justification for it, and for no other reasons.
In our example above, the students found out that their belief was true because the professor told them. Yet his telling them becomes part of their justification for their belief, along with the general idea that professors tend to have a lot of books and that professors tend to be truthful and not tell lies. However, if they wanted more justification, they could go to his office and verify how many books he has.
Since the truth of a belief is unknowable independent of our justification for it, the Truth component of JTB becomes either useless or redundant to the justification component.
Instead, we are reduced to saying that knowledge is merely a justified belief, and in order to get around Gettier's problems, we could require it to be a sufficiently justified belief, or SJB. Of course, how much justification is sufficient is a much more difficult question, and I don't really have a good answer for that. All I know for sure is that JTB = K is a flawed formula, and must be scrapped or modified.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)