Attention Firefox 2 user: your browser is out of date. Please visit http://getfirefox.com to get the newest version!

webbunny tumblelog

 
The curious thing about those who believe in Victorian values is that the Victorian age was a golden era for the sexual exploitation of women and the abuse of children.
I like this little gem from Dr Evan Harris’ post on Sex education, STIs and politicians. All those people who think that society is going downhill need only look into the not-so-distant past to see how much better life is for everybody now. I hate it when people suggest we are worse off than humanity tens or hundreds of years ago!
 

You know why Harry Potter is a phenomenal book series?

rabblevolunteer:

Because it addresses SO MANY THINGS and attempts to explore them:

  • Gender roles (in which this book series destroys them)- In this series you have a HUGE burly man (Hagrid) who treats animals like they are his children, cries publicly, shows his emotions, KNITS IN PUBLIC, and gardens. You have Mrs. Weasley who is the major mother-figure for Harry but who fights just as hard in the final book as the men even though she’s “just” a housewife. She kills Bellatrix for crying out loud!
  • Racism and privilege- The full-blood, half-blood, muggle-born aspect runs throughout the whole series and is meant to be seen as a type of racism. Hermione is a muggle-born but her abilities far surpass her peers’ and Neville, who is a full-blooded wizard is expected to be a better wizard simply from his ancestors, is one of the worst in his classes.
  • Classism- The Malfoys vs. the Weasleys.
  • Ageism- Harry isn’t taken seriously because of his age (in fact it actually helps him obtain the fake locket with Dumbledore because he isn’t seen as a “real” wizard due to his age) and neither is Dumbledore. Dumbledore’s age becomes an issue for the news and people start to question whether or not he’s gone senile when he and Harry claim that Voldemort has returned.
  • Speciesism- The treatment of House-elves, centaurs, giants, and other magical populations are seen as beneath wizards and Hermione tries to take steps to fix that with S.P.E.W.
  • Education- Hagrid was expelled and so he’s seen as uneducated and Malfoy calls him a servant, a savage, etc. But he’s able to earn a position as a teacher at Hogwarts and overcome his lack of an education. Fred and George are the same way, they drop out of Hogwarts and become successful joke shop owners, the implication being that they were not ever really suited for a traditional education (they were not traditional learners and that’s okay). Or when Harry becomes the DADA teacher during Order of the Phoenix, he chooses to teach it hands-on while Umbridge has them write lines all class period. This book explores different learning styles and shows that there are many different ways to learn a subject.
  • Ableism- Neville’s parents live in a hospital because they experienced severe brain damage after being tortured by Voldemort for information. We see them in Order of the Phoenix and it’s through those chapters that we not only understand Neville better but we find out that he isn’t ashamed of them nor does he feel he should be.
  • Sexuality- This book portrays a gay relationship, (even though it is not brought up within the canon ever): Grindelwald and Dumbledore. JK Rowling stated this shortly after the final book came out, that’s how we know this.

ReBlogged from rabblevolunteer

 
Christians are not bothered in the least that they are risking Allah’s hell by not being Muslims. We all risk the hell of other religions. All I do is risk one more hell than what others do. Once I risk one hell they all look like nothing but empty threats.
John Loftus, Debunking Christianity 

ReBlogged from friendlyatheist

 
Just how bad is Flash on Android?

Pretty bad. In fact, if you’re thinking video, utterly unusable.

adobegripes:

It’s like a bad joke, the Android browsing experience is already pretty clunky looking when you sit it next to the iPhone and the huge black rectangles jumping around the page 5 frames too late as it struggles to redraw really doesn’t help. Looks completely hacked in and half arsed, this is supposed to be Adobe’s flagship mobile product and this is the best they can deliver?

Apologist geeks in the comments are trying to justify that the videos should have been re-encoded but doesn’t that completely defeat the argument that Flash should have been on the iPhone? By that logic you are suggesting that video makers re-encode all their video, Adobe programs Flash for iPhone and Apple allows it on their phones just to save you reprogramming a video player… because that’s the only part of this chain which hasn’t had to be completely changed just to get that video to the device via Flash.

I’ll remember this video next time Shantanu Narayen spews forth more bullshit like the following

I think we’ve proven that the technology is not only suitable but it actually significantly enhances the value on these mobile devices.

ReBlogged from adobegripes

 
There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.
Stephen Hawking
 
This would be amazing

dwineman:


This is the fun part.

We’re about a week away from Apple announcing a new product. People are pretty sure it’s going to be an iOS-based Apple TV, that its name will be simply iTV, and that it will sooner or later have its own App Store. It’s all very exciting.

But this calm period — this strange time when we know everything and yet nothing — is the fun part, because we get to take our best shots at guessing what our new toys will look like. Here’s mine.

First, what kind of apps would make sense for an iTV? It’s not a touchscreen device, and you don’t carry it around with you. You operate it from your couch. So the obvious category is games.

But you need some kind of controller to play a game, unless Apple is working on its own version of Kinect, which I doubt. An Apple Remote doesn’t really cut it, and while an iPhone or iPod touch would make a great game console controller, as has been pointed out, it’s unlikely that Apple would require one: no game publisher is going to invest in developing a game whose market is restricted to owners of two separately-purchased devices, and iTV sales would be hobbled from the start. At least one standard controller needs to be included in the box for the iTV to be a viable gaming platform, so that controller has to be relatively simple and inexpensive.

What if that simple, inexpensive controller is something like an iPhone without the screen?

Above, I’ve crudely Photoshopped this concept together. It’s the love child of an iPod touch and a Magic Trackpad. It has the same inertial and gyroscopic motion sensors as the iPhone 4, and the same multitouch surface we’re familiar with. A home button. Bluetooth. No screen.

Of course, you’d have the option of using your existing iPhone or iPod instead — just run the free iTV app — and when your friends come over, they can bring their iPhones so you don’t have to buy extra controllers. And some games will make use of those screens if they’re present: you could do the SCRABBLE Tile Rack thing, for example. Games like The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures — an old multiplayer Nintendo GameCube title which used up to four connected Game Boy Advances as controllers, showing some of the action on the small screens — would also work well. But every game would be playable with the standard, screenless controller.

The Magic Trackpad costs about $70 retail. It doesn’t have any motion sensors in it, but it has all the rest of the hardware required by this hypothetical controller. I’m just guessing here, but it seems reasonable that a smaller, handheld Magic Trackpad with a motion chip in it could cost under $50.1

And you know what? I think this device might even work as the only remote for the iTV, even when you’re just using it to, you know, watch TV. No pushbutton Apple Remote at all, in other words: everything is gesture-based. Tap to pause, swipe left to rewind, swipe right to fast-forward. Slide up or down to adjust volume. Home key to exit to the menu, which you navigate by flicking and tapping. And just imagine how much better seeking around in videos will be with a touch surface…

Damn. Now I really hope Apple makes this product I’ve just invented. I’m excited just writing about it. This is the entertainment gizmo that I want to own.

See what I mean about the fun part?





Wii Remotes cost $40, wireless PS3 controllers are $45, Xbox controllers are anywhere from $30 to $60, and all three systems ship with a controller, so that’s about the right price point. ↩

This would be amazing

dwineman:

This is the fun part.

We’re about a week away from Apple announcing a new product. People are pretty sure it’s going to be an iOS-based Apple TV, that its name will be simply iTV, and that it will sooner or later have its own App Store. It’s all very exciting.

But this calm period — this strange time when we know everything and yet nothing — is the fun part, because we get to take our best shots at guessing what our new toys will look like. Here’s mine.

First, what kind of apps would make sense for an iTV? It’s not a touchscreen device, and you don’t carry it around with you. You operate it from your couch. So the obvious category is games.

But you need some kind of controller to play a game, unless Apple is working on its own version of Kinect, which I doubt. An Apple Remote doesn’t really cut it, and while an iPhone or iPod touch would make a great game console controller, as has been pointed out, it’s unlikely that Apple would require one: no game publisher is going to invest in developing a game whose market is restricted to owners of two separately-purchased devices, and iTV sales would be hobbled from the start. At least one standard controller needs to be included in the box for the iTV to be a viable gaming platform, so that controller has to be relatively simple and inexpensive.

What if that simple, inexpensive controller is something like an iPhone without the screen?

Above, I’ve crudely Photoshopped this concept together. It’s the love child of an iPod touch and a Magic Trackpad. It has the same inertial and gyroscopic motion sensors as the iPhone 4, and the same multitouch surface we’re familiar with. A home button. Bluetooth. No screen.

Of course, you’d have the option of using your existing iPhone or iPod instead — just run the free iTV app — and when your friends come over, they can bring their iPhones so you don’t have to buy extra controllers. And some games will make use of those screens if they’re present: you could do the SCRABBLE Tile Rack thing, for example. Games like The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures — an old multiplayer Nintendo GameCube title which used up to four connected Game Boy Advances as controllers, showing some of the action on the small screens — would also work well. But every game would be playable with the standard, screenless controller.

The Magic Trackpad costs about $70 retail. It doesn’t have any motion sensors in it, but it has all the rest of the hardware required by this hypothetical controller. I’m just guessing here, but it seems reasonable that a smaller, handheld Magic Trackpad with a motion chip in it could cost under $50.1

And you know what? I think this device might even work as the only remote for the iTV, even when you’re just using it to, you know, watch TV. No pushbutton Apple Remote at all, in other words: everything is gesture-based. Tap to pause, swipe left to rewind, swipe right to fast-forward. Slide up or down to adjust volume. Home key to exit to the menu, which you navigate by flicking and tapping. And just imagine how much better seeking around in videos will be with a touch surface…

Damn. Now I really hope Apple makes this product I’ve just invented. I’m excited just writing about it. This is the entertainment gizmo that I want to own.

See what I mean about the fun part?


  1. Wii Remotes cost $40, wireless PS3 controllers are $45, Xbox controllers are anywhere from $30 to $60, and all three systems ship with a controller, so that’s about the right price point. 

ReBlogged from dwineman

 
Jeremy Clarkson you are an idiot.

This would not mean ‘unlimited petrol’, it would mean ‘get petrol from the plastic we have’, which is not unlimited.
Turning oil into plastic is a very costly process, and produces pollution. Why would you want to turn it back into oil when you could just recycle it into more plastic?
I’m pretty sure this would take more energy to do than you would save, and so it would be a waste of money.

I smell an urban myth.

Jeremy Clarkson you are an idiot.

  1. This would not mean ‘unlimited petrol’, it would mean ‘get petrol from the plastic we have’, which is not unlimited.
  2. Turning oil into plastic is a very costly process, and produces pollution. Why would you want to turn it back into oil when you could just recycle it into more plastic?
  3. I’m pretty sure this would take more energy to do than you would save, and so it would be a waste of money.

I smell an urban myth.

 
Incarceration in America is a failure by almost any measure. But what if the prisons could be turned inside out, with convicts released into society under constant electronic surveillance? Radical though it may seem, early experiments suggest that such a science-fiction scenario might cut crime, reduce costs, and even prove more just.

about shaun…

Name: Shaun Robinson

Age: 25

Occupation: Web Designer / Developer

Location: Ipswich, United Kingdom

Living with: My partner Andrew, and two kids Elliot and Oliver.

contact me