Law

Who we are is defined by our sacrifices as much as our sacrifices tend to define who we are - and yet we live in a world where many define who they are by what they have. And in a world where less continuously have more and more continuously have less, it is also sensible that a democratic sense of justice would give a degree of entitlement to that which the Law does not permit, particularly when the Law is sculpted to protect the less with more instead of the more with less. Social justice, not socialism, is the defining factor in the disputes that come about from the disparity.

One of the things I typically do with people is keep them off balance. To those in Trinidad and Tobago, this would be heckling - to those in other parts of the world, it would be called teasing. Reveling in the irony of situations, proper use of sarcasm and wit and the ability to react quickly to information even as it falls out of mouths is an art that almost always seems to take advantage of those not as quick on their mental feet.

This is a first entry under 'scribbling'; it's where I'll start shoving incomplete (and sometimes unrelated)thoughts that I write on paper. They just haven't fleshed out into full entries yet.

Anarchy is the default state of democracy.

The only reason that we believe we are more enlightened than animals is because we have told ourselves that we are.

People don't buy art. They buy the stories that come with the art. This is why religious texts are full of stories. During periods of illiteracy, verbal stories are all that people had. And the love of these stories has resulted in bloodshed, charred flesh, eviscerations, beheadings and much more. Philosophy is so much more clean.

True democracy is socialism in disguise; if the masses are poor then the poor should have greater voice than the rich by virtue of democracy. That doesn't happen.

Chicken breasts aren't supposed to have bones in them. Those are ribs.

Code is not just Law, it is Intent.

We talk about the planet as if we're truly concerned, but it is really the survival of our species we're interested in. Maybe on the next planet we'll do better.

When someone contacted me about using the picture of the unidentified turtle at left, I was easy about giving it because it was for some web forums about turtles, in a foreign language, and I would love to know the proper scientific name for the turtle.

The Creative Commons License I use requires attribution. And to me, attribution means a link back to the picture, if not to one of my websites - it doesn't require it in the Creative Commons license itself, but it is a pretty good rule of thumb for people who run websites: Link to where you got the content from. For one, it is the polite thing to do. Secondly, and more importantly when it comes to getting your content seen, it helps search engines decide the value of content - it values both sites, once the links are contextual.

To me, it is common sense that has become embedded in my psyche.

I was to find out, though, that where the images were to be shown was run by a person who did not understand this - something that seems so simple for people who run websites to understand. They didn't want any links leaving the site for some peculiar, oddball, catbox imbued reason.

And so I revoked permission for the use of that photograph, and others. Sure, I could have my name up on an obscure site as someone who took a picture of a turtle - perhaps shooting me to stardom - but the real issue is how I wish to be attributed and that when I am attributed, I should gain a benefit other than Yet Another Search Engine Result for my name. If you like what I do, shouldn't you link to it?