CBR: Permanent Damage - Oct 14, 2009

[CBR News]

What comics art lacks most today, and what it needs the most; this week's Congressional sneak attack, why, and what you can do about it; fun with the Bible, in comics and other places; plus APE, San Diego cosplay, and more


Full article here (http://comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=23316).

[Charles RB]

Ireland passed the Lisbon Treaty this time due to two main factors:

a) Some concessions and opt-outs were made to address some of the previous complaints (i.e. now Ireland can keep banning abortions)

b) The Irish economy crashed.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Well that new Bible translation was certainly hilarious - I'm surprised you went past the example of liberal distortion that's in Luke where Jesus forgives the (Jewish) people who killed them for not knowing what they did.
Let's face it, that's probably what this new translation all about.

But after reading that, I couldn't help but swing by the conservapedia's statistics page - the last time I checked it out, the top five were for sexually transmitted diseases common amongst gay males - though I'm sure that was a temporary blip caused during the month after an over night Young Republicans convention.
Homosexuality is only the third most looked up term now. Palin is the seventh, beating Hitler at eighth.

But it was number six which caught my eye Conservapedia's Law (http://conservapedia.com/Essay:Conservapedia%27s_Law), a law with as much real math and logic behind as Intelligent Design has hard science behind it.

Apparently, conservativeness doubles each century.

This law is based on the 'fact' that conservative terms double each century.
(That's their only backing for it by the way - so don't get excited by their claims that it proves that society will become conservative regardless of the liberals best efforts).

Brilliantly though, they provide a list of Best New Conservative Words (http://conservapedia.com/Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words).
Don't be too put off by the fact the first 'best new conservative word' on the list was coined in 1794, or that the second is from 1693...

If you can make it past claims of bias that 'anti-christian' isn't in the Websters Dictionary (I'd imagine that by having the word 'Christian' and the word/prefix 'Anti' in the dictionary people could figure it out for themselves...), or the claim that 'biased' is a conservative word, 'Big Brother' makes the list as a conservative term.
Which made me laugh.
It has the description - "government constantly watching its citizens; George Orwell first coined this term in his classic, 1984".
So they consider 1984 a classic, but are happy to own the term Big Brother, and claim it as a conservative one.
What message did they take from that book?

(It's up there with the time the 'Sydney Morning Herald' had a positive article on technology - a 'see what's coming our way' type piece - with a small part on the increases in surveillance technology. It's positive end to the piece was '... makes it seem like the world of 1984 is just around the corner!' Fantastic).

They also claim 'Claptrap' is an anti liberal term, 'Can-do' a conservative one (at least Kipling is closer to conservative than Orwell), and 'cross examination' listed as "the most effective tool against liberal deceit, better than even the requirement of an oath ".

'Double Standard' another conservative term is given the description "applying harsher criticism against one group, such as churchgoers or conservatives, than against another group, such as atheists or liberals; recognition of a double standard by the Prodigal Son led him to repent and convert ".

I haven't made it the full way down - it requires close reading - in fact I'm only at the 'D's, but the only true conservative terms I've seen are 'Bork', 'Death Tax' and 'De-regulation'.

I love Conservapedia.

[cdulla]

The opt-outs mentioned above where a significant factor in Ireland's voting yes on the Lisbon Treaty this time and give Ireland some gurantees on the issues of neutrality and abortion but these gurantees were only political statements and can in reality be revoked at any time.

The major reason the Irish changed their minds was due to the amount of people who are now unemployed in Ireland and the Yes campaign saying that a No vote will make the situation even worse and doom the country/a Yes vote will return us to the golden era of the 1990's.

[Charles RB]

I liked hearing that some of the Yes campaigners were grimly hinting that if there was a No vote, Ireland would fall under the influence of... Britain. DUN DUN DUNNNNN.

Which is a bit funny when Yes means Ireland comes more under the influence of the far bigger EU.

re opt-out revokes - whether the EU would actually do that is debatable. Ireland's not the only country that had opt-outs, and none of the member-states want the EU to make too many demands of them; on top of that, the EU would need Ireland to enforce any changes of law in Ireland, they can't say "fuck you we'll send the French in to do it" (and not just because everyone else who isn't France will go "WHAT now?" and France would likely say "fuck off").

[Dave Hudson]

Ireland have been a member of the EU since 1973 and a Federalist Europe is not happening anytime soon (if at all).

The Lisbon Treaty is more an attempt to streamline the (recently expanded) EU and it's heavily bureaucratic machinery than it is an attempt to create a Federal States of Europe.

The Telegraph (and much of the British press) regularly have scare stories about whatever the EU is up to, not really the place to look for an impartial view of the situation.

[Charles RB]

a Federalist Europe is not happening anytime soon (if at all).

For a start, everyone in the EU would have to agree on stuff.

We can't even sort out a common Rapid Reaction Force, trying to get a federal state would take centuries.

The Telegraph (and much of the British press) regularly have scare stories about whatever the EU is up to

Of course. They're foreigners.

[cfutino]

Mr Grant,

do you have a link to the demonstration by Microsoft and T-Mobile on cloud computing? I'd really like to show it to some colleagues of mine.

[Steven Grant]

Mr Grant,

do you have a link to the demonstration by Microsoft and T-Mobile on cloud computing? I'd really like to show it to some colleagues of mine.

It wasn't a demostration. They screwed up bad last week and lost tons of user data. I think they're giving everyone who lost data $100 and a free month of phone service...

- Grant

[jmyoung]

Cloud Computing is seriously the most counter-intuitive and no-value-add concept I have ever heard.

It beats out Twitter. At least with Twitter I can see someone being present at a non-broadcast live event (although how many of those are there if you include the WWW) or updates on someone's status while undergoing a process or procedure, etc.

I can buy 1.5 TB harddrives for $200. Why would anyone entrust anything valuable that they want to be able quickly to be at an off-site location?

I guess this all part of the digital jukebox in the sky concept that's been going around since the 90s, where we own nothing and rent everything.

[cfutino]

Cloud Computing is seriously the most counter-intuitive and no-value-add concept I have ever heard.

It beats out Twitter. At least with Twitter I can see someone being present at a non-broadcast live event (although how many of those are there if you include the WWW) or updates on someone's status while undergoing a process or procedure, etc.

I can buy 1.5 TB harddrives for $200. Why would anyone entrust anything valuable that they want to be able quickly to be at an off-site location?

I guess this all part of the digital jukebox in the sky concept that's been going around since the 90s, where we own nothing and rent everything.

Actually, cloud computing does have it's uses. In a corporate environment, the use of scalable distributed processing power (see amazon EC2, for an example) is very usefull.
For the end user, though, I think cloud computing isn't worth it's risks and problems (have you ever thought about privacy? How private can my document be if Google or Microsoft have it?).

[jmyoung]

Actually, cloud computing does have it's uses. In a corporate environment, the use of scalable distributed processing power (see amazon EC2, for an example) is very usefull.
For the end user, though, I think cloud computing isn't worth it's risks and problems (have you ever thought about privacy? How private can my document be if Google or Microsoft have it?).

Obviously, I agree with you on a personal level, but in a corporate environment why wouldn't you buy multiple processors? All aspects of computing are relatively cheap. I suppose for a smaller business, starting out there may be not insignificant cost savings to be had.

[uthor]

I think cloud computing has its place. I like keeping my e-mails for Google so I can easily access them from home, work, my phone, and my family's computers, for example. Plus, that's much easier than buying a new desktop so I can setup my own server and running that 24/7 in order to distance myself from Google.

Still, I only have one PC, and it's a laptop, so I can easily store everything locally and have it available whenever I need it. If I were to go with a desktop/netbook combo that is popular with many people I know, cloud computing makes more sense. It's either that or setting up a program for syncing the two computers together (which is also probably easy, but I've always had a problem getting to work right).

I try to strike a balance between the two. For example, I keep all my important photos on my hard drive and I put interesting photos on Flickr. Something that I wish to share, but will really not care about in the future stays on Flickr only while something I wish to keep but have little interest sharing with others stays on my hard drive only.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Actually, cloud computing does have it's uses. In a corporate environment, the use of scalable distributed processing power (see amazon EC2, for an example) is very usefull.


I dunno, it's painful enough getting hiccups or something on the shared server at my work as it is - having it happen off-site, and not knowing what's happening to your documents at all, would just be a nightmare.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Well, Crumb got himself a good bit of advertising thanks to some god-botherer denouncing the book. (http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/books/explicit-genesis-upsets-christians/2009/10/18/1255800503029.html)

It was on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald website, meaning it got print in the paper, and I saw a similar article in the free afternoon paper given out to commuters.

Why would they possibly feel the need to give him the advertising? - those upset that is, not the paper.

Earlier in the week my nearby comic shop had one copy on their shelf, not even highlighted as a new release - they could probably shift a few now.

I just don't get why this one chap felt the need to denounce a book that would have passed unnoticed by most people, and one that doesn't seem to bother those in higher standing in the Church than himself.
Self-promotion perhaps? To be seen taking a stand?
Either way, pretty funny if it's as literal an adapation as suggested.

[Steven Grant]

Self-promotion perhaps? To be seen taking a stand?

Humorless zealotry, I'd guess.

Either way, pretty funny if it's as literal an adapation as suggested.

It is. And there's an advisory on the cover to supervise any non-adults reading the book.

But, c'mon, you knew it would happen. There's Adam & Eve, naked in Eden - as described in the Bible. There's Onan, spilling his seed onto the earth - as described in the Bible. There are all kinds of sex acts - as described in the Bible. And visualized characters are sexualized characters. So of course some Christians will howl over Crumb's book.

- Grant

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

It is. And there's an advisory on the cover to supervise any non-adults reading the book.
That should be on all versions of it.

But, c'mon, you knew it would happen. There's Adam & Eve, naked in Eden - as described in the Bible. There's Onan, spilling his seed onto the earth - as described in the Bible. There are all kinds of sex acts - as described in the Bible. And visualized characters are sexualized characters.

And that's leaving out Lot's 'hey, don't rape my guest, rape my daughters!', and then later the daughters raping him, Abraham and his wife/sister Sarah and their swinging ways...

So of course some Christians will howl over Crumb's book.

- Grant

I wonder why they didn't ask any Jewish commentators about the book?
Christians never like being forced to accept all of the first half of their book anyway, doing their best to ignore certain bits, so it was probably a shock to some of them what happens in those verses where your eyes glaze over... Jewish people however seem a little more versed in the first few books.

[Steven Grant]

And that's leaving out Lot's 'hey, don't rape my guest, rape my daughters!', and then later the daughters raping him, Abraham and his wife/sister Sarah and their swinging ways...

What I mostly took away from it was them early Hebrews was kinda pricks. And God sure repeated himself a lot. Lots of mentions of slaves in it too. I can see why Southerners claimed slavery was endorsed in the Bible.

But it's all so obviously cobbling together of other stories, accruing just as clearly as what we now view as the Greek Pantheon accrued during successions of invasions.

I wonder why they didn't ask any Jewish commentators about the book?

Eh? What've they got to do with it? Everyone knows God passed the whole Chosen People thing on to the more deserving English anyway. (Or was it the Catholics?) Keep up with the times, man!

Christians never like being forced to accept all of the first half of their book anyway, doing their best to ignore certain bits, so it was probably a shock to some of them what happens in those verses where your eyes glaze over... Jewish people however seem a little more versed in the first few books.

Yeah, probably the Torah has something to do with that...

- Grant

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Yeah, probably the Torah has something to do with that...


That's why I'd find a Jewish commentators take on it more interesting than a cherry-pickin' Christians - you ask some Christians what the hell is with the guy who offered his mistress up for rape over his guest (not Lot, the other guy who did it), and then the mistress died the next morning after all the rape, and he cut her up and sent her body to the twelve tribes... and often the Christian will stare at you blankly, or tell you that does it matter only Jesus matters (despite all the attempts to link him to the Jewish religion).
Asking a Jewish person, they normally at least know the story, and often have some insight to what it's about - or at least an interpretation of it.

[Steven Grant]

Asking a Jewish person, they normally at least know the story, and often have some insight to what it's about - or at least an interpretation of it.

Who the hell needs that? I'm still working out that whole New Testament mustard seed thing... I wish if that Jesus guy had a point he'd just get to it for a change...

- Grant

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Who the hell needs that?

It's just it's a pretty fucked up story is all.
And the second variation of it in there.
I just want to know why I should give up my children to a mob of rapists, and not some bloke I've just met.

I'm still working out that whole New Testament mustard seed thing... I wish if that Jesus guy had a point he'd just get to it for a change...

- Grant

It all had some to do with cheesemakers and the greek, from what I hear.

[Steven Grant]

I just want to know why I should give up my children to a mob of rapists, and not some bloke I've just met.

It's basic hospitality, especially if the bloke you just met is a messenger of God. (A line I plan to use the next time I travel through the South, by the way.) Giving up the bloke to protect your children is just basic selfishness. But that's only one of the stories that repeats in the Old Testament, thought the second version isn't in Genesis. (Remember, Crumb only covers Genesis.)

- Grant

[Charles RB]

Eh? What've they got to do with it? Everyone knows God passed the whole Chosen People thing on to the more deserving English anyway. (Or was it the Catholics?)

Nah, it's Real Americans (TM) now. We're godless socialist heathens being overrun by Muslims.

[Steven Grant]

Nah, it's Real Americans (TM) now. We're godless socialist heathens being overrun by Muslims.

Sorry, thought that went without saying...

- Grant

[bartl]

It all had some to do with cheesemakers and the greek, from what I hear.
I had the pleasure of introducing THE LIFE OF BRIAN to a Catholic priest; he has since told me several times it's his favorite movie.

[bartl]

It's basic hospitality, especially if the bloke you just met is a messenger of God. (A line I plan to use the next time I travel through the South, by the way.) Giving up the bloke to protect your children is just basic selfishness. But that's only one of the stories that repeats in the Old Testament, thought the second version isn't in Genesis. (Remember, Crumb only covers Genesis.
In Jewish Midrash, of course, the point is that Lot IS a prick. When Abraham asked if there were 10 good people in Sodom and Gomorrah, the Midrash says he was hoping Lot and his family would count. And they didn't.

The people talked about in the Old Testament were by no means perfect, and were clearly not intended to be read as so. And, of course, the Orthodox Jews believe that the Talmud was handed down with the Bible, and has equal weight; much of the criticism of the Old Testament can be tempered by the Talmud.

Yet, of course, there are those who believe that it is the Literal Word of God(tm) in the Original English(tm). Of course, that is unless it isn't...

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

It's basic hospitality, especially if the bloke you just met is a messenger of God. (A line I plan to use the next time I travel through the South, by the way.) Giving up the bloke to protect your children is just basic selfishness. But that's only one of the stories that repeats in the Old Testament, thought the second version isn't in Genesis. (Remember, Crumb only covers Genesis.)

- Grant
It's just such a messed up moral I like to point out it's in there twice.

But overall, from what I can figure with Lot, the overall moral is that it's better to commit incest, than to pause in a moment of sorrow over the death of homosexuals?

I had the pleasure of introducing THE LIFE OF BRIAN to a Catholic priest; he has since told me several times it's his favorite movie.

As well it should be!
If you hunt around on Youtube you can find a clip with some of the Monty Python guys on a debate show with two stuffy old Religious men, and they are saying what a blasphemous film is - despite having not seen it.
It's pretty funny watching them trying to point to how evil the film is based upon things that just aren't in it.
Especially funny as the films an attack on those who re-purpose religion for their own ends and those who follow them blindly, and well, you start to wonder if it's the mocking religion and god gets that they are upset about, or whether they were worried their gravy train was about to end.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

In Jewish Midrash, of course, the point is that Lot IS a prick. When Abraham asked if there were 10 good people in Sodom and Gomorrah, the Midrash says he was hoping Lot and his family would count. And they didn't.

Why was Lot a prick?
I mean besides offering up his daughters to be raped over letting a crowd try and attack a super powered messenger of god?
And besides not stopping to even take a moment at the concept of a genocide going on in the town he used to live.
And so he kept following the guy who killed his wife over a minor infraction... how is he a prick?

Yet, of course, there are those who believe that it is the Literal Word of God(tm) in the Original English(tm). Of course, that is unless it isn't...

Well, once they get rid of all the liberal words and distortions, it will be the true word of god!

[Lord Destiny]

I can buy 1.5 TB harddrives for $200.

I just paid less than $120.

[cfutino]

I dunno, it's painful enough getting hiccups or something on the shared server at my work as it is - having it happen off-site, and not knowing what's happening to your documents at all, would just be a nightmare.

Ok, I'm not the biggest defender of Cloud Computing, but its defenders say the idea is avoiding those hiccups.
Think of it like this: Keeping redundant servers is expensive for the hospital I work for, but it's quite cheap for Amazon, Google or whoever becuase that's the core business for them. So, if my server crashes, the network stops untill I ( and the tema of 8 people I'm part of) can fix it. If my hired server crashes, a redundant one would automatically take it's place. Of course, crashes do happen, but they should be less frequent.

Now, my criticism on C. C. are privacy (Can you trust Google or Amazon to keep your sensitive information private?) and network overhead. And, of course, I'm not convinced it's a good deal for the end user.

[jmyoung]

Ok, I'm not the biggest defender of Cloud Computing, but its defenders say the idea is avoiding those hiccups.
Think of it like this: Keeping redundant servers is expensive for the hospital I work for, but it's quite cheap for Amazon, Google or whoever becuase that's the core business for them. So, if my server crashes, the network stops untill I ( and the tema of 8 people I'm part of) can fix it. If my hired server crashes, a redundant one would automatically take it's place. Of course, crashes do happen, but they should be less frequent.

Now, my criticism on C. C. are privacy (Can you trust Google or Amazon to keep your sensitive information private?) and network overhead. And, of course, I'm not convinced it's a good deal for the end user.

I am not talking about back-up. Every corporation uses off-site back-up. It's not that expensive for private back-up. Cloud Computing (as far as I am aware) is about having PRIMARY, REGULARLY USED software and files off-site.

[cfutino]

I am not talking about back-up. Every corporation uses off-site back-up. It's not that expensive for private back-up. Cloud Computing (as far as I am aware) is about having PRIMARY, REGULARLY USED software and files off-site.

Actually, the term Cloud Computing means ANY part of your IT needs beeing solved off-site, on-line, through an internet connection. On-line offsite backup is Cloud Computing, but it's not the only kind of Cloud Computing there is.
Anyway, I wasn't talking about backup either. I was talking about having your whole server, from OS to applications, offsite. I can see some uses for that.
Now, what you're referring to is what we call Software as Services (SaS), and it's also a kind of Cloud Computing. I don't like that, but it seems to be gaining popularityt of late. (Actually, wanna get on the next IT trend soon? Pick the one I'm rooting against... It's been like this since 1999).

[Steven Grant]

Actually, the term Cloud Computing means ANY part of your IT needs beeing solved off-site, on-line, through an internet connection. On-line offsite backup is Cloud Computing, but it's not the only kind of Cloud Computing there is.
Anyway, I wasn't talking about backup either. I was talking about having your whole server, from OS to applications, offsite. I can see some uses for that.

You're right that various concepts of online offsite data storage have been around for ages. When I lived outside Seattle in the mid-'90s my across-the-street neighbor worked for a company that was getting rich providing offsite data storage with automatic online backup so companies could save data to the web in real time, with the promise of "total security," the one part I couldn't quite swallow. Certainly there's much value in backing up to a site you have no physical connection to, but any online presence beyond your control is automatically security-suspect. As with operating systems, there's no way to know how "secure" it really is until they tell you how someone managed to crack it. And once you give your data to someone else, you give someone else access to your data. They may never use that access, but...

Now, what you're referring to is what we call Software as Services (SaS), and it's also a kind of Cloud Computing. I don't like that, but it seems to be gaining popularityt of late. (Actually, wanna get on the next IT trend soon? Pick the one I'm rooting against... It's been like this since 1999).

Software companies, like Microsoft, have an essential flaw in their business model, at least from their point of view. They sell their software. The point of "cloud computing," as currently formulated, is to make you "rent" their software. (According to most EULAs, you really do anyway, but it's never enforced because they don't want to run the risk of invalidating their EULAs.) It's an "ease of use" offer. You're busy salesman running from this spot to that? An exec jetting from Houston to Portland to Atlanta constantly? All that data and those programs filling up your laptops hard drive, and your data out of date by the time you arrive at the airport? Look! Have your data actively available. Let others work on those spreadsheets and powerpoint programs! And here's the best part: you don't even have to buy 10,000 copies of every program for your whole company! With cloud computing, even the programs are online and you only pay for use as you use it. (Other plans available.) All your data will be online too, updated in real time and always at your fingertips. Etc.

It's a "productivity" tool that depends on your Internet not dying, your online accounts not being hacked, the signons/passwords not becoming corrupted, the offsite server not going down, the service owners not deciding it's not profitable enough and suddenly pulling the plug on it. (The latter is the most common problem of "cloud computing," and companies have been known to shut down "clouds" overnight, with barely a word to their clients. What they tell clients who put all their data into the cloud and switched to online apps is tsk! tsk! That was bad security.)

Basically, as the "cloud computing" craze currently positions it, there's pretty much nothing you get from "cloud computing" that you don't get via simple Internetting, except for renting access to programs and storing your data on someone else's servers. It's like having a refrigerator salesman push the light staying on when you close the door as a value-added feature.

The most successful form of "cloud computing," by a long shot, is bit torrenting, an offshoot of the long established though now rarely mentioned craze of letting scientific institutes etc. use your computer "cycles" when you weren't using your computer.

Speaking of which, I see ASUS just released the world's first desktop supercomputer...

- Grant

[cfutino]

You're right that various concepts of online offsite data storage have been around for ages. When I lived outside Seattle in the mid-'90s my across-the-street neighbor worked for a company that was getting rich providing offsite data storage with automatic online backup so companies could save data to the web in real time, with the promise of "total security," the one part I couldn't quite swallow. Certainly there's much value in backing up to a site you have no physical connection to, but any online presence beyond your control is automatically security-suspect. As with operating systems, there's no way to know how "secure" it really is until they tell you how someone managed to crack it. And once you give your data to someone else, you give someone else access to your data. They may never use that access, but...

Yeah... that's always been my problem with off-site servers and off-site storage too.
I can see how it's a financial advantage only paying the processing capacity you actually use (most servers spend most of their time idle or under the maximum processing capacityt), but I just don't know if I can trust each and ever Amazon employee with my business data.


Software companies, like Microsoft, have an essential flaw in their business model, at least from their point of view. They sell their software. The point of "cloud computing," as currently formulated, is to make you "rent" their software. (According to most EULAs, you really do anyway, but it's never enforced because they don't want to run the risk of invalidating their EULAs.) It's an "ease of use" offer. You're busy salesman running from this spot to that? An exec jetting from Houston to Portland to Atlanta constantly? All that data and those programs filling up your laptops hard drive, and your data out of date by the time you arrive at the airport? Look! Have your data actively available. Let others work on those spreadsheets and powerpoint programs! And here's the best part: you don't even have to buy 10,000 copies of every program for your whole company! With cloud computing, even the programs are online and you only pay for use as you use it. (Other plans available.) All your data will be online too, updated in real time and always at your fingertips. Etc.

It's a "productivity" tool that depends on your Internet not dying, your online accounts not being hacked, the signons/passwords not becoming corrupted, the offsite server not going down, the service owners not deciding it's not profitable enough and suddenly pulling the plug on it. (The latter is the most common problem of "cloud computing," and companies have been known to shut down "clouds" overnight, with barely a word to their clients. What they tell clients who put all their data into the cloud and switched to online apps is tsk! tsk! That was bad security.)

Basically, as the "cloud computing" craze currently positions it, there's pretty much nothing you get from "cloud computing" that you don't get via simple Internetting, except for renting access to programs and storing your data on someone else's servers. It's like having a refrigerator salesman push the light staying on when you close the door as a value-added feature.

(...)
- Grant

Like I said, end-user software through the cloud seems baffling to me. Unless we're talking about free solutions such as Google Docs (and I still think the security issues are important even in the case of free tools), it's just a way to get more money from users.