Moneybags: What has Obama done for me lately?

When I read various news sites that allow the horrible idea known as "comments sections", I happen to read a few comments accidentally. More accurately, I decide to check on the other side of the political spectrum once in a while, because as we all know, the far-right fringe cannot shut up. We all know this. They love the echo chamber a news site comments section "community" can provide. What's a political ideologue without his circlejerk buddies?

Forbes Magazine, which is as popular as a wank sock to anyone with an IQ over 100, has a comments section problem. Mostly, it's full of upper-class dudes who discovered the Internet is more than cat pictures and Asian porn, and figured a comments box is a great way to vent out his Randroid fantasies and how the brown people are taking his money. It's a disgusting, yet expected phenomenon.

Here's the problem with upper-class people posting on the Internet: They're very ignorant. Not ignorant on their job, mind you - but on basic, social people skills. These guys operate on a very strict marketing level until they're given the moniker "Anonymous". Then, all bets are off. Racist, xenophobic nonsense spews from their mouthfingers so fast you'd think Halliburton and BP would be fined for it. Why, you ask? Because they're not 100% in the "game" anymore since 2009, and they're a bit pissed off.

You see, when the US elected Obama as President, a small group of rich people realized that lobbying alone doesn't help if a bunch of angry young people use technology to get out the word on their plans. Therefore, rich greedy people such as the Koch Brothers started to get into politics. Because what shuts up kids (that can vote) more than buying everyone up and starting a blackmail system? Astroturf, America!

But back on the subject. I read a comment on Forbes that read like this (before it was taken down):

"You liberals just don't get it. Obama has destroyed this country. Obama has done nothing for me. You'd think that after polls showed that people do not want his agenda, he'd step aside and let the true party take over."

Okay. So, let's take this apart.  Notice how he says "liberals"? Because this is key: Liberal as a term has become a "bad word" for the fringe right. Why? Because the liberals aren't associated with the party for the rich anymore. And he's right, by the way. I don't understand a damn thing he says.

Obama has destroyed the country = "I can't screw people over as easily". Mostly related to the threat of removing At-Will employment on the federal level, even though that has never even been brought up by Obama, ever. But it should be brought up. At-Will employment means your employer can fire you because you had celery for lunch that morning and he hates your crunching. Or, more relevant, people are being fired right now for being gay. Laws that stop that nonsense? Destroyer!

Obama has done nothing for these people because they already have everything. What more can you get than 1%? This is a spit in the face of anyone affected by DADT, pre-existing conditions, undocumented immigrants, and anyone with a conscience. We can safely assume the comment author is either a rich white male, or brainwashed by a rich white male, because if you're middle class of ANY race, Obama's policies have likely benefited you in some way. Whether you choose to accept that or not is none of my business.

Regarding the polls statement: This is hilarious since polls are now seen as gospel since Nate Silver used a bunch of them (along with fancy, spooky math) to predict the 2012 election perfectly. Websites like unskewedpolls.com did nothing but lie to their base (and each other) yet died immediately in the wake of Nate Silver pwning Karl Rove in front of america with his fancy math stuff. Let's wonder why that is, shall we? You'd think an election of absolute hilarious pwnage to the Republicans would have killed the right-wing meme of Americans hating Obamacare. But it didn't, because, as I said before, maybe money and polls will change their minds!

His last clause is the most damning though - it reveals that the battleplan is to make Obama blink a lot. The GOP knows that they have nothing left , and out of fear of being primaried away by Kochsuckers with lots of money, have gone full terrorist in the past few weeks. As a result, we hear the left comparing the GOP to being less negotiable than Iran. FUCKING IRAN. And as stupid as that might sound at first, given the latest developments, it might be 100% true.

The funniest part of this is that the anonymous butthurt rich dude posted the same comment four times in a row, complete with typos in different places. When's the last time you've seen the same phrases printed over and over, saying the same words, yet riddled with typos somehow?

Ohh, right.

If anyone is wondering why the GOP is going the way of the Whigs, just look at its supporters. This was just one of many ignorant, yet successful fools in today's economy. How can people be so successful yet so tone deaf and politically stupid, I have no idea.

Things that have ruined the Web.

Let me start off nicely by saying that if you're a web designer or any kind of designer that thinks 100% dynamic streaming content is the way to go, you are free to click "X" now. Because half of this is due to people like you.

Few things make me angry these days.  However, some things cannot be ignored by my hate. I've been in the CS field since the mid-90s, and I've seen many "revolutions" go through, some bad, some very bad. None of them any good. Here is a handful of many, many complaints from the latest trend of nonsense website design.

Advertisements and useless scripts are 99% of my bandwidth.

This might sound like a minor complaint today, where we have "infinite memory" or some other nonsense that Software Engineers seem to cling to these days. Sadly, none of that was ever true, and none of it is good practice.

Take for instance, The Huffington Post. Upon connecting, 118 unique third-party sites slam my computer. Why, you ask? Social media plugins decide to load script upon script of garbage that I, and countless others shall never click. When is the last time you shared anything with Orkut? Be honest. Zero, right? Yet, these scripts load and execute for little reason other than to waste your time. Over 4 dozen cookies are forced into my hard disk, some of them mentioning sites that I would never visit, or care to visit. Let me repeat that. Four dozen cookies are created upon visiting the Huffington Post front page. Why? Who cares? All I know is that I wasn't notified by the site of any of this, yet they are required by law to do so in the UK.

Upon checking any news sites like NBC News or CNN, Flash ads may load video and display it. The size of that video? over 40 Megabytes. That's a 40MB Flash ad taking 320x200 worth of my screen real-estate. the actual content I wanted to read? A mere 5 Kilobytes, HTML formatting and all.

This might not seem like much to you, but on a smartphone with a common plan like Verizon (With a data cap), 50 Megabytes per page visit starts to add up. Given that most sites aim for the iPhone (or the stupid Blackberry) and leave no options for Android phones, those Android users are slammed with a hefty "normal" website.

Corporations that control wireless communications have not caught up with the evolving Internet. As more people move from PC to tablets and smartphones, our "big data" ways must be rethought. When the difference money-wise goes from (doing the math from my plan) 1 cent for the mobile version of a site, to $2.00 for the main site (on ONE load of the page!) something needs to give.

Then there are memory issues. Most Android phones have 512MB to 1 GB of RAM, and an underperforming ARM CPU. If you as a designer think that your site will scale to that, you're wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The "Stop" button on the browser is useless.

Remember the "stop" button on the browser? The button that claims to stop loading page content? It's a liar. the Stop button hasn't been working in quite some time. Some browsers, like Chrome, have removed it completely, or combined it with the reload button. Firefox doesn't have one at all.

So what happened to that button? AJAX is what happened to that button. As soon as web designers decided that dynamic content, instead of static, easily accessible content was the way to go, scripts became dictators of your bandwidth. No more can a person mentally calculate from visuals how much data their browsers suck up - it's invisible. And, if you disable javascript altogether, 80% of the most popular sites on the Web no longer operate.

This isn't an attack on social media websites like Facebook where dynamic content makes sense. It's more directed at news sites and blogs that run pointless twitter feeds or "Search feeds" that load posts on social media sites based on search criteria. I go to a news site to read text. I don't go there to see scrolling tweets about what Kim Kardashian is doing. If I did, I would click that article myself.

Simplicity doesn't stop at what the user sees.

Some sites, like Tumblr and Twitter, are visually simple. There isn't much "content" to see, but look under the hood and you'll see a mess of scripts and clever CSS hiding of so many elements, you wonder how it even works. This is the equivalent to a child hiding his toys under the bed and claiming his room is clean. It's not clean at all. It still exists, and it still takes up valuable memory on mobile devices, and precious CPU time. Why, for instance, are login scripts active on Twitter when a user is already logged in? Does a vector animation script need to execute (and lag webkit rendering) every time I like a post on Tumblr? Does Twitter and Tumblr both need huge JPGs scrolling on the login screens, wasting CPU cycles, my bandwidth, and my time?

The answer is no.

Standards are set for a reason.

This isn't much of a problem on main websites as much as it is a problem for niche interest sites, like fan wikis. Many small wikis like to feature animated content. That is fine, but using a format not supported in the HTML standards is not only a bad idea for future-proofing, but it also deprives users that have less popular, standards-compliant browsers from experiencing content. A great example is the Animated PNG. While it was dismissed from consideration by the PNG committee, Mozilla devs thought it was good enough that they would implement it in Firefox anyway. And why not? After all, GIF is limited to 256 Colors per palette, per frame. Animated PNG would mean 24-bit color and alpha channels! The problem? It's not standard.

Mozilla isn't the only offender. Google decided to implement a "webp" ( pronounced "Weppy") Format for its Google Maps feature. Google does provide a fallback, however, but the fact remains that it is not a "standard" format, and therefore, sites can be designed, once again, to be best viewed on specific browsers, something that HTML5 was designed to prevent.

And years later, even after tech news reporters trumpeted "the death of plugin prison",  we see Flash on the web, and Apple users are still left in the dust. 

The Web still sucks for handicapped users.

This one is a personal pet peeve of mine. My grandmother had glaucoma, and from the results of that disease, cannot see the thin, crisp text that I can see easily. Not to mention that Cascading Style Sheets sometimes make websites into a blurry, colorful mess. So, most browsers set up for the blind do not honor CSS. What do these users see?  They see lines and lines of meaningless text that would otherwise be covered up by "clever" style sheets. The result of this is that the main content is shoved down to the bottom of the page. Some sites refuse to show the content at all if CSS is disabled. Why? Because screw you, that's why.

Most Internet users that don't have these disabilities will simply retort,  "download a plugin", or tell them to use a browser that converts these atrocious websites into something palatable for Handicapped users. The problem with this is that those browsers are not mainstream, and thus, don't get the rigorous testing that popular browsers get. This opens up those users to exploits. I can't think of a worse scenario right now than a legally blind user being compromised as he or she struggles to read the text on the screen. And I haven't even discussed the issues for those who require braille or screen readers.

There is a web browser for the visually impaired, called WebbIE, but it is UK centric, even though it is available in other languages. It is also not supporting HTML5 properly.

So, what to do?

To be honest, there's not a lot we can do. When simple design got the boot in the mid 2000s, and "Web 2.0" showed up to make current browsers of the day scream in agony, this battle was already lost. When I can use the wayback machine and experience, on average, the same content that I can experience now, but at a much lower memory and CPU footprint, it saddens me.

If you want to see a wonderful relic that's still updated to this day, Google "Netscape News". It's one of the fastest loading news sites left. BBC used to hold that title with its "Low Graphics" mode, but it is now gone. Google still supports many old browser user agents from Nokia phones, so spoof as a Nokia to get a much smaller site with 100% of the content.

However, these sites may too be swallowed by the "Web 2.0" bandwagon, with 100 social media scripts slapped on, and of course, those lovely 30 Megabyte video adverts. It's only a matter of time.

And before anyone states the obvious, "get a better computer", I also have something to state. Build a better site. That's not a snappy retort as much as it is a plea. As more people use the Internet, websites will need to be redesigned to accommodate many browsers, form factors, devices, and most importantly, people. Only once does form need to reign supreme, not function, at least in the way that Web 2.0 has defined it. People do not want "function" on a web page. They want to read. After all, The Web is still text, not a television.

We're not full "Idiocracy" yet, but we're getting there if we don't do something about it.

Un-dying and update!

I thought that I wouldn't have to be making any more blog posts (my last was in 2008! did Google even own Blogger then?), I noticed that my first one was picked up by someone doing research on the Westboro Baptist Church - I assume the recent Supreme Court hearings on DOMA and Prop8 were the reason.

With that being said, I checked that post and saw it was completely out of date.  Not only would images fail to load, but the criticisms were years out of date! WBC has decided that God doesn't hate America --- But the world! That's right! GodHatesAmerica.com redirects to a super-ominous but quite hilarious PORTAL site! Why is that? Because God has decided to distribute hate evenly, apparently. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you GodHatesTheWorld.com!

Jesus hates the little children...

Yes, that's right. God has decided to widen his lens aperture and bukakke the world with hatred like no other supernatural being can. God also seems to have hired some competent web designers -- however, it still looks pretty bad. It feels like a Yahoo! Directory instead of a website.

So if you notice, there is a "world map locator" -- that's right -- every single country is listed. Consider this Fred Phelps's version of a High School "Hit List". I haven't even begun clicking through these portal links, because I assume it's just random news events in between incoherent ramblings from Fred (or whoever types that shit up) about how certain actions mean death to America. I remember when I had made a jab at "South America", thinking that, from such a hyperbolic suggestion, Fred couldn't possibly go that far. I was wrong. Not only did he go there, he built a fag-hating rocket and shot himself into crazy-space.

Oh, but notice something  at the top. "BUT WHAT ABOUT JOHN3:16, HUH?" Yeah, what about that verse? It's one of the most popular verses (if not THE most) in the Holy Bible -- but let's see what Fred thinks about "love", shall we? No? Too bad. You wanted to go full derp.

"Oh! John 3:16 conflicts with my entire message! Better make some shit up!"

You can see from this page that Fred Phelps is what I call a "Hyper-Calvinist". That is, he takes the worst parts of the Puritan movement and meshes it with Calvin's ideology. The result? God doesn't love the "world" (Or "kosmos" as Fred calls it, which actually means the entire celestial plane, not just the blue sphere) but uh.. let's just take the first paragraph.

John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." That says God loves everyone, right? Wrong. Every so-called Christian in the world will cite John 3:16 as proof that God loves everyone. They don't have a clue what the verse means, and, under the guidance of the lying false prophets who make up the "Christian" landscape, twist it to mean what they want it to mean. We call that "wresting the scripture unto your own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16.

Say what now?

 The context is "the world of believers" (whether they are Jews or Gentiles). Those are the people God loves. Those are the people for whom Jesus died. Jesus didn't come to condemn those people - He came to save them. But everyone else is already condemned, because they don't believe.

You'll say "but doesn't 'whosoever believes' mean that everybody has the chance to believe?" Nope. Turn a few pages to John 10 (you may be surprised to find that there is actually more to the Bible than John 3:16, but believe me, there is). You will find in John 10:11 that Jesus says "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." Later on in verse 26, Jesus says to some unbelievers: "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you." Uh oh - you John 3:16 heretics have a few problems on your hands. Jesus says He came to die for the sheep, and then proceeds to say that only His sheep can believe.

Notice the spin yet? "whosoever believes" doesn't mean "whosoever believes". It means that... well, uh, basically Fred doesn't even state his case correctly. It isn't until later that he tries to tie it all up with his hate-rope, but as always, Fred fucks it up.

 In other words, only the people for whom Jesus died will believe. Note that the reason that unbelievers don't believe is BECAUSE they are not His sheep. This passage explains who the world is in John 3:16, and it's clearly not everyone. Furthermore, the only people who can believe are the ones whom God has ordained to eternal life. 

Wait, are you actually trying to say--

 So, if you have been ordained to eternal life, that means that you will believe, you are one of God's sheep, God loves you, and He sent His Son to die for you so you wouldn't be condemned. If you have not been ordained to eternal life, that means you are not one of His sheep, you NEVER will believe and are already condemned. 

Aaaah there it is! The "God's Elect" thing. From what I understand, according to Calvinist teachings,  the people that God chooses to be saved by the gift of faith in this life, before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, are called His Elect. In other words, predestination.

You can easily see now why Fred Phelps acts the way he does. He has convinced his followers ,and maybe himself, that his church and his church alone are the only ones whom God loves. Now you're probably thinking, "Wow, that would be really stupid to assume!" And you'd be right. The concept of "Predestination" has been largely discredited by modern biblical scholars, because to assume that there is a finite, chosen few, leaving the rest to the dogs, really goes against every single teaching in the Gospels, especially since Progressive Christianity surfaced.


So in other words, Fred is, once again, a self-entitled hate machine that has turned the best word - love - into pure piss and vinegar. With this in mind, why would Fred Phelps be so caught up on "fags" if he has already decided who turns, and who burns?

BECAUSE HE'S GAY.

That's right. I'm calling it now. He isn't out for an evangelical mission, since he's already convinced those eggs have been counted. This should only mean that he is taunting people in a sort of  "Look what I have! That you won't have! " kind of manner. The problem with that is that Phelps has nothing to show for it except being an attention whore and a really, really bad troll.

But he seems too obsessed to be merely trolling and taunting. I fear we may be witnessing a human example of an integer overflow. Someone who would preach that hard against something so trivial to his cause, is obviously speaking from experience or shame. Human nature isn't that random.

And if he's not gay, he has unwittingly confused homosexuality with pedophilia. From Wikipedia: 

"Shirley Phelps-Roper says that, in the late 1980s, Fred Phelps witnessed a homosexual attempting to lure her then five-year-old son Joshua into some shrubbery. After several complaints to the local government about the large amount of homosexual sex occurring in the park, with no resulting action, the Phelpses put up signs warning of homosexual activity. "

That isn't a homosexual, Fred, That's a pedophile. Fred seems to know a lot about them -- since his website, preistsrapeboys.com, still exists. The problem is that Fred, like many others in the 80s, assumed homosexuality and pedophilia were somehow linked. We now know that is untrue -- And I think Fred knows too.

There are a lot of documented "things that make you go 'hmm...' " incidents about preaching from the closet. A site called "Porn MD" did some data mining on each country's xxx searches were. As I type this, an African country's 2nd highest search was, and I quote, "monster cocks". Said country also has a law on the books making homosexuality punishable by death.

No comment.

I once held the belief that it could be possible to hate homosexuality as a concept, and the people that are homosexual, and not be one at all. After all, I in 2003, I was quite the Evangelical "fagbasher" myself. I blame college for opening up my eyes to how stupid and self-hating I was of myself,  but still had hope that there could be someone legitimately straight out there that hated gay people.

I'm not so sure about that anymore. I do, however, know that PornMD has spotted me.

Number nine, number nine, number nine...

I may do another entry on the individual links, but once again, expect a 4 year delay. It's the best I can do.