HyperCard Index Template 1987 Designed By Bill Atkinson
Apple's classic HyperCard (released in 1987) treated a data file as a "stack" of virtual index cards, functioning as an early visual template designer and no-code tool where users painted graphics, placed text/fields, and added clickable navigation buttons.
Are modern outcast podcasters including Matan and The Nicky Gordon Show giving us the mock trials we really need in order to stop the atrocious acts our governments + their buddies are getting away with?
Here's the link to the interview with Palm Beach Pete
and here's the one by The Nicky Gordo Show
Hot Dog Baby
Custom Lego by Citizen Brick
Besides Michael Keaton's character of Beetlejuice, Jack Nicholson's Joker, and Tommy Lee Jones' Two-Face, Jim Carrey's Riddler is one of the over the top and goofy villains Batman Forever producer Tim Burton and director Joel Schumacher had seen.
Edward Nygma was this guy who works as a scientist/inventor for Wayne Enterprises and he was a fan of Bruce Wayne. When Bruce rejects him, Edward becomes Bruce's enemy.
He teamed with Two-Face as they did their robberies for a lair at Claw Island.
Before Jim was cast as The Riddler, Joel offered The Riddler to Robin Williams with the Batchlers writing the character with his comedic delivery, and Robin talked to Akiva Goldsman about The Riddler in his kitchen in San Francisco, since they already have Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face. Robin read the script for Batman Forever and he loved it, and his management wanted $15 million and the percentage of the gross and the percentage of merchandising, the same thing Michael Keaton was going to get. While Warner Bros. spent $30 million on both Michael and Robin, Jim was cast.
???????????????
A man becomes possessed by the spirits of dictators, including Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Kim Jong-il
What are your thoughts?
U.S. Patent 3,767,901, titled "Digital Animation Apparatus and Method of Operation," was granted to Walt Disney Productions on October 23, 1973.
See the full page here:
https://archive.org/details/computer-lib-dream-machines/page/n7/mode/2up
Check out this amazing animated film from 1990. A meditation in and of itself:
I’ve moved to Oregon to escape the hustle of Los Angeles, a live/work exchange on a farm in the hills has provided something more authentic and rewarding for me. Every day is chore heavy and strenuous, but with plenty of downtime to enjoy the beauty of the farm; Giant Fir trees tower above the pig pens and an array of animals are scattered around making the days as beautiful as they are tedious. It’s only been two weeks, but I feel stronger and more connected to nature already. I decided to take a 2-day vacation in nearby Portland just to get away on my days off and do some exploring. The Crystal Hotel by McMenamin' s was my first obvious choice, as the chain of restaurants and hotels are all built in restored vintage buildings each with interesting histories attached. It is sort of a Bermuda Triangle of the Portland area, complete with strange occurrences, a dimly lit heated salt pool, and a literal triangular shaped building. I knew the place had a history, and I even tend to seek out haunted places in my spare time, but the idea of haunted hotels seemed to slip my mind as I was only seeking a few days of relaxation in the formerly gay bath-house-turned spa.
I checked in around 3pm, and took the tiny wooden elevator up to the 2nd floor. As the elevator opened, a dim ominous hallway of orange and brown hues unveiled itself and the smoky scent of woody tobacco and cedar led me to room 210. My body was beaten, bruised, and sore from lifting heavy buckets of pig feed and water through mud and blackberry thorns every morning. I was aching for a hot soak in the salty waters that run underground, in the basement of the Crystal Hotel. I clicked the letter B button and found myself in the basement hallway, and was greeted by the bright blue water shining through dark air trapped behind a glass window pane. It was empty, “Thank God” I said to myself, I find extreme comfort in liminal spaces. A dreamlike solitude is a bliss like no other.
I was worried I wouldn’t enjoy myself, as my reality has been bleak and I often can’t escape the noise and nonsense. But the pool was everything I hoped it would be, my muscles reached a relaxed state I hadn’t felt in a long time, and my aches ceased if only for a few hours. I drank a house-made blackberry cider as I enjoyed the tunes my headphones delivered and did some stretches to soothe all that hard work. The room is a long rectangle den of darkness, with an irregular egg shaped pool that lights up the floor, two small waterfall cannons spouting at the end to keep the water circulating. The water is warm enough to melt away your pain but cool enough to breathe comfortably, a natural saltiness soothes the body and keeps the water clean. I looked around and thought the pool area might be a ghost-sighting prospect, but all was calm and I felt no presence. After a few hours, I happily returned to my room to get ready for bed.
The night was not as welcoming as the day had been. My pillows were not fluffed to my liking, my sore back forced me to toss and turn to find a comfortable position, and the upstairs neighbors decided to walk back and forth for hours in their tiny room above me. I finally found myself falling down the tunnel of sleep when I felt a presence lay down beside me in the bed. The panic shook me out of any chance of slumber, and the cursedness of the hotel finally struck me. I am extremely jaded by this sort of thing as I’ve had plenty of ghost experiences relating to sleep for about 15 years now, “Oh no, god, why?” I sarcastically muttered and somehow got back to sleep, when I was awakened again by a very warm touch to the back of my neck, like a hand of embers grabbing me at the nape. This was the first time I’ve ever actually experienced a physical touch by something other-worldly. I did my best to shake myself out of the half sleep-like trance I find myself in times of haunted hours, and noticed a ghastly white smoky figure twirling into the twilight zone of my ceiling, just beside the chandelier. Then a shadowy figure complete with a wide-brimmed hat and yellow glowing eyes dissipated into the heavy dark velvet curtains lining the windows. It was like my beloved Haunted Mansion dreams hitch-hiked with me from California to this quaint Portland hotel. Some research revealed that guests have reported an entity known as The Tickler, who touches visitors in the dead of night as a prank. Maybe that’s who I encountered, maybe it was something else. I don’t know. These experiences always leave me half-horrified and half-mesmerized.
A paranormal scare was the last thing I expected at this vintage rock n roll gem of a place, the rooms look like something out of a Jim Morrison fantasy, the perfect backdrop to a drug-fueled bender or concert after-party. Despite my creepy crawl with the unknown, I highly recommend you check this place out if you are in the Portland area. It’s a lovely place to unwind and enjoy some beers and ciders within the confines of a beautiful historical building. And the equally haunted Crystal Ballroom offers concerts to see widely known bands, some of which line the walls and doors of the themed rooms at The Crystal Hotel. Up next, I hope to run into something scary at the farm when I get back. It boasts its own haunted woods and an old barn. I’ll keep you updated.
-R. Crayons AKA Scary Computer
I contend that liberty is inconsistent with the nonexistence of evil. Unless men’s minds are engineered or controlled so that everyone wants only what is “good”, there will be some people who will be disposed to evil[1]; and unless people are so closely regulated and watched that it is possible to prevent any unauthorized act before it is committed, then some of these evilly-disposed people will actually commit evil. And if people are so closely regulated and watched, then there is no freedom. Furthermore, there is the problem of deciding what is to be considered “good”. There is no such thing as absolute good. Ask any logician. The word “good” is meaningless until you define it in oppositional terms and your definition of “good” determines your system of values or goals. (In practice it would probably be impossible for anyone to explicitly and completely define his whole system of values.) Different people have different systems of values and different definitions of the word “good”. No system of values is “better” than any other, because when you say that system A is “better” (i.e., “more good”) then system B, you are presupposing some prior definition of the word “good”, i.e. a prior system of values. Unless some uniform system of values is imposed on all people by means of behavioural engineering, there will always be as many different systems of value as there are people. Thus it will be impossible for everything to be “good” from everybody’s point of view. No one group of people can have everything “good” according to its own values, in an organized society, unless it directly or indirectly imposes its will on all other people — and then you have no liberty. It therefore seems clear that you can’t eliminate all “evil” and still have liberty. Some may contend, however, that there are some things we can all agree on as being “evil” and that these things can be completely eliminated without loss of liberty. But there is nothing at all that everyone will agree is “evil.” There are, no doubt, even some people who regard such things as pain and danger as desirable in and of themselves. So you say, if only a tiny minority fails to agree that something is evil, why should that prevent us from completely eliminating that evil? Well, to be absolutely because from evil, you would either have to brainwash the opposing minority into regarding it as evil, or you would have to establish such close surveillance and restraint of the minority that they could inextricably be prevented from perpetrating the evil under consideration. Well, maybe you are willing to do this to a tiny minority; say by brainwashing them this sets a precedent for brainwashing the next “evil” minority. And the process continues. There is always another “evil” that someone regards as intolerable and insists must be brainwashed out of people.
For one thing, many of the sacrifices of liberty are made for the sake of security against calamitous events like violent crimes, dangerous accidents, etc. John Doe reads about Charles Whitman, who killed 13 people or so, and he finds it very frightening. So he favors gun-control laws, because they seem to involve such a minor sacrifice of liberty when set up against frightening things like murders. Actually, John Doe’s fear at reading about Charles Whitman is largely irrational, because, in comparison to the entire population of the country, the number of people killed by mad assassins is infinitesimal. If J. Doe viewed the matter in rational terms, he would set that little sacrifice of liberty on the one hand against, say, an increase of one hundredth of one percent in each person’s chances of living to the age of 60, on the other hand. Viewed in these terms it doesn’t seem quite so obvious that the sacrifice of liberty should be made. Other proposed sacrifices of liberty that fall into this same category are proposals for stricter requirements for driver’s licenses, proposals for requiring governor on all cars to prevent anyone from driving over 60 m.p.h., etc.
Another reason people are willing to sacrifice pieces of liberty for pieces of security or material comfort may be that it is easy to give a rational or seemingly rational reason for measures that provide security or material goods. One can talk about 100,000 more TV sets or 2 years of longer life-expectancy. But liberty is an intangible thing. If you try to argue that liberty actually leads to materialistic benefits, you are usually wrong. Furthermore, it is often easy to give facile but naïve arguments to “prove” that such and such a freedom is useless or foolish.
Examples: Against the 5^(th) Amendment (or in favour of wiretapping) you hear people say: “If he has nothing to hide why should he object to answering the question (or having his phone tapped?) And if we repealed the 5^(th) Amendment (or allowed wiretapping) it would be much easier to control crime and Communist subversion.”
In favour gun-control laws: “If the guy doesn’t intend to commit a crime with his gun, why should he object to registering it?”
Still another possible reason that people are willing to trade liberty for security is this: There are a few kinds of liberty that everyone has at least some stake in, but, people being different from each other, most antilibertarian laws affect only a small group of people; e.g. laws against marijuana affect only potheads: gun-control laws affect only those invested in hunting or shooting; a law prohibiting advocacy of communism would affect only the far left; a law requiring “abnormal” people to submit to a compulsory “cure” would affect only that minority regarded as abnormal. The majority is usually willing to support some seemingly sensible piece of legislation which affects only a small minority, but as the number of restrictions keeps multiplying, virtually everyone finds that he belongs to some of the various minorities that are affected. Thus the freedom of the whole population declines. An example: your typical liberal intellectual is quite ready to advocate laws requiring registration of guns. He sees that guns have a destructive potential, and he can’t see why an honest gun owner would object to registration. Bus suppose you suggested to this liberal that every radical speech and evry piece of radical literature should be registered with the polic; or that radical literature should be banned from the mail. He would be terribly upset, and justifiably so. The liberal will probably agree that inciting speeches have a destructive potential, because they have probably been a significant factor in bringing about some of the riots and mob violence of recent years; and he will agree that registration of radical speeches would help police to distinguish between speeches which constitute expression of opinion and those which constitute deliberate incitement to riot. But he will (correctly) object that (1) registration of radical speeches or literature could [CROSSED OUT: correctly] lead to ristrictions on their use or even to their eventual total prohibition; (2) the mere mechanics of having to go through registration procedures would be a significant annoyance to radicals; (3) the registration procedures might later be (intentionally or unintentially) made so complicated as to present a really severe problem to radical thinkers; (4) even if, by some strange magic, an absolute iron-clad guaranty could be given that the registration [CROSSED OUT: procedure] requirement would [CROSSED OUT: UNINTELLIGLBE] never be made more complicated or be followed by any actual restriction or radical speeches or literature, the mere fact that the radical is being watched by big brother is an intolerable intrusion on his privacy and dignity. These same objections can be raised with regard to gun-registration laws, but our dear liberal would pooh-pooh them. He would ive all sorts of rationalizations to show that freedom of speech is more important (to whom?) than the freedom to own a firearm, and even that the freedom to own firearms is actually pernicious. Certainly, the freedom to support radical causes is far more important to the typical liberal intellectual than the freedom to own a gun, and he is so frightened by the idea of physical violence that anything (like guns) which even reminds him of it he regards with abhorrence. He apparently can’t conceive of the idea that some people, with a different set of values from his own, might feel as strongly about their right to own guns as he does about his right to espouse radical causes. He regards with disgust the values of such people and he imagines his own system of values to be in some absolute sense “best”.
I do not mean to imply that liberal intellectuals are worse than most people in this respect. If anything, they are probably a little better. Each little group of people is willing to sacrifice the liberties of some other group of people when these liberties present even a tiny threat to the security of the first group. If we want to keep our liberty, we are just going to have to accept the fact that we will have to pay a certain price in security; furthermore, we will have to agree to pay this price for all varieties of individual liberty, and not just those particular aspects of liberty which are most desired by our own little group.
If this persistent trend toward security as opposed to liberty is to be stopped before our liberty disappears altogether, it seems clear that somewhere we must draw the line and say that we will sacrifice just so much liberty for the sake of security and comfort, and no more. Period. Unless this is done, someone will always be pushing for just one more little bitty sacrifice of liberty for the sake of some terribly desirable objective. I say we should draw this line now. As I have indicated before, I think our liberty is already severely restricted by the structure of society. People will always be wanting to postpone drawing the line because there is something so very important that must be done first. My personal opinion is that the line will never be drawn and that our liberty will finally cease to exist.
[1] Some thoughtless individuals will object that perhaps if people are properly social and educated, they will be “good” automatically, and their minds won’t have to be manipulated. But if educational techniques are so effective that they make everyone “good” without exception, then the techniques are merely a variety of behavioural engineering. Sticking electrodes into people’s heads makes us feel squeamish, but what is the difference whether we manipulate a person by sticking electrodes in his head or by educational techniques if both methods are equally effective in engineering his personality?
instructions:
stare at the sigil say think gnosara guide me to the real gnosis
In 1976, Steve Wozniak built the Apple I , one of the first pre-assembled personal computers.
Sold through the Byte Shop for $666.66, it made computing more accessible to hobbyists.
With marketing by Steve Jobs, it marked the beginning of Apple Inc
A simple machine but it sparked the personal computing revolution.
Ted Nelson's (who coined the terms hypertext and hypermedia in 1963) seminal cut and paste style book comes across as more of a Cyber-Punk almanac of sorts. Filled with doodles, graphics, wacky fonts, and jokes, and rants!
Link to Computer Lib/Dream Machines on internet archive