Comments for FatsLeroy.com http://fatsleroy.com Jazz Musician, Anti-Social Anarchist, Agnostic Atheist, Avid Pipe Smoker and General Ne'er-Do-Well Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:47:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 Comment on Flock: The Not So Friendly Social Browser by Evan Hamilton http://fatsleroy.com/2009/01/03/flock-the-not-so-friendly-social-browser/comment-page-1/#comment-111 Evan Hamilton Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:16:41 +0000 http://fatsleroy.com/?p=568#comment-111 Hey Fats, Thanks for the constructive response! I love the cross-network commenting on FriendFeed...it's definitely their stand-out feature. Again, I don't see how it fits into Flock's *current* product. To your last paragraph, I think you're catching my drift...Flock is going to have to transform if we do indeed want to compete with FriendFeed and be more of an everpresent service instead of an application rooted in the desktop. Our plans here are not concrete, but we are madly brainstorming at this time. 2009 will be an exciting year. :) Evan Hamilton Flock Community AMbassador evan at flock dot com Hey Fats,

Thanks for the constructive response! I love the cross-network commenting on FriendFeed…it’s definitely their stand-out feature. Again, I don’t see how it fits into Flock’s *current* product.

To your last paragraph, I think you’re catching my drift…Flock is going to have to transform if we do indeed want to compete with FriendFeed and be more of an everpresent service instead of an application rooted in the desktop. Our plans here are not concrete, but we are madly brainstorming at this time. 2009 will be an exciting year. :)

Evan Hamilton
Flock Community AMbassador
evan at flock dot com

]]> Comment on Flock: The Not So Friendly Social Browser by Fats http://fatsleroy.com/2009/01/03/flock-the-not-so-friendly-social-browser/comment-page-1/#comment-110 Fats Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:38:01 +0000 http://fatsleroy.com/?p=568#comment-110 Well one thing is for sure, the Flock people are on top of the community! Kudos to you guys, and thanks for the reply. Flock may not be the best fit for my workflow, but I will recommend it to my wife. The key to FriendFeed is not just status updates, but the rich commenting that results in high signal-to-noise ratio threaded conversations. Twitter, Facebook, etc. may provide status updates, but FriendFeed really enable both rich and (often) entertaining discourse. Methinks that Flock is going to add a cloud component to more directly compete with FriendFeed. Just a hunch... Well one thing is for sure, the Flock people are on top of the community! Kudos to you guys, and thanks for the reply. Flock may not be the best fit for my workflow, but I will recommend it to my wife.

The key to FriendFeed is not just status updates, but the rich commenting that results in high signal-to-noise ratio threaded conversations. Twitter, Facebook, etc. may provide status updates, but FriendFeed really enable both rich and (often) entertaining discourse.

Methinks that Flock is going to add a cloud component to more directly compete with FriendFeed. Just a hunch…

]]> Comment on Flock: The Not So Friendly Social Browser by Evan Hamilton http://fatsleroy.com/2009/01/03/flock-the-not-so-friendly-social-browser/comment-page-1/#comment-109 Evan Hamilton Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:00:19 +0000 http://fatsleroy.com/?p=568#comment-109 Hey Fats, Sorry to hear that you didn't like Flock. You've certainly got some solid points...let me respond real quick: 1. Adding support for Google Accounts For Your Domain is definitely on the radar (we actually use GAFYD here at Flock). It's been a long time coming, but hopefully it'll land early in '09. 2. I completely agree, and we know that this area needs massive improvement. Text wrapping, clickable links in the sidebar, reply buttons...there are a number of improvements that we hope to roll together into one large change later in the year. Because these require some significant reworking of the back-end of the People Sidebar, it's not something we can do quickly...hence the delay and the bundling of these fixes. 3. We're certainly not the most advanced blog editor out there. If you decide to return to Flock, I would recommend the BlogPlus extension, which pimps out our Blog Editor significantly. You can get it at http://flock.spatialviews.com/download.html 4. FriendFeed wouldn't make sense in Flock as Flock currently exists. I think FriendFeed is a great service, but what it does is aggregates and filters feeds. Flock does more, allowing you to write to a service and interact with it at a more granular level. FriendFeed in the People Sidebar would appear very limited compared to our other features, because it would only be status updates from friends. It remains to be seen whether future incarnations of Flock have a place for FriendFeed, but right now it just doesn't make sense for us to place it into the product. I hope you'll give Flock another chance, perhaps down the line when we release our next large update. Regardless, thanks for giving us a try, posting your feedback, and allowing me to weigh in. Evan Hamilton Flock Community Ambassador evan at flock dot com Hey Fats,

Sorry to hear that you didn’t like Flock. You’ve certainly got some solid points…let me respond real quick:

1. Adding support for Google Accounts For Your Domain is definitely on the radar (we actually use GAFYD here at Flock). It’s been a long time coming, but hopefully it’ll land early in ‘09.

2. I completely agree, and we know that this area needs massive improvement. Text wrapping, clickable links in the sidebar, reply buttons…there are a number of improvements that we hope to roll together into one large change later in the year. Because these require some significant reworking of the back-end of the People Sidebar, it’s not something we can do quickly…hence the delay and the bundling of these fixes.

3. We’re certainly not the most advanced blog editor out there. If you decide to return to Flock, I would recommend the BlogPlus extension, which pimps out our Blog Editor significantly. You can get it at http://flock.spatialviews.com/download.html

4. FriendFeed wouldn’t make sense in Flock as Flock currently exists. I think FriendFeed is a great service, but what it does is aggregates and filters feeds. Flock does more, allowing you to write to a service and interact with it at a more granular level. FriendFeed in the People Sidebar would appear very limited compared to our other features, because it would only be status updates from friends. It remains to be seen whether future incarnations of Flock have a place for FriendFeed, but right now it just doesn’t make sense for us to place it into the product.

I hope you’ll give Flock another chance, perhaps down the line when we release our next large update. Regardless, thanks for giving us a try, posting your feedback, and allowing me to weigh in.

Evan Hamilton
Flock Community Ambassador
evan at flock dot com

]]> Comment on Ron Paul and Proposition 8 by Fats http://fatsleroy.com/2008/10/15/ron-paul-prop-8/comment-page-1/#comment-98 Fats Sun, 30 Nov 2008 02:14:48 +0000 http://fatsleroy.com/?p=478#comment-98 Nick, you are right and I stand corrected. The distinguished Dr. Paul's official campaign ran from 12 March 2007 until 12 June 2008, which isn't exactly brief. That was, as you have pointed out, poor wording on my part. To add to your insight, not only did Dr. Paul continue "all the way to the GOP convention more or less," he actually made it onto the ballot in Montana and Louisiana, despite ceasing his campaign for the presidency. Thank you for taking the time to write such an eloquent response. I recommend everyone take a look at Dr. Paul's book (which I have not yet read unfortunately), <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537519" rel="nofollow">The Revolution: A Manifesto</a>. Nick, you are right and I stand corrected. The distinguished Dr. Paul’s official campaign ran from 12 March 2007 until 12 June 2008, which isn’t exactly brief. That was, as you have pointed out, poor wording on my part. To add to your insight, not only did Dr. Paul continue “all the way to the GOP convention more or less,” he actually made it onto the ballot in Montana and Louisiana, despite ceasing his campaign for the presidency.

Thank you for taking the time to write such an eloquent response.

I recommend everyone take a look at Dr. Paul’s book (which I have not yet read unfortunately), The Revolution: A Manifesto.

]]> Comment on Ron Paul and Proposition 8 by Nick http://fatsleroy.com/2008/10/15/ron-paul-prop-8/comment-page-1/#comment-97 Nick Sat, 29 Nov 2008 22:32:34 +0000 http://fatsleroy.com/?p=478#comment-97 He didn't run briefly for President, he continueed all the way to the GOP convention more or less (if you cound that he had his own). Unless you consider all candidates in the primaries who don't get nominated to "run briefly". Choose your words wisely. He didn’t run briefly for President, he continueed all the way to the GOP convention more or less (if you cound that he had his own). Unless you consider all candidates in the primaries who don’t get nominated to “run briefly”. Choose your words wisely.

]]> Comment on Ron Paul and Proposition 8 by Fats http://fatsleroy.com/2008/10/15/ron-paul-prop-8/comment-page-1/#comment-24 Fats Wed, 05 Nov 2008 04:04:35 +0000 http://fatsleroy.com/?p=478#comment-24 Let's get one thing straight here, Joshua - I'm an Anarchist. I'm opposed to democracy for starters and I wouldn't support any candidate or any proposition. I especially am disgusted by political actions that infringe on the rights of any person. Prop 8 is just that kind of beast. Yes, I understand the background - same-sex marriage was made legal in California by some activist judges. But before that was a piece of code on the books here in CA that defined marriage as one man and one woman. That is more offensive to me than Prop 8. The Calif. Family Code simply presumed that the State had the God-given right and duty to decide who can and cannot be legally married. See, I'm not just for same-sex marriage, I'm for polygamy, prostitution, legalization of all drugs, etc. So I'm not trying to show that the guy on the freeway was a douchebag based upon the merit or lack thereof regarding his understanding of another person's theoretical political choices. I think that this guy is a douchebag as a result/function of the folly of democracy - the notion that a popular opinion can somehow invalidate the freedoms and rights of the minority. Maybe I am an idiot. I'm sure that if it were put to a vote, the popular opinion would be against me. So what. Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke. Let’s get one thing straight here, Joshua - I’m an Anarchist. I’m opposed to democracy for starters and I wouldn’t support any candidate or any proposition. I especially am disgusted by political actions that infringe on the rights of any person. Prop 8 is just that kind of beast. Yes, I understand the background - same-sex marriage was made legal in California by some activist judges. But before that was a piece of code on the books here in CA that defined marriage as one man and one woman. That is more offensive to me than Prop 8. The Calif. Family Code simply presumed that the State had the God-given right and duty to decide who can and cannot be legally married. See, I’m not just for same-sex marriage, I’m for polygamy, prostitution, legalization of all drugs, etc. So I’m not trying to show that the guy on the freeway was a douchebag based upon the merit or lack thereof regarding his understanding of another person’s theoretical political choices. I think that this guy is a douchebag as a result/function of the folly of democracy - the notion that a popular opinion can somehow invalidate the freedoms and rights of the minority.

Maybe I am an idiot. I’m sure that if it were put to a vote, the popular opinion would be against me. So what. Fuck ‘em if they can’t take a joke.

]]> Comment on Ron Paul and Proposition 8 by Joshua http://fatsleroy.com/2008/10/15/ron-paul-prop-8/comment-page-1/#comment-23 Joshua Wed, 05 Nov 2008 03:21:02 +0000 http://fatsleroy.com/?p=478#comment-23 This is the only blog of yours that I have read, as I was searching to see if Ron Paul had a position on Prop. 8. After reading your opinion, then actually reading a few of the Q/As from the website you linked for your Ron Paul quote, and then your suggestion at the end of your reply to Eliot's post (not to mention many other things you've said in this post alone), I have to assume that you are in no capacity to call another a douche bag because you are, in fact, an idiot. This is the only blog of yours that I have read, as I was searching to see if Ron Paul had a position on Prop. 8. After reading your opinion, then actually reading a few of the Q/As from the website you linked for your Ron Paul quote, and then your suggestion at the end of your reply to Eliot’s post (not to mention many other things you’ve said in this post alone), I have to assume that you are in no capacity to call another a douche bag because you are, in fact, an idiot.

]]> Comment on Ron Paul and Proposition 8 by Fats http://fatsleroy.com/2008/10/15/ron-paul-prop-8/comment-page-1/#comment-15 Fats Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:42:28 +0000 http://fatsleroy.com/?p=478#comment-15 For a re-cap on the recommendations from the Libertarian Party's official site try this: http://ca.lp.org/props_nov_08.shtml For further analysis on why prop 8 is against libertarian principles see this: http://www.nolanchart.com/article5063.html For further reflection consider this: Why does the government or any person have the right to determine what consenting adults do? If, as many assert, a deity/god/goddess/magic man/flying spaghetti monster "ordained" marriage and subsequently offered up a set of guidelines and definitions through some sort of "helping friendly book", then why should the government have had any involvement at any point as a usurper of that role. Didn't the Jesus of so many stories and bumper stickers proclaim, "render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to G-d what is G-d's?" And also "Judge not lest ye be judged?" And what about this: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, love under will. There is no Law beyond Do what thou wilt." Oh wait, that was Aleister Crowley. Maybe instead of bickering about what choices others make for themselves we should think about throwing the bath water out with the fetus and just get rid of the government altogether and allow people the freedom to do what they will. For a re-cap on the recommendations from the Libertarian Party’s official site try this:
http://ca.lp.org/props_nov_08.shtml

For further analysis on why prop 8 is against libertarian principles see this:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5063.html

For further reflection consider this:
Why does the government or any person have the right to determine what consenting adults do? If, as many assert, a deity/god/goddess/magic man/flying spaghetti monster “ordained” marriage and subsequently offered up a set of guidelines and definitions through some sort of “helping friendly book”, then why should the government have had any involvement at any point as a usurper of that role. Didn’t the Jesus of so many stories and bumper stickers proclaim, “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to G-d what is G-d’s?” And also “Judge not lest ye be judged?” And what about this:
“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, love under will. There is no Law beyond Do what thou wilt.”
Oh wait, that was Aleister Crowley.

Maybe instead of bickering about what choices others make for themselves we should think about throwing the bath water out with the fetus and just get rid of the government altogether and allow people the freedom to do what they will.

]]> Comment on Ron Paul and Proposition 8 by Elliot http://fatsleroy.com/2008/10/15/ron-paul-prop-8/comment-page-1/#comment-11 Elliot Sun, 26 Oct 2008 06:43:51 +0000 http://fatsleroy.com/?p=478#comment-11 Ron Paul said that this is a matter to be decided by the state, just as you quoted. Currently, the government in CA is involved in marriage by asserting that same-sex marriage is recognized by the government. The dictionary defines it as "The union of a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life." This is what it is in the dictionary. It is necessary to define it in the CA Constitution (not at the Federal level) due to the activist judges who overturned the people's vote. Paul said there is no need for the FEDERAL government to be involved in this, which is why it IS appropriate for this to be decided at the state level. To think that this is hypocrisy is too simple-minded. The line is finer than that. Ron Paul said that this is a matter to be decided by the state, just as you quoted. Currently, the government in CA is involved in marriage by asserting that same-sex marriage is recognized by the government.

The dictionary defines it as “The union of a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.” This is what it is in the dictionary. It is necessary to define it in the CA Constitution (not at the Federal level) due to the activist judges who overturned the people’s vote. Paul said there is no need for the FEDERAL government to be involved in this, which is why it IS appropriate for this to be decided at the state level.

To think that this is hypocrisy is too simple-minded. The line is finer than that.

]]>