• Apr 09 2012 | 10:40 am
      Nice tutorial
    • Apr 09 2012 | 11:09 am
      You've been busy raja! Very busy; any likelihood of a video/audio commentary?
      There is, however, one major and fundamental flaw in this whole package which it saddens me to highlight to a programmer as skilled as yourself:
      The apostrophe of omission in Lil' should be here: Li'l
      tut tut ;-p Brendan
    • Apr 09 2012 | 12:57 pm
      Great, and thorough tutorial! I would've loved this when I was learning, as I've developed many bad habits coding.
      Also I've always seen lil' the way he used it. Even though it is replacing the letters between 'i' and the second 'l'.
    • Apr 09 2012 | 2:09 pm
      Apparently both are acceptable
      now back to messing with raja's patches.....
    • Apr 12 2012 | 8:17 pm
      Good find raja -
      I really need this right now, will endeavor to be more "open-closed-open"
    • Jul 21 2018 | 4:59 pm
      in regards of you original post: in a recent lecture of mine i argued for the basic idea of -> accellerationism over traditional (and cultural-) marxism by creating the follwing picture: imagine how technology would look like in 2018 if - the clerics would never had tried to keep people off books for hundreds of years - we would have had democracy in germany since 1600 - women would have been allowed to study as much as men since 1700 - if there would not haven been WW I and WW II we would probably have fusion-powered UFOs by now and noone would any longer be able to "argue" why it should be unavoidble that a quarter the humanity still starves. and i didnt even include the prohibition of private profit and/or interests. all non-marxists in the room immediately started to explain me that i was wrong, because technological progress would be the foundation of social change - and not the other way round (and rediscovered marxism-leninism by doing so - mission accomplished) just sayin
    • Aug 16 2018 | 5:11 pm
      counted in numbers, most technologies are available to the public in the one or other form. you dont need to be rich enough to buy your own fusion plant in order to get electrical energy delivered to your house, and you also do not need to know the latest secrets of producing potatoes cheaper than yesterday all by yourself - and it will still have an effect on you.
      that single technologies might also have a neutral or negative effect on the society is true, but twitter isnt a technology in that sense (not new one, that is), it is a product. the technology itself (sending readable symbols to someone else peer to peer over a network is 30 years old and first found in mailboxes and nntp groups i think. long before trump)
      the interesting thing about accelerationism and/or modern(ised) value theories is that you have everyone against you, the leftists AND the others. *) more enemies = bigger area for reflection = faster growth for new interesting thoughts. (that turns out to be a new technology ... one which goes very well together with cybernetics, occupy, pluggo, and my invisible UFO. but thatยดs another story.) *) "the inevitable deterioration" == personally i dont hope for or believe in that, but this is the point of acc. which both sides fear a lot! so i love to play with it.
    • Aug 16 2018 | 8:51 pm
      it is important to understand the difference between acceleration and growth and why the acceleration is free of any tendencies towards existing or utopic economic models.
      unfortuntely, in capitalism, the developement of new technology often needs growth, but you should also not overrate this issue.
      but to those who think that digitalisation and automatisation is bad because the working class shrinks numerically this idea is an offense. this type of people think you need to have factories where 3000 proletarians in grey jackets and with proletarian hats are working together at one product to prepare a revolutionary situation, because they dont understand that 1. the numerical size of the class doesnt matter for their power, 2. machines will _never do the work all alone (until singularity, but that is sci-fi fantasy anway) and 3. - like you said above - you definetly need fusion reactors first before you can bring peace and unconditional basic income to the average african. oh yeah, and in case an oldschool leninist reads that: yes friends, the class is not a mass of white male workers with grey hats ^^. the class is simply those who are originally creating (real) added value by the investment of working hours. (and most of them are colored.) p.s.: given that raja originally offered something with "sampling" - one of the lamest music tech ever - (and then asked for homosexual offers and personal insults), i am only trying to repair this thread!
    • Aug 17 2018 | 8:53 pm
      i m always right except where i am wrong.
    • Aug 18 2018 | 1:47 pm
      2. machines will _never do the work all alone (until singularity, but that is sci-fi fantasy anway)
      Machines is wokforce for free - bare initial inverstment - made available to those with initial big money amounts. Machines don't work all alone and never will (? or will they) but they increasingly and sgnificantly (since 19th century) replace the workers who have lame jobs, and tend to replace workers with less-and-less-lame jobs. Thus the less educated working class tends to lose their jobs faster and faster. That would indeed be good if that class would benefit from that loss of a lame job, but the change is happening too fast and without the political will to accompany it : thosse workers are just losing their jobs and winning nothing. The global life expectancy has began to shrink in 2015 i think, mainly because stress and drugs which are linnke to unemployement. Marxism may be outworn because it didn't take enough into account environemental degradations caused by an overwealthy productive society, and the inherent malice and will of power that will invade any person with a position of power, which renders any benevolent intention of any succesful revolutionary person moot (that's said very fast and i don't know enough about marxism to be sure of that).
      am i reopening a debate everyone wished over ? anyway sorry for my english, hope it's not too convoluted :p