<@A> onko df nyt joku muu kuin se joka kertoo onko levy täysi? <@B> dwarf fortress <@B> one game to rules them all <@A> aijaa <@C> Siinä pitäisi olla -h -vipu! :D
25.5.2011
19.5.2011
Vittu nii
minua ärsyttää runokirjat helvetisti kuluu paperia monta sanaa enemmän mahtuis sivulle mutta ei minun tarvitse sillä MINÄ olen RUNOILIJA
Vain tytöille
< X> hahhaaaa < X> soitin toissapäivänä yhestä kämpästä, tyyppi sanoi että löytyi jo asukas < X> eilen se on pistäny uuden ilmotuksen, lisätyllä tekstillä "HUOM! Vain tytöille." < X> jos olisin tyttö, asuisin jo nyt keskustassa halvalla ja eläisin sweettiä lifeä nii
15.5.2011
12 Days Without Facebook
I joined Facebook some time in the latter half of 2007. Today marks day 12 since I deleted my account, and I thought I would write down some of my thoughts on social networking. Another point of this post is to give an in-depth answer to the baffled "why aren't you on Facebook anymore!?" questions I have received.
A related problem is that using Facebook I never felt particularly connected or present to anyone. Facebook created an illusion of being connected to everybody at once, even though I was still alone, reading about other people's crap and posting about my own. Passively watching a nondescript mass of people's lives chaotically unfold before your eyes is just weird. There is no interaction, and more importantly, no context. I don't want to read about my mother's knee operation, an old classmate's bowel movements and news of a death in someone's family, all within the same 5 minutes.
When they introduced the chat feature, Facebook became a whole lot more meaningful, but only marginally. The chat improves on the interactivity and one-on-one communication, as well as makes the overall experience more human.
But chat has been done before, and much better. Chatting on the Internet has been around for decades, and people are accustomed to it. The concept is simple: you talk to another person, or to a number of persons, and usually you can see which other people can see what you are saying. With Facebook posts, things are way more complicated. Privacy settings are quite convoluted, and there are entire websites devoted to people making fools of themselves on Facebook, about 40% of the time precisely because they have trouble perceiving social context and keeping track of who sees what they are posting.
It used to be that email was one to one (or atleast to the people explicitly listed as recipients), chat was one to one or many to many who you can see constantly listed, and websites were one to the whole world. In Facebook, posts are visible to a very complicated set of people, defined by all kinds of groups, pages, friend lists, privacy settings and even per-post visibility settings. To me, this gets confusing very quickly, or at the very least frustrating, to keep going through the thought process of who might or might not see what you are posting. And what if you forgot to add someone to your "co-workers" friend list which you have otherwise blocked from seeing your wall, for instance?
This is perhaps what bothers me the most. Social networking as of today is in the hands of very few private companies, and the whole phenomenon is very heavily commercialized. It used to be that the Internet was far less centralized (infrastructurally, politically and commercially). Basic communications infrastructure, such as email, IRC and Usenet servers, was offered by ISP's as part of the service you subscribe to. People publishing websites either self-hosted or put their sites on their university's or ISP's server, or they purchased web-hosting individually for their own needs. Facebook is a huge, single corporate entity that really does not have any competition. It is essentially a black box with regards to what you put in there, and I think it would be wise to take some heed in things the likes of Julian Assange are saying about it.
On the other hand, I feel that Facebook has kept me from blogging more than I have. Given that most of the people who read my blog are also my close friends, just posting a link with ten words of commentary was so much easier than properly blogging about something that I eventually never got around to writing the blog post.
What is wrong with web 2.0 social networking?
A number of things seem unattractive to me in the Internet social networking we have today. While social networks as a sociological concept are relatively old, established and useful as such, it somehow makes me sad to see them revealed and made explicit the way Facebook does. My friendships and acquaintances are dear to me on a very deep level, and it disturbs me to see Facebook lay my connections out for me. While there are no outright node graphs on Facebook such as the ones on the Wikipedia page I linked to (although I'm sure there's a clumsy app that does that for you, complete with bad grammar and lots of typos), seeing my "mutual friends" with everybody all the time just seemed a bit superfluous. I am not disputing that social networks are a useful way to model human behaviour in sociology, but I don't need to be reminded of what my life looks like laid out flat like that, because it makes the experience very hollow and depressing.A related problem is that using Facebook I never felt particularly connected or present to anyone. Facebook created an illusion of being connected to everybody at once, even though I was still alone, reading about other people's crap and posting about my own. Passively watching a nondescript mass of people's lives chaotically unfold before your eyes is just weird. There is no interaction, and more importantly, no context. I don't want to read about my mother's knee operation, an old classmate's bowel movements and news of a death in someone's family, all within the same 5 minutes.
When they introduced the chat feature, Facebook became a whole lot more meaningful, but only marginally. The chat improves on the interactivity and one-on-one communication, as well as makes the overall experience more human.
But chat has been done before, and much better. Chatting on the Internet has been around for decades, and people are accustomed to it. The concept is simple: you talk to another person, or to a number of persons, and usually you can see which other people can see what you are saying. With Facebook posts, things are way more complicated. Privacy settings are quite convoluted, and there are entire websites devoted to people making fools of themselves on Facebook, about 40% of the time precisely because they have trouble perceiving social context and keeping track of who sees what they are posting.
It used to be that email was one to one (or atleast to the people explicitly listed as recipients), chat was one to one or many to many who you can see constantly listed, and websites were one to the whole world. In Facebook, posts are visible to a very complicated set of people, defined by all kinds of groups, pages, friend lists, privacy settings and even per-post visibility settings. To me, this gets confusing very quickly, or at the very least frustrating, to keep going through the thought process of who might or might not see what you are posting. And what if you forgot to add someone to your "co-workers" friend list which you have otherwise blocked from seeing your wall, for instance?
What Facebook is about
The users are not Facebook's customers. They are the product. Facebook sells user profiles and social network data to advertisers so that they may better target their ads to very specific demographics. The advertisers are Facebook's customers, and what they are buying is roughly everything you post on Facebook (not really the things you post, but all kinds of statistical meta data automatically syndicated from it). You are working for them for free.This is perhaps what bothers me the most. Social networking as of today is in the hands of very few private companies, and the whole phenomenon is very heavily commercialized. It used to be that the Internet was far less centralized (infrastructurally, politically and commercially). Basic communications infrastructure, such as email, IRC and Usenet servers, was offered by ISP's as part of the service you subscribe to. People publishing websites either self-hosted or put their sites on their university's or ISP's server, or they purchased web-hosting individually for their own needs. Facebook is a huge, single corporate entity that really does not have any competition. It is essentially a black box with regards to what you put in there, and I think it would be wise to take some heed in things the likes of Julian Assange are saying about it.
What Facebook is good for
I have noticed that circulating "funny office emails" have practically disappeared, which is a very good thing. Idle chatter, pictures of cats and GIF animations of athletes suffering impacts to the groin are now being posted on Facebook, which seems like a much better environment for that kind of thing. Facebook is great for spreading information among people you know. The event function is great for organizing parties and things. If you have a light-hearted link you want to share with one person or a group of people, it is generally bad form to mass-email it to everyone, but you might paste it on an IRC channel or you might post it on your or someone else's Facebook wall.On the other hand, I feel that Facebook has kept me from blogging more than I have. Given that most of the people who read my blog are also my close friends, just posting a link with ten words of commentary was so much easier than properly blogging about something that I eventually never got around to writing the blog post.
tl;dr
- The social part in Internet social networking is clunky and deceptive.
- The Internet sold out.
- Facebook is a great low-threshold tool for people who don't know computers to have an instant Internet presense.
- It's not for me. The individual things that Facebook does have been done before, with an option for anonymity and greater stability.
26.4.2011
Vanha tottumus
Tänään oli töissä puhe kotipaikkakuntani paikannimistä. Tulin sanoneeksi, että "mun vanhemmat asuu kylässä nimeltä X". Vasta 10 minuuttia keskustelun jälkeen muistin, että eihän mulla olekaan enää kuin yksi.
:(
:(
18.4.2011
Optikolta soitettiin
- "moi kuule sun silmälasit on tullu, ja aurinkolasit on tullu kans, mut täs on nyt hei sattunu joku virhe"
- "aijaa?"
- "joo kato hei näis aurinkolaseis on nyt naisten sangat, ja mä luulen et niis sun sovittamissa on ehkä ollu väärä viivakooditarra tai jotain, et mä oon täs nyt yrittäny selvittää. nii sitä vaan soitin, et muistaksä yhtään, millaset sangat sä valitsit?"
- *kuvailen sangat*
- "aijaa sä otit nää! just joo, eiku hei kyl nää sit on sun! no ei sitte mitään ongelmaa, et tuu vaan huomenna hakee. kymmeneltä avataan!"
Kaveri oli ihan vaan olettanut, et kun oli naisten sangat, niin pakko olla virhe, ja jäänyt sitten puoleksitoista tunniksi ylitöihin selvittämään, että miksi tehtaalta on tullut väärät sangat. Jos olisi sovitusti lähettänyt tekstiviestin jo iltapäivällä (siis aukioloaikana), niin olisin saanut lasini jo tänään! Mutta tärkeämpää oli suojella asiakkaan maskuliinisuutta, kuin tiedottaa tilauksen saapumisesta mahdollisimman pian.
17.4.2011
Suomen kielen graduille sopiva LaTeX-pohja
Päätin modularisoida gradussa käyttämäni LaTeX-määrittelyt, jotta niistä voi joku muukin hyötyä.
Version 0.1 voi imuroida tästä: http://www.tuomo.fi/latex/HY-suomi-gradupohja-0.1.tar.gz.
Uusimman julkaisun saa tästedes osoitteesta http://www.tuomo.fi/latex/HY-suomi-gradupohja-latestrelease.
Lisäksi voi seurata suoraan git-repoa:
Tässä ohjeet paketin README-tiedostosta:
Lisenssistä en koodauksen hurmiossa versiossa 0.1 huomannut mainita mitään, mutta siis ihan vapaata kamaahan tämä on. Luovun kaikista tekijänoikeuksistani tässä yhteydessä julkaistuun itse kirjoittamaani materiaaliin ("public domain"). Teosta saa käyttää, esittää, muokata ja kopioida ihan miten huvittaa.
Edellä mainittu ei koske tiedostoa
edit 6.5.2011: Tässähän oli jäänyt ihan väärät linkit. Korjasin.
Version 0.1 voi imuroida tästä: http://www.tuomo.fi/latex/HY-suomi-gradupohja-0.1.tar.gz.
Uusimman julkaisun saa tästedes osoitteesta http://www.tuomo.fi/latex/HY-suomi-gradupohja-latestrelease.
Lisäksi voi seurata suoraan git-repoa:
git clone http://www.tuomo.fi/latex/HY-suomi-gradupohja.git mun_gradu
Tässä ohjeet paketin README-tiedostosta:
LaTeX-pohja Helsingin yliopiston suomen kielen pro gradu -tutkielmille
VERSIO 0.1 -- 17.4.2011
Tämä on Helsingin yliopiston suomen kielen oppiaineen pro gradu -tutkielmalle asettamien muotosääntöjen mukainen LaTeX-pohja. Ohjeet ovat saatavilla osoitteesta <http://www.helsinki.fi/hum/skl/opiskelu/ohjeet.pdf>.
Jos havaitset, että pohja on jollakin tavalla ohjeiden vastainen, olethan kiva ja ilmoitat asiasta.
Pohja käyttää seuraavia paketteja, jotka eivät ole mitään kovin erikoisia, vaan sisältyvät ainakin Ubuntun kokoelmista saatavaan TeX Live -ohjelmistoon:
- mathptmx (ei pakollinen, jos tykkää Computer Modern -fontista)
- babel
- setspace
- fancyhdr
- natbib
- geometry
1. KÄYTTÖ LINUXILLA, BSD:LLÄ TAI MUULLA UNIX-TYYPPISELLÄ
1.1 ASENNUS
Ubuntussa ainakin seuraavat paketit:
# aptitude install texlive \
texlive-lang-finnish
Ehkä myös:
# aptitude install texlive-generic-extra \
texlive-generic-recommended \
texlive-humanities texlive-extra-utils
Makefilen käyttöä varten:
# aptitude install make
1.2 KIRJOITTAMINEN
Tiedostoon gradu.tex ei tarvitse tehdä muutoksia *juuri mitään* muutoksia. Ainoastaan alun \documentclass-riviltä saattaa olla tarpeellista poistaa sana "draft" — se on asetus, joka merkitsee mustilla palkeilla ladontaongelmia, kuten ylitäysiä rivejä.
Kansilehden tekstit tulevat tiedostoihin kansilehti/-hakemistossa. Otsikko tulee tiedostoon kansilehti/otsikko.tex, oikean alanurkan tiedot tiedostoon kansilehti/alanurkka.tex.
Kirjoita dokumentin sisällöt tiedostoihin (tai tiedostoon) tex/-hakemiston alle. Viittaa näihin tiedostoihin \input{}-komennolla tiedostosta input-lista.tex.
Hakemisto img/ on olemassa valmiiksi mahdollisia kuvaliitteitä varten.
Laita lähdeviitelistat bib/-hakemistoon, ja viittaa myös näihin tiedostossa input-lista.tex komennolla \bibliography{}.
Koska tiedostoa gradu.tex ei tarvitse editoida, voit päivittää suoraan sen päälle uusimman version, jos siihen tulee muutoksia.
Yleisopas LaTeXin käyttöön löytyy esimerkiksi osoitteesta <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LaTeX>.
1.3 VALMIIN TIEDOSTON KOKOAMINEN
PDF-tiedosto:
$ make pdf
DVI-tiedosto (et varmaankaan tarvitse):
$ make dvi
1.4 KOKOAMISESSA LUOTUJEN TIEDOSTOJEN POISTO
$ make clean
2. KÄYTTÖ WINDOWSILLA TAI MACILLÄ
Muuten sama kuin yllä, mutta opettele itse LaTeXin asentaminen, koska mä en osaa lol.
Lisenssistä en koodauksen hurmiossa versiossa 0.1 huomannut mainita mitään, mutta siis ihan vapaata kamaahan tämä on. Luovun kaikista tekijänoikeuksistani tässä yhteydessä julkaistuun itse kirjoittamaani materiaaliin ("public domain"). Teosta saa käyttää, esittää, muokata ja kopioida ihan miten huvittaa.
Edellä mainittu ei koske tiedostoa
HY-suomen-kieli.bst
, sillä se on työkaluohjelmalla generoitu, eikä ole siis oma teokseni. Kyseisen tiedoston kopiointia koskeva lisenssi sisältyy tiedostoon itseensä, ja esitän sen myös tässä:%% Copyright 1994-2005 Patrick W Daly
% ===============================================================
% IMPORTANT NOTICE:
% This bibliographic style (bst) file has been generated from one or
% more master bibliographic style (mbs) files, listed above.
%
% This generated file can be redistributed and/or modified under the terms
% of the LaTeX Project Public License Distributed from CTAN
% archives in directory macros/latex/base/lppl.txt; either
% version 1 of the License, or any later version.
% ===============================================================
edit 6.5.2011: Tässähän oli jäänyt ihan väärät linkit. Korjasin.
Tilaa:
Blogitekstit (Atom)