Home : Journal : Archive

Sunday July 9, 2006

AJAX Instant Messenger

Software

I've added instant messaging to the Kiki user profiles on this web site! It's quite simple: a bit of Javascript sends your messages to the server and retrieves new ones for you, adding them to the page without requiring a refresh/reload of your browser. Tested in Konqueror and Mozilla Firefox.

The database keeps track of what messages you have seen, and you get notified of when a mate enters of leaves the chat. And, if someone chats you up, the site will give you a popup saying there's a new message. From there you can directly join the chat!

To start a conversation you currently have to manually find a mate who is on-line because their profile will have a chat link. But I'll be working on a nice status bar which will tell you which mates are on-line all the time! I shall also make the actual chat window a pop-up, so you won't be limited to a single chat a time (you can work around this by using tabs or multiple windows manually but that's not optimal).

How terrorism became legal

Anglosphere

This week, in a landmark case, the US Supreme Court awarded terrorists extraordinary legal protection:

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva conventions.

All across the world, liberals rejoiced. And that while this ruling is, of course, major insanity.

I'm very much in favour of some sort of legal framework for illegal combatants. But it is absurd that in a time of war, non-US citizens should get protection under US law. It is also absurd that terrorists should get protection under the Geneva conventions, even when said conventions explicitly exclude them. To me, extending the application of law outside of the intended scope is by no means correctly interpreting law. But then again, I am no statist nor a sympathiser of terrorists.

Pirate's Cove has a very nice summary of various responses.

Gender hypocrisy or simple biology?

Anglosphere

More and more elderly use modern IVF techniques to reproduce (again), spawning children who will face a double generation gap when growing up. With the vitality of elderly these days, this in itself is not a problem. But image baby JJ Farrant and his 62-year-old mother in the future, or pregnant 63-year-old Patricia and her eye apple: come graduation day, these mommies will be 80. Their grandchildren will most likely never get to know them. Is it even ethical for doctors to assist in this? Some say it's not a big deal, because older men have been fathers:

"But let's remember, men have always been able to father children into their 60s, their 70s, even occasionally their 80s so some of the furore about a woman having a child when she is 62 - I think there is a certain amount of gender hypocrisy there."

I hate to see sexism being brought up here.

Firstly, there is a huge biological difference between men and women. Men's significant part in the biological process of child birth ends at the conception. The role of the woman has only barely started at that point. This is not hypocrisy, but a simple acknowledgment of some basic biology that even a 5-year-old would be able to explain to any sane person. Both parents need to provide healthy genes, but the woman continues to play a critical physical role for at least nine months.

Also, people who object to IVF for the "crumbled" are not likely to recommend old men to reproduce. Male sperm degrades as well. But arguing against assisted, pro-active late-age parenthood which is not possible without extensive medical intervation is not quite the same as accepting the fact that in the end, men are biologically capable to naturally reproduce at later ages. As such this occasionally happens, even when not recommended. But to assist or even indulge it?

If one were to accuse me of ageism instead: a 62-year-old woman using IVF will clearly not be ovulating anymore. My criticism is based on a naturally occurring biological trait of a woman's body and not her age, even if the latter paints some interesting pictures.

However, I do not think this should be forbidden except for cases of appointable risk of permanent harm to the child. But I do dislike it very much.

(It sucks to be a libertarian. You may only use government forcefully where necessary and let everything else get away with criticism.)

Next day: Tuesday July 11, 2006 Previous day: Saturday July 8, 2006

© Copyright 1995-2007 Robert John Kaper. All rights reserved.

Powered by the delicious Kiki CMS! (#8/9)