Why can't I watch a YouTube in one window and blog in another with the greatest of ease?
function createbutton(left,top,label,color,panelwidth,panel) {
var button = document.createElement("div")
panel.appendChild(button)
var style = document.createAttribute("style")
button.setAttributeNode(style)
var s = "position:absolute;left:" + left + "%"
s = s + "bottom:0px;width:" + (100 / panelwidth) + "%"
s = s + "backgroundcolor:lightgrey;color:" + color
style.value = s
var l = document.createTextNode(label)
button.appendChild(l)
var onmouseover = document.createAttribute("onmouseover")
button.setAttributeNode(onmouseover)
onmouseover.value = "javascript:action(" + label + "i)"
var onmouseout = document.createAttribute("onmouseout")
button.setAttributeNode(onmouseout)
onmouseout.value = "javascript:action(" + label + "o)"}
Chip, this could collapse into nothing like it's nothing. What do I actually have to offer you? Abstractions. You talked to me with full attention for an hour and I didn't offer you one darned thing that's real. The unreal isn't nothing but if it doesn't find a host in something real and fast it just goes back into the ether. I'm trying to see if I can come up with something real now, and fast. A blog post is slightly real, but what's really real is something that produces revenue. (Revenues?)
In my own mind, when I'm in these situations - I've put myself in one of them, after not doing it for a year - I start to run through ideas like a slide show. Is this one real? Nope. Next slide. This one? Nope. And so on.
This next one is something under six months old. Or new.
An app for coding JavaScript. Sell it for $5 like you suggested.
A theory has ... I don't know what to call them ... postulates, maybe? They're core components. When you assemble them you end up with, maybe, let's say, results.
So, I'll call them postulates. Postulate 1 is: you can only see what's on the screen.
Scrolling is a divergence from Postulate 1. It's a pretense. It's the pretense that you can see things that aren't on the screen. Because you can, in all these situations, deduce that there is something off the screen to see, from what's on the screen, scrolling gives the appearance of working, but because scrolling pretends that something is true, which in fact is not true, it causes endless problems. In particular, it gums up the works.
Under certain circumstances, and we encounter them all the time - in life - a pretense is a valuable tool. I'm seeing these dualities all over the place the last couple of days. Without pretenses we could accomplish nothing, but with only pretenses we cannot progress ... beyond the pretenses. So, checking myself, I am not proposing the abolition of scrolling, but I am proposing that we give thought to this question: what is the alternative, the one that, where scrolling is a pretense, is real? What is the other side of the scrolling coin?
I'm debating whether to describe the ctec JavaScript DE here, or possibly try a different medium this time. I'm leaning towards the latter.
We could not have proceeded without speaking on the phone. I'm all appreciation regarding your instinctive and automatic suggestion that we do so. But, after getting off the phone with you, within almost minutes, I began to feel myself to be in the same extremely precarious situation I described in the first post, where the whole thing is in imminent danger of falling apart. (What I described in the previous post was the things falling apart.) What made you decide to give me so freely of your time, so much more freely than you would normally even think of doing? Some weird charm that I possess? And others have done the same thing, and I couldn't figure out why, and I could not, then sustain the charade. But I am so determined, now, to figure this out. I mean, what's the alternative? Am I simply fated to endless failure? What kind of sense does that make? I have been practicing this thing, pushing past boundaries. Everything seems hopeless, but practicing pushing harder then, pushing relentlessly, and what happens is, I get past the boundary. I don't get to success, but I get to something beyond the boundary. I kept feeling, as I launched into this project of connecting with RezTech, that I was getting further than I had in the past, that maybe, having taken this year off, which meant wholly dedicating myself to figuring it out, and setting aside the hope of accomplishing something that action holds, I had maybe made some progress.
I pushed at that boundary just now, the boundary that was saying "this is the stage at which you fail every time, and there's nothing you can do about it because you're just hopeless," and suddenly recognized the reason you and these various other people have given me a shot, even though they could see right from the start it was absurd. Sometimes it was because in some way I said something interesting, or maybe even it was because of my intensity, and for a moment they couldn't say no. In that latter case, is my intensity nothing more than an illusion? Does it not represent something of substance at all? What kind of sense does that make? Intensity represents substance. What else can it represent? What else can it originate in? This is why it makes people pause for a moment, even when they know better.
But there is something beyond just a word spoken here or there, or an expression, to what I'm producing. It's my writing.
If anything can save this, it's my writing. I am just learning to do it, too, so I say it will save it, or it will save me. It will save me, that is what I mean. Or it could.
I'm just learning to do it. I'm still learning to do it. It's not something people usually rely on so heavily, in business, let's say. Usually - I think - you work out your ideas by talking, and then, as you and Robert have been saying, you work up technical documents from that. True, it's an academic discipline, and the written work of the academics then filters out into the business world and is influential there, so partly it's a question of how I can position myself. But the way I can do that - position myself as an academic in that sense, even though I am so outside of academia - is to write.
I have just take a step forward by realizing, first, that it is time to develop my theory, that my theory of the web is not just something to mention as an aside, but is core to what I need to do, and then by noticing, just now, that I need to enumerate my postulates. I wonder if you will get this far in the reading.
