text:
#ifndef __GLPIXELBUFFER_H__
#define __GLPIXELBUFFER_H__

#include "OgreGLPrerequisites.h"
#include "OgreHardwarePixelBuffer.h"

namespace Ogre {
	class _OgreGLExport GLHardwarePixelBuffer: public HardwarePixelBuffer
	{
	protected:
		/// Lock a box
		PixelBox lockImpl(const Image::Box lockBox,  LockOptions options);

		/// Unlock a box
		void unlockImpl(void);

		// Internal buffer; either on-card or in system memory, freed/allocated on demand
		// depending on buffer usage
		PixelBox mBuffer;
        GLenum mGLInternalFormat; // GL internal format
		LockOptions mCurrentLockOptions;

		// Buffer allocation/freeage
		void allocateBuffer();
		void freeBuffer();
		// Upload a box of pixels to this buffer on the card
		virtual void upload(const PixelBox &data, const Image::Box &dest);
		// Download a box of pixels from the card
		virtual void download(const PixelBox &data);
	public:
        /// Should be called by HardwareBufferManager
        GLHardwarePixelBuffer(size_t mWidth, size_t mHeight, size_t mDepth,
                PixelFormat mFormat,
                HardwareBuffer::Usage usage);

		/// @copydoc HardwarePixelBuffer::blitFromMemory
		void blitFromMemory(const PixelBox &src, const Image::Box &dstBox);

		/// @copydoc HardwarePixelBuffer::blitToMemory
		void blitToMemory(const Image::Box &srcBox, const PixelBox &dst);

		~GLHardwarePixelBuffer();

        /** Bind surface to frame buffer. Needs FBO extension.
        */
        virtual void bindToFramebuffer(GLenum attachment, size_t zoffset);
        GLenum getGLFormat() { return mGLInternalFormat; }
	};

    /** Texture surface.
    */
    class _OgreGLExport GLTextureBuffer: public GLHardwarePixelBuffer
	{
    public:
        /** Texture constructor */
		GLTextureBuffer(const String &baseName, GLenum target, GLuint id, GLint face,
			GLint level, Usage usage, bool softwareMipmap, bool writeGamma, uint fsaa);
        ~GLTextureBuffer();

        /// @copydoc HardwarePixelBuffer::bindToFramebuffer
        virtual void bindToFramebuffer(GLenum attachment, size_t zoffset);
        /// @copydoc HardwarePixelBuffer::getRenderTarget
        RenderTexture* getRenderTarget(size_t);
        /// Upload a box of pixels to this buffer on the card
		virtual void upload(const PixelBox &data, const Image::Box &dest);
		// Download a box of pixels from the card
		virtual void download(const PixelBox &data);

        /// Hardware implementation of blitFromMemory
        virtual void blitFromMemory(const PixelBox &src_orig, const Image::Box &dstBox);

        /// Notify TextureBuffer of destruction of render target
        void _clearSliceRTT(size_t zoffset)
        {
            mSliceTRT[zoffset] = 0;
        }
        /// Copy from framebuffer
        void copyFromFramebuffer(size_t zoffset);
        /// @copydoc HardwarePixelBuffer::blit
        void blit(const HardwarePixelBufferSharedPtr &src, const Image::Box &srcBox, const Image::Box &dstBox);
        // Blitting implementation
        void blitFromTexture(GLTextureBuffer *src, const Image::Box &srcBox, const Image::Box &dstBox);
    protected:
        // In case this is a texture level
		GLenum mTarget;
		GLenum mFaceTarget; // same as mTarget in case of GL_TEXTURE_xD, but cubemap face for cubemaps
		GLuint mTextureID;
		GLint mFace;
		GLint mLevel;
		bool mSoftwareMipmap;		// Use GLU for mip mapping

        typedef vector<RenderTexture*>::type SliceTRT;
        SliceTRT mSliceTRT;
    };
     /** Renderbuffer surface.  Needs FBO extension.
     */
    class _OgreGLExport GLRenderBuffer: public GLHardwarePixelBuffer
	{
    public:
        GLRenderBuffer(GLenum format, size_t width, size_t height, GLsizei numSamples);
        ~GLRenderBuffer();

        /// @copydoc GLHardwarePixelBuffer::bindToFramebuffer
        virtual void bindToFramebuffer(GLenum attachment, size_t zoffset);
    protected:
        // In case this is a render buffer
        GLuint mRenderbufferID;
    };
};

#endif

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


TW is working today but nothing requiring him to be there in person. Our day starts with breakfast. Then we pack up our stuff to get ready for check out. Luckily we have a late check out but it is best to be ready now. TW then he sets about working. We have a late check out and a transfer down to Hua Hin for the next part of TW's birthday celebration.
We walk from Park Hyatt to Grand Hyatt Erawan Bangkok, dragging our bags through shopping centers and up and around overpasses. There is a Hyatt provided shuttle down to Hua Hin, which is a very reasonable price given it is 3.5 hours between the two. This is the route we have chosen and because we are stingy we walked between the two hotels. Our next stop is Hyatt Regency Hua Hin.
A card, a petal message and an actual gift in the closet. Well two gifts. A medium and a large. To commemorate our stay here. My new favourite t-shirt.
We did again get a free upgrade. The best thing about this upgrade is we used points to book the room. So we got a free upgrade on a free stay. The room is awesome. We have our own little outdoor area with a private entrance to the pool. It is the main pool but still. Our own space to relax.
The two sides to our room, both have sliding doors to our outdoor area.
More gifts. Fresh fruit, dried fruit and cheese crackers with pineapple jam.
We arrived at the hotel just in time to catch the evening drinks and canapés. So we went to the lounge and had some snacks.
After our snacks we went to see the beach. There is a fake beach at the pool and the real beach just a few steps away. It is evening so we don't have much light but I still manage to get a photo of the slide. TW is very excited to go on the slide. The pool is only open until 6:30pm so we have missed it for today but tomorrow, he will be on that slide for sure.
On check in we were told about the night markets that run on weekends just in front of the hotel. Our activity guide says they are the best in town, though it would right? Anyway, we head up to the markets to check them out.
There is food, nicknacks, some really cute things, lots of art and artists, henna and temporary tattoos plus a host of things that will be personalised for you while you wait.
There is a huge bar and a band playing in what I can only assume is the Sasi Open air Theatre. The evening is gorgeous. A perfect temperature, no real humidity, the gentle strum on a guitar of easy listening music. There is a slight hum of people buying things in the markets behind us and cheering at the end of each song from everyone in the theatre.
The food options are looking nice and fresh. Quickly we realise that we need cash to buy food. We have no Thai cash on us, however. Well, we do have a little bit, not enough for what TW would want to eat. We can plan better and regroup for tomorrow.


text:
(United States of America)
Effects arising from use of transportation infrastructure
Ground transport infrastructure
Impacts of tourism / visitor / recreation
Input of excess energy
Surface water pollution
a) Mining;
b) Wildlife management: bison and cut-throat trout;
c) Invasive alien species;
d) Water quality;
e) Road construction;
f) Snow mobile noise and impact on air quality;
g) High visitor use.
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved : 0 USD
1995: joint World Heritage Centre / IUCN mission
September 2011: joint World Heritage Centre / IUCN reactive monitoring mission
2011 Report of the WHC/IUCN Reactive Monitoring Mission to Yellowstone National Park, 19-22 September 2011
On 17 February 2012, the State Party submitted a report on the state of conservation of the property, which provides information on progress achieved in the implementation of the Committee's recommendations, as well as other conservation issues. From 19 to 22 September 2011, a joint World Heritage Centre/IUCN reactive monitoring mission visited the property, in accordance with Decision 34 COM 7B.28 adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 34th session (Brasilia, 2010). The State Party report and the mission report provide information on the following key conservation issues:
a) Securing bison migration on ranch lands surrounding the park
The State Party report notes that a coalition of federal, state, and tribal managers recently agreed to management practices that would increase tolerance for bison migrating to habitat outside the park's northern and western boundaries, in the state of Montana. One such agreement has allowed an extension of the northern migratory route for bison an additional seven miles beyond the park boundary. Nevertheless, the State Party notes that some stakeholders continue to be opposed to bison migration due to concerns about public safety and property damage.
The mission concluded that management agencies should: continue to allow bison migration to essential winter ranges in areas adjacent to the park; actively prevent the dispersal and range expansion of bison to outlying private lands until there is tolerance for bison in these areas; make more efforts to identify additional habitat and conservation areas for bison in Montana; develop fencing strategies with private landowners; discourage bison movement on to private land with cattle; and consider shipping surplus Yellowstone bison to quarantine sites operated by Indian tribes, to help preserve Indian culture and promote the further establishment of wild bison herds.
The World Heritage Centre and IUCN note that several positive steps have been taken to provide more winter grazing habitat for bison on state and private land outside the park, and that good progress is being made to secure the principal traditional bison migration routes within the Greater Yellowstone Area surrounding the park.
b) Ensuring adequate funding to intensify lake trout suppression efforts over the next six years
The State Party reports that under a Native Fish Conservation Plan the National Parks Service has initiated a significant increase in lake trout removal efforts that will continue for at least the next 6 years. Funding in the amount of USD 2 million per year over the next 6 years (2012-2017) is recommended to outsource an immediate surge in lake trout suppression efforts to private-sector contractors. Of that total, approximately USD 1 million per year has been acquired to date. The State Party is confident that the remaining funds will be secured through private donor sources, such as The Yellowstone Park Foundation, YellowstoneNational Park's primary fundraising partner, which is expected to make a decision on a grant request in the near future.
The mission noted that catch per unit during the removal operations of lake trout has been rising since 2002, indicating that the population of the invasive lake trout is increasing faster than fish have been removed. However, the mission concluded that under the Native Fish Conservation Plan, which aims to reduce the lake trout population by 25% annually until it collapses to an insignificant level, the park authorities have responded quickly and positively to implement recommendations of a scientific and management review of the lake trout suppression programme.
The World Heritage Centre and IUCN conclude that results from implementing the Native Fish Conservation Plan in suppressing the lake trout population are encouraging, and the commitment to increased effort is strong. They consider that the medium-term budget is sufficient to give some real confidence of a successful outcome. However, they note that it will be important to continue to monitor the success of the programme and to report results to the World Heritage Committee.
c) Increasing the Yellowstone grizzly bear population's connectivity with bears in the region, and further mitigating human-bear conflict
The State Party reports that, while connectivity issues are not considered an immediate threat to the Yellowstone grizzly bear population, comprehensive plans and implementation strategies are in place to address the issue should the need arise. The State Party also notes that currently the grizzly bear population in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is not at risk from inbreeding and the need for gene flow is not urgent. Achieving natural connectivity will require a co-operative effort on the part of management agencies, private landowners, industry, political leaders, and the public. Connectivity can be enhanced by allowing grizzly populations to increase their current sizes and/or by facilitating range expansion through natural dispersal and/or reintroduction into suitable intermediate habitat.
Regarding human-bear conflict, the State Party reports that preventing bears from obtaining anthropogenic foods and garbage is the underlying foundation of the park's bear management programme. Experience demonstrates that bear populations can be maintained in a manner that provides for the safety of bears, park visitors and their property, while still providing opportunities to view bears. Reducing human-bear conflicts has also significantly reduced the number of bears killed in management actions. Currently, the overall risk of bear attack is low and public support remains high for the grizzly bear programme.
The mission noted the need for park authorities to work co-operatively with private landowners and regulatory agencies to keep areas open for bears, and recommends that the park should intensify its public education programme to increase human tolerance of bears.
The World Heritage Centre and IUCN observe that grizzly bears are well managed and protected in YellowstoneNational Park and generally the species continues to recover, with good long-term prospects. There are also encouraging signs that the park's bear management programme is contributing effectively to mitigation of human-bear conflicts.
d) Assessing the impact of hunting of wolves on the Yellowstone wolf population
The State Party reports that wolves will likely be delisted as a protected species in Wyoming by the next hunting season (fall 2012), and legal wolf harvest will then occur in all three states surrounding the park. Currently, there are about 100 wolves in nine packs in the park, so it is unlikely that mortality rates to date (2 to 4 wolves per year) will have a significant impact on the park's wolf population. A lowered quota of wolves in Montana's hunting districts will reduce the potential for significant mortality of the park's wolves. Although Idaho has no quota reductions, only one Yellowstone pack shares the park/State boundary. The State Party notes that studies using radio-collars indicate that wolf movement is primarily from areas within to areas outside the property (i.e. from areas with high wolf densities to areas with low wolf densities), and that hunting of wolves outside the property may increase such movements by creating vacant wolf territories.
The mission noted that Yellowstone wolves need more land and habitat than is available in the park for their survival, and are reliant on connection to populations in central Idaho and north-west Montana. Private landowners, especially ranchers, in lands surrounding the park are opposed to wolf conservation, but are critical partners for the park in keeping land open for wolves. Housing and road construction also destroy natural habitat and act as barriers to wolf dispersal.
The World Heritage Centre and IUCN note that delisting of wolves as an endangered species in 2011 has ushered in a new era of hunting on lands outside the park, and that hunting and its impacts pose a significant on-going problem for the park authorities. While ecological solutions may be straightforward, the political and social issues remain difficult, and the park authorities will need to make great effort in establishing partnerships with key stakeholders on lands surrounding the park.
e) Developing a long-term vision and action plan for integrated management of the property and its surrounding areas
The State Party reports that the widely representative Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee has the role of ensuring co-ordinated planning, monitoring and management practices on a series of priority issues including: ecosystem health; air quality; climate change; disease; invasive species; species on the brink of extinction and healthy water quality and flow.
The mission noted that the recent collaborative development of a climate action plan is an excellent example of integrated management of resources between the park and surrounding lands.
The World Heritage Committee and IUCN recommend that the park should continue to play a full and effective role in all available collaborative mechanisms for integrating management of the park and surrounding lands.
f) Reducing visitor impacts and improving winter use management
The State Party report notes winter use in the property, and in particular the use of snow mobiles, continues to be controversial. It reports that a new long term plan for regulating winter use is being completed and that the on-going winter use plan includes management regulations to ensure air quality and limit noise pollution. The State Party considers that the winter use programme has improved the conditions that existed in the nineties, with scientific research indicating good resource conditions (air quality, noise, impacts on bison and elk populations, visitor experience). The mission notes that, while the current winter use plan is satisfactory for current management needs, impacts arising from motorized winter use remain a challenge for the park. The mission concludes that there has been marked improvement over the unsatisfactory situation that existed earlier.
The State Party also reports that the Yellowstone Environmental Stewardship (YES!) initiative has set achievable environmental management goals to achieve by 2016. Other measures to reduce pressure on park resources from high visitor numbers include measurement of visitors' attitudes, perceptions, and experiences, and consideration of studies of impacts from roadside parking, development of social trails, and overcrowding of sensitive natural areas. Recurring visitor surveys help the National Parks Service understand who the visitors are, their activities, and their values. Sub-plans within the Park Master Plan address issues associated with developed areas in the park.
The mission noted that the park's 2008 YES! initiative, along with other sustainable resource use programmes, are proving successful in meeting their ambitious targets.
g) Other conservation issues
The mission further noted that restoration of mine tailings is proceeding well and there are no adverse impacts on aquatic life from disharge flows, and road construction is kept within prescribed corridors and conducted in harmony with wildlife needs.
The World Heritage Centre and IUCN conclude that there are no outstanding problems or serious impacts on natural park resources from mining restoration and associated water pollution, or from road construction and use.
Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2012
The World Heritage Centre and IUCN consider that the State Party has taken the necessary measures to address the main conservation issues currently affecting the property and concludes that progress in finding effective solutions for many of the problems confronted by the park is satisfactory, in particular in relation to securing traditional bison migration routes beyond the park boundaries; suppression of the lake trout population; mitigation of human-bear conflict, improving winter visitor use management, and restoring and reducing the impacts of mining and road construction. Accordingly, they recommend that the Committee should commend the State Party for its successes in addressing conservation issues to date.
The World Heritage Centre and IUCN note, however, that sustained effort and considerable input of resources will be needed to ensure these and other programmes achieve long-term success. They further note the importance of forging of close co-operative relationships between the park and private landowners and State agencies responsible for land and wildlife management in lands surrounding the park, in particular concerning the management of wolve and grizzly bear populations.
Yellowstone National Park (United States of America) (N 28)
2. Recalling Decision 34 COM 7B.28, adopted at its 34th session (Brasilia, 2010),
3. Commends the State Party for the substantial progress made to find effective solutions to conservation issues affecting the property, particularly relating to bison migration, suppression of the lake trout population, mitigation of human-grizzly bear conflict, improvement in winter visitor use, and mining and road impacts;
4. Notes that the conservation programmes will require sustained effort and considerable input of resources if they are to be successful in the long term;
5. Encourages the State Party to establish effective co-operative relations between the park and private landowners and State land and wildlife regulatory agencies in lands surrounding the park, in the interest of achieving long-term conservation goals for the park's bison, grizzly and wolf populations;
6. Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2015, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property, including on progress in addressing the key conservation issues, including mobilizing the necessary financial support for the implementation of the conservation programmes to address them as well as the establishment of co-operative relations between the park and other stakeholders.
Criteria: (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)
Danger List (dates): 1995-2003

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


With zombies once more invading cinemas in 28 Weeks Later, it's time to deconstruct one of cinema's most endearing figures and ask just why we love the dead. Filmmakers and audiences love them because we're never finished telling the zombie story – the science of undead mythology is endlessly tweakable.
To many, the definitive zombie is the slowly shuffling, emotionless cannibal from George A Romero's Dead series. The only reason Romero gave for the reason behind the zombie plague was vague mention of a space-borne virus. But those old enough to remember (or interested enough in the Lugosi/Karloff era) know original zombiedom was part of voodooism, where Caribbean landowners owners would raise the dead to work as unpaid plantation labourers.
When Romero decided the zombie would also hunger for human flesh, one of our most dreadful movie monsters was born with 1968's Night of the Living Dead. Gradually the zombie became more dangerous. In Romero's technically-superior sequels (1978s Dawn of the Dead and 1985s Day of the Dead) they're ashen-faced from interment, sporting the grisly injuries they died with or decomposing.
They still shuffled slowly so clearing them out of your abandoned shopping mall was a snap. One shot to the brain put them down for good, you just had to come to terms with the fact that running would do no good. Like The Terminator, they'd just keep coming and get you in the end.
Dan O'Bannon's comic, unofficial Night of the Living Dead sequel Return of the Living Dead (1985) rendered the brain-hungry undead impervious even to a bullet in the head, and Zack Snyder's 2004 Dawn of the Dead remake did away with the robotic shuffling. Suddenly and even more terrifying, you couldn't outrun them any more.
Danny Boyle's 2002 genre buster 28 Days Later expanded the undead back-story. The zombies weren't strictly dead, they were carriers of a virus that made them not only hungry for human flesh but brutally enraged, spitting blood and slamming themselves at doors to get at you.
There are few more frightening sights than Robert Carlyle as Don in 28 Weeks Later – the sequel to 28 Days Later that's every bit as scary as the original – when he first contracts the rage virus. In a howling apoplexy of frustration at not being able to reach his children to tear them limb from limb, he smashes himself against a plexiglass window until his mouth and eyes shower blood.
So what makes the zombie so scary? There's something Freudian in it – the zombie represents the inevitable loss of self (death). The undead look like us, walk like us and go to the mall like us, but they're missing the one part that makes us what we are, a soul.
Plus, even after we crawled out of the swamps and used our brains to become the dominant species on Earth, a hundred million years of fear of being eaten by predators isn't forgotten in a hurry.
But aside from all that, remember the last time you had a splinter or paper cut? It hurt, right? Can you imagine how painful people tearing you to shreds with their teeth and eating you would be?
We don't want to imagine it but it fascinates as well as horrifies us, and the mass cultural expression of that fear might be the lovable, dependable old zombie.


This is post 1 of 2 in "Of Horses, Humans, and Mountain Lions."
The horse, so closely linked to humankind, bestows immense cultural value as a symbol of grace, beauty, companionship, and courage. Our stories intertwine.
Horses have been our faithful companions for millennia, but as beasts of burden and the warrior's mount, they have also suffered greatly at our hands. History and literature are replete with grotesque examples of animal cruelty.
One tragic example is the estimated 8 million horses and countless mules and donkeys who perished in the First World War. They were used to transport ammunition and supplies to the front and many died, not only from the horrors of shellfire, but also in terrible weather and appalling conditions. Similarly, more than a million horses are believed to have been killed during the U.S. American Civil War.
More recently, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals claims, with credible evidence, that an appalling 130,000 American horses were slaughtered in Mexico and Canada in 2015. They attribute this atrocity to irresponsible breeding associated with the rodeo, racing, and show industries, which produce more animals than they can care for in a humane manner. The last horse slaughterhouses in the U.S. closed their doors about a decade ago.
Most of us have no trouble arguing for the humane treatment of horses who "belong" to humans—but what of today's so-called wild horses?
Most of us have no trouble arguing for the humane treatment of horses who "belong" to humans—but what of today's so-called wild horses, who long ago escaped the confines of the fenced pasture or barn and now range freely across huge areas of the American West?
Currently, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and, to a lesser extent, U.S. Forest Service, manage approximately 70,000 wild horses and 8,500 burros on roughly 31.6 million acres in 10 western states—with controls taking place across 177 Herd Management Areas. These creatures, every bit as sentient as people's pet horses or the iconic Clydesdales advertising "This Bud's for you," evoke profound ethical questions about animal protection, landscape protection, and the complicated terrain where the two sometimes conflict.
Are Wild Horses Really Wild—or Native?
Horses originated in North America, but disappeared from our continent around 13,000–11,000 years ago. Today's free-ranging horses (also called mustangs) are descendants of European and Asian domestic horses brought back to the continent in ships. There is some debate as to whether mustangs should be considered native and therefore "wild," versus "feral"—in a wild state after escape from captivity. In any event, federal law requires the government to protect these animals at-large.
The protective legislation was hard-won. By the mid-20th century, horse and burro populations had increased to levels that competed with other uses—most often, livestock grazing. During the 1950s, Velma B. Johnston, later known as "Wild Horse Annie," became alarmed by the ruthless manner in which ranchers and hunters rounded up wild horses on western wildlands for commercial purposes, usually involving their slaughter. In 1959, congress passed the Wild Horse Annie Act, which prohibited the use of motorized vehicles to hunt wild horses and burros on all public lands.
The Wild Horse Annie Act, however, did not include Annie's recommendation for provisions to protect, manage, and control wild horses and burros. Further public concern and pressures lead to the widespread realization that wild horses and burros—symbols of the pioneer spirit of the West—were fast disappearing. The resulting Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 provides specific protections to "all unbranded and unclaimed horses and burros on public lands of the United States," and makes it a crime for anyone to harass or kill them on federal land.
Although stipulating that free-ranging horses and burros are "an integral part of the natural system of the public lands," the 1971 Act constrains their range to "their known territorial limits" in 1971. Congress intended that agencies would manage the animals at "the minimal feasible level" while achieving and maintaining "a thriving natural ecological balance on the public lands"—by protecting wildlife habitat, preventing range deterioration…and more often than not, allow grazing of livestock.
There is no doubt that grazing, browsing, and trampling by domestic herbivores, such as horses and cows, damage arid environments. It's also worth noting that, while mustangs are entirely absent in many parts of the West, vast herds of domestic livestock graze on 155 million acres of public land, compared to the 36.6 million acres available to wild horses (and often shared by livestock.) Cows outnumber wild horses by more than 37 to 1 on western lands, and, by some estimates, consume 55 times more forage. In other words, domestic livestock are a much more significant cause of habitat loss on public lands than wild horses.
The BLM's task to maintain a thriving natural ecological balance within its management boundaries is complicated by ecological degradation from horse and cattle grazing; habitat fragmentation due to fences, roads, and other development; and the absence of native predators. BLM therefore attempts to control herd numbers at "appropriate management levels" by removing animals in controversial roundups, more euphemistically called "gathers." These $80-million-a-year operations include helicopters chasing thousands of horses over rugged terrain, often resulting in serious injuries to and deaths of mares, stallions, and foals. Captured, often traumatized horses are either adopted or sent off to live out their lives in holding pastures.
Contraceptive vaccines have been used to help limit wild horse reproduction for more than 20 years. Meanwhile, between 5,000 and 10,000 animals are offered up each year for adoption, and since 1973, the BLM's adoption program has relocated about 100,000 wild horses and burros to private care. In 2012, more than 45,000 animals were kept in holding facilities, with holding costs consuming about half the Wild Horse and Burro Program's reported budget.
The short- and long-term effects of roundups, relocation, and confinement on previously free-roaming horses and burros is little understood. Although some privately managed sanctuaries provide what appears to be adequate care, including shelter, food, and open space, the fate of adopted animals varies between good, bad, and unknown.
The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act also authorizes the destruction of old, sick, or lame animals, and allows unadopted animals to be "destroyed in the most humane and cost-efficient manner possible—as if this were even possible. Fortunately, the actual slaughter of healthy, unadopted animals has been restricted in most years either by a moratorium instituted by the director of BLM or by the annual congressional appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior. Of course, under the current administration and Congress, the rules could change.
Stepping back, there is a sad irony here. Federal control of horses and burros results in markedly improved habitat conditions, thus improving the physical health of those animals who are spared. Healthy horses then produce more offspring, significantly increasing the total number of animals.
As the National Academy of Sciences explained in a 2013 report, the existing policy's focus on moving "extra" wild horses to corralled land is "likely to keep the population at a size that maximizes population growth rates, which in turn maximizes the number of animals that must be removed to holding facilities." Since horse populations continue to grow at 15 to 20 percent each year, the BLM's program only exacerbates an expensive, counterproductive effort to manage wild horses at the minimal feasible level.
In Part II: Do Wild Horses Need Mountain Lions?


text:
Robo♥beat
Science Fiction, Fantasy, & Video Games
Game Diaries
Destiny: The Taken King
Regency Love
Chrono Days Sim Date
Should Video Game Companies Dialogue with Fans?
September 1, 2012 April 15, 2013 Ashley
I'm leaning toward yes… but I'm still on the fence. A "yes" implies that fans should have a say in what happens in video games, and that makes video game developers something like clients. It implies that video games should first and foremost be a commodity.
And let's face it, most of the time, they are. They have to be. Companies need to make money to hire qualified staff to put out fantastic content, the type that makes us eager to play. And if we appreciate that content, we need to be willing to feed the cycle by paying for our games. I get that.
But I also like to think of some games as art — the type of art that the public can't anticipate or create. Some of the best works of art are the ones that surprise us. Sometimes they're the moving plays and books with tragic endings that I might never be bold enough to write. Had an optimistic fan been able to rewrite a tragedy, would he have given it a comedic ending that would have ruined it as art? So if games are art, where should the line be drawn when it comes to audience participation in game development?
BioWare's Reaction to Mass Effect 3: So Video Games Are Art?
Seeing the crew's reactions in ME3's Extended Cut doesn't change the ending, but it adds emotional impact and closure.
That is one of the problems with the controversial Mass Effect 3 ending. No matter what choices we made, after the long, arduous, often heart-wrenching campaign that spanned 3 games and several years, our Commander Shepards die. There's no way around it (unless you squint really hard with your imagination and believe in that teaser breath, if you got it). Of course, it isn't just dying, it's why our Shepards die. I won't get into that now, but you can read the best analysis of the ending ever on The Writer's Block blog here.
In the midst of all the rage comments and hate mail, BioWare's hard-working staff responded. They said so on the forums, and then they created the Extended Cut DLC. This added some closure to the ending of the game, appeasing fans who needed to understand how the ME universe was affected by their final decision.
Still, BioWare did not change the ending. As marketing manager Derek Larke explained on forums:
Though we remain committed and are proud of the artistic choices we made in the main game, we are aware that there are some fans who would like more closure to Mass Effect 3. The goal of the DLC is not to provide a new ending to the game, rather to offer fans additional context and answers to the end of Commander Shepard's story.
So BioWare says its team had an artistic vision, and the Mass Effect 3 ending was part of it. There can be no alternative finale. Had BioWare completely rewritten the ME3 ending, fans would have triumphed, which would have been nice, in a way. It would have been comforting to know that BioWare listens to us and takes us seriously, that it can't get away with insulting endings.
But if BioWare had done that, it would have effectively made an admission that it exists to please fans rather than to stay true to its artistic vision. To me, placating every disgruntled so-called fan is not what a video game company should be about. That's why I applaud BioWare for sticking to its ending, regardless of my feelings about it.
Art Might Be Exactly What Fans Want
Diablo III's story has some laughable "surprise" betrayals. This picture isn't really about them.
Cheap endings aside, some game series are just going downhill. Game companies that once produced fun, meaningful games now seem to push out bare content instead of quality. An example is Diablo III, which disappointed after the first two games blew many people away. You can read a (forum) letter to Blizzard here that details some problems with Diablo III and ends with what must be a plaintive sigh: "Blizzard, if you want players to stick around and enjoy your game, how about implementing changes that players actually want."
The suggestions and complaints from fans are rarely about anything trivial (aside from a few quips about lame graphics, I suppose). Usually they're about the meat of the games: uncustomizable characters, combat options, in-game decisions. Fans are smart, and we want our intelligence rewarded with quality. As we saw with the Mass Effect 3 ending, when a game gives us in-game decisions, we want to feel that they're relevant. We want the ending to reflect what we put into the game. We want art.
Endless Space: A Community-Made Game?
What amazes me is that one company succeeded in making an astounding space sim based largely — and I mean very largely — on community input.
It's called Endless Space, a streamlined 4X strategy game that lets players customize their characters from a database of hundreds of characteristics, which influence how you interact with the in-game universe.
But as I said, what's most unique about the game is its development. The company that made the game, Amplitude Studios, published all of its development documents on the forums and invited suggestions. A beta community of 20,000 players tested the game and voted on polls during the development process. The result? A highly-customizable, gorgeous game that's addictively fun to play.
Creative director Romain de Waubert explained to IGN that it's important for a game company to show that they listen: "It's not honest to say, 'We'll talk to you,' but then nothing happens because we just do whatever we want."
So Mass Effect 3 doesn't fall into this category, because BioWare created its game in its studios and offices without public input. That's one way to make a game. But Amplitude Studios aimed to do something vastly different from the very start, and it worked. The result of all of this community input was a streamlined game built to please its audience. And in a way, isn't that what a game should be?
How Game Companies Are Addressing Complaints
DA2 is easy to play… until you get to the super tedious boss fights.
BioWare also got a lot of flak for the disappointing Dragon Age 2, and its response has been to address its mistakes. At New York Comic Con last year, David Gaider and Mike Laidlaw revealed some of the improvements they're making in Dragon Age 3, based largely on fans' complaints about DA2, such as the lack of armor customization and in-game choices with consequences. Fans know when game companies are making shortcuts, and for a company to address such issues is heartening. (Of course, BioWare's talk will only really mean something if DA3 truly succeeds in "fixing" some of DA2's problems.)
Addressing complaints about Diablo III, Blizzard has also admitted mistakes. Community manager Bashiok has essentially stated that the gameplay and looting can become tedious after a while, saying that "there needs to be something else that keeps people engaged, and we know it's not there right now." But he also claims that Diablo is not World of Warcraft. It's not meant to be.
It's similar to BioWare's reaction to the ME3 ending, I suppose. No real apologies, but an admission that there is potential for growth. There's room for an extended cut. There's a place for more relevant gameplay leading to an end-game with impact. There's room for more customization and in-game choices that truly mean something.
But I Want to Be Surprised
Of course, those are all game elements that have been done right many times, and often in fresh ways. I'm sure every gamer can think of a video game that utterly surprised him with something new. I can think of dialogue from Final Fantasy XII, characters from Mass Effect, GLaDOS's jokes from Portal, the artwork of Limbo, the wild landscapes of Skyrim… Those are all things that impressed me, and all the more so because they took me by surprise.
I guess that makes me a consumer. I'll admit, it would be a dream come true to work for a video game company someday, penning quests and codex entries and characters. But as a video game fan, I also love being on this side of the industry: a blind but enthusiastic player who enjoys new content I never saw coming.
Sure, a dialogue with fans might help game companies improve sometimes. But I also trust that they're staffed with professionals, and when it comes down to it, most companies should still make games on their own terms. It seems that's the only way companies can impress us with what they're capable of accomplishing. Because every once in a while, they gift us something so innovative and exciting, we never could have anticipated it.
Tagged BioWare, Blizzard, Diablo 3, Diablo III, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age 3, Mass Effect, Mass Effect 3 ending, video game complaints, video games
Previous postLeviathan Wakes, the First of Many Space Operas for the Year
Next postMy Galactic Strategy Gateway Game
16 thoughts on "Should Video Game Companies Dialogue with Fans?"
waterlexeme says:
One of the issues for game developers is how much their playerbase invests in the game in terms of time and "identity". That's something the brand works hard to acquire and not something they want to lose. Personally, a less than satisfying ending to a game is not sure a big deal if the journey to get there is good. But the ending does matter to a story. Thanks for the promo to endless space – will have to check that out.
Ashley Hagood says:
That's true. And it bugs me when players turn their backs on companies completely, writing them off for making one game they didn't like absolutely everything about. It seems like gamers are very fickle these days, so it makes sense that that's a major concern for game developers.
And yes, I agree that a great journey can make up for a poor ending!
simpleek says:
The line between artistic integrity and using feedback from fans to shape a game is tricky at best. The infamous Mass Effect 3 ending debacle sheds light on this matter. I'm of the same opinion as you. Game developers should have the right to adhere to what they believe is best for their game, but at the same time you shouldn't invite fan feedback, insist you are listening to what they'd like to see in a game, and then turn around and say, "Screw you all. Your opinions are meaningless."
The fans for Mass Effect got a lot of flack for being "whiners," but those who voiced constructive criticism about the game were right in their opinions when it came to the ending's shortcomings. The fact that lots of fans kept coming back to Casey Hudson's quote about the ending not being, "A, B, C choices" during the game's development stages, turns out to be exactly what the ending is. It turned out really bad in Hudson's case when his own words came back to haunt him, and he basically kind of skirts around the fact that he said it in the first place. If anything, he really shouldn't have made promises he couldn't keep. Or at least acknowledge it by saying yes I did say that, I'm sorry I misled everyone, but ultimately things have changed during the development process and this is what made most sense on our end.
So I think it comes down to there being a right balance between the two. Game developers should still control the final product of the game, but at the very least hear what the fans have to say and decide which majority feedback they want to use or don't use. Great post again! :)
Yeah, good point. Really, one of the most dangerous things for a game developer to do is start making promises. I appreciate that with DA3, etc., because it's nice to know that companies are listening and want to interact with the fans, improve on "mistakes," etc. But if a game company wants to stay quiet and surprise us, that's fine by me too… especially if the alternative is making promises that aren't kept.
I totally agree with you that it's all about finding a balance. You summed it up well: "Game developers should still control the final product of the game, but at the very least hear what the fans have to say and decide which majority feedback they want to use or don't use." I like what Amplitude Studios did with Endless Space. It's a really novel idea, but I certainly don't want every game to have that much community involvement. Incorporating just the truly useful ideas — like you said, it has to be constructive criticism — seems best.
Yeah, I'm not sure if I like the idea of a community controlling every aspect of a game. We play the games, but we aren't game developers. There is a difference. Fans can come up with great ideas, but they can sometimes think of bad ones too. Like, I tell a developer on a forum that I think their game should have a flying dragon who can do handstands and read minds, a developer should actually listen to me, make it happen, and put in their game? Absolutely not. Like you said, it's great that the developers of Endless Space want to involve the community in shaping their game, but they still have the final say. They create the game, and we play it. As developers who make something, it's still their vision. We are invited to take part in it, and that's it. I think we should leave it up to the professionals to drive the development of a game. What some may think is a great idea is actually a terrible one upon execution. I'm not saying developers always come up with great ideas, but there has to be a limit to what fans are allowed to control.
For Mass Effect 3, I was disappointed by the ending, but I still enjoyed the game. I'm not going to crucify them for one bad ending, but the extended cut at least gave us the character closure. This is what I wanted the most from the ending that the original didn't deliver well enough, but the extended cut passed with flying colors.
xandurse says:
I agree that a company shouldn't ask for input and then ignore it, but first and foremost I'm of the view that we should respect a developers vision. Gamers largely acted as though the ending of Mass Effect was some sort of "betrayal", but really, *who betrayed whom?* Other than Dragon Age 2, can we not agree that BioWare has an uncommonly good track record? And yet with one – evidently debatable – faux-pas, we bloody well crucified them. If anyone betrayed anyone, we gamers are the cuthroats. (What follows is not directed at ANYONE, it's just the accumulation of months of digging through forums. So sorry if this gets ranty / you feel targetted…)
I've spent weeks going over arguments and short of quoting Hudson, very few of them hold up or are even reasonable. If you truly expected a *unique* ending to your playthrough, do the math: the amount of endings would go up exponentially with every decision in every game. Now, it would be incredibly inconvenient for BioWare to do all that work because, through a bell-curve distribution, the majority of people would *still* likely fall within the same few decisions; it just isn't worth the development time and cost to provide an animation for every single contingency when most would only see a few. They pulled a bit of a Molyneux on us, but let's be reasonable: it just couldn't happen.
But here's a greater issue i haven't heard anyone address: what if there had been NO choice? We were mad that our choices were limited, but imagine if BioWare had simply made the game scan our saves and decide for us. What if there had been no choice, and merely a consequence of our decisions? There's no way to know now, but I imagine it would have been an uproar equal to, if not greater than, the one we already have. We were mad at being forced to chose, but tell me how you would have felt if choice had been completely stripped away? You'd probably be REALLY mad at it, or feel detached and powerless at the end, and subsequently disappointed in how immaterial you were – as a player – to the finale. With that in mind, we must realize that, as an overall gameplay mechanic, there can be no alternative: the game has to be programmed one way of two ways: the user decides, or the game decides for the user. Those are the only possibilities (if it isn't outright scripted).
People like to say that they're mad at an ABC ending, but would an ABCDEFGH ending have been better? Again, that would be a massive pain to program and, in terms of delivery, would be dumb as hell, lol. If that DID satisfy people, it would be an admission that it is not the mechanic that upset people, but rather the *available* choices, and then it becomes a story issue again. And having no choice all would have been met with furor and – more generally – have conflicted with how the rest of the series works; every game ended in such a way, why did we expect different?
The most cringe-worthy argument is that any if the ending causes Shepard to die, it must be bad. If you somehow believe that heroes can simply never die, you have no place offering commentary on how the direction of a story should go, lol. Would it have been nice to have more situations in which he lives? Absolutely. But saying that the death of the protagonist is some sort of proof that the game is flawed is narrow-minded and shallow; Mass Effect 1 made it clear that there would be sacrifices, so if you thought the ending to such a trilogy would be all rainbows and puppies and Shepard would somehow never have to face such a test, well, you really got the wrong impression. If no one died – squad-mate or yourself – not only would it have been lame storytelling and saccharine-sweet, there would be no closure; you'd expect more from Shepard. Would fans have let Shepard retire and sip tropical drinks on a beach with Garrus? No, we'd pester BioWare for more games; best to tie off loose ends.
My point is that there is absolutely NO WAY to have satisfied people's expectations of this game. BioWare was damned if they did, damned if they didn't. People want things that cannot coexist: control of someone else's work, and storytelling. If you reject the act of choosing the end, you must accept Bioware's story. If you reject Bioware's story, you must accept that, realistically, only so much control can be given to you to alter it. Equally, that control must present itself in a sufficiently obvious manner as to not be confused with a situation where you have no choice at all; if you can't perceive alternatives, you can't perceive a choice, either. Subtlety is not an option.
As for Hudson's quote, he's technically correct: if you have a low galactic readiness level (really, really low), Earth can be destroyed, damaged, or fine. Those subvariants of the endings aren't up to you at that point, so it's kind of like A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, etc. Also, the extended ending actually does add a whole new, and in my opinion, amazing ending: giving up, losing, and becoming part of the cycle…
I agree about respecting game developers, letting them make games on their own terms. It's interesting what you said about how we have to choose between storytelling and controlling someone else's work, and we can't really have both at once. I hadn't thought of it quite like that.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the ME3 ending. You're right that even in ME1, we saw that sacrifices would have to be made, people would die, and this whole war was much bigger than just one person. So in that sense, having Shepard die was a truly fitting conclusion. I really disliked the ending options that were given — I didn't want more choices period, I wanted more relevant options presented with more subtlety — but I can see what the writers did, almost foreshadowing different endings in each game with Saren in ME1, TIM in ME2 and Anderson in ME3. Mostly what I (and a lot of other players) needed was closure, which the Extended Cut provided. I totally agree with you that the extended ending is really beautiful. It was moving to see the consequences of that final choice, and also to get some closure with the squad, etc.
Also, I was comparing it to the Dragon Age: Origins ending the other day, thinking about how DA:O has the "ultimate sacrifice" ending — which was my absolute favorite — but it also gives the option to live. Personally, I like an epic story that ends in a heroic death, but I'm weak and always really tempted to choose the But-I-want-to-live!!! ending at least one time, when given the option. I guess that's what makes tragic stories so beautiful. They can only really break your heart or have that amazing emotional impact if you can't control them. When I chose the Ultimate Sacrifice ending in DA:O, it felt epic all right, but I felt much more sadness with the ME3 ending and with the endings of many films and books I've read that end in death.
What really interests me is how video game players feel entitled to make complaints and demand different endings. You wouldn't demand that of an author or filmmaker or any other creative person, but for some reason players feel "betrayed" by game companies very easily. It's strange, and I'm not sure if it's a good thing or a bad thing. It could be a very poisonous thing if it gets out of hand, which it sort of did with ME3, I think.
Clearly I feel the same way about it getting out of hand, lol; my post got rant-ier than I expected. I actually went to bed feeling bad and thinking "wow, I get really wound up by that controversy"…
What I find interesting and, again, that I've heard no one else mention, is that Shepard only survives in the most selfish of endings :P The cost of Shepard living is not just being extremely well prepared, but choosing to kill EDI, the Geth (if you even got them that far), and the Reapers (which – depending on your compassion and interpretation of the ending – are victims as well). It also means you've probably slowed down the Quarian recovery substantially. This begs the question: what have you been fighting for, really? Survival or permanent freedom from the Reaping? Because your survival comes at an extremely high cost, sacrificing others in your stead with no guarantees for the future. That's pretty damn Renegade in my book, and makes everything you've ever said to EDI, Legion, and the Geth a lie: they are secondary to organics.
The way they broke down the ending was pretty ham-fisted, but I can't think of any other way to have done it. Should the ending have been a Paragon / Renagade in-dialogue choice while chatting it up with the Star Child? That doesn't seem deliberate enough; manually making the choice carried more weight. Should it have been a series of subtle decisions to tailor the ending to your preferences? Once again you're either making lame in-dialogue choices or lame manual choices. And if they're TOO subtle, you may accidentally chose something that ticks you the hell off, lol. I guess they could have done it like the end of ME2: the right combination will – eventually – prevail, but may require some restarting.
Enh. I guess overall I feel that a happy ending without sacrifice is just inappropriate for the overall tone and direction of this particular story. I agree with what you said: having no control over the protagonist's death is heart-wrenching in a wonderful way. And that's how I felt, because MY Shepard could never accept sacrifing so many with the Renegade option; it WASN'T an option. The choice was clear: I had to die.
I don't know where gamers get off acting all betrayed: you're a paying customer, not a friend, and your involvement in shaping the series only goes as far as its creators, BioWare, allows you. You don't have any rights or any claims to anything, as far as I'm concerned.
People love to talk about "the community", and what "the community" wants, but the bottom line is that this isn't a democracy. You're playing in Bioware's world, not your own. Maybe it's because BioWare gives us the illusion of power throughout their games that we feel we have a right to say how they should go, but really, we don't.
BioWare gives us wonderful experiences, and we PAY them for it. That is the true nature of our relationship. I'm sorry if people forget that, but this is a business. Dragon Age 2 illustrates the situation well; community feedback isn't why they went to back the community for Dragon Age 3: it's because sales BOMBED, lolol. Feedback is the logic behind declining or rising sales. In that sense, what they did makes me very sad: Dragon Age 3 will be, 100%, pandering to the audience.
If people are going to protest the game, return it, drive it's Amazon and metacritic rating down in order to drop sales, they can also drop the pretext that they're fans: at that point you are, as you said, a client. You don't care what the developer has to say, you don't care about their ideas, and you don't care about community or vision or art: you want it *your way* or god help you BioWare.
If that becomes the norm, then there will truly be no more artistic integrity in games, and it will be both our faults: the industry's for caving in to threats, and ours for issuing them.
P.S sorry these are so long, lol!
Pingback: BioWare: Caught Between a Mob and a Hard Place | XandurSE
Pingback: The Gaming Blogosphere, 2 September 2012 | BNBGAMING | Video Game News, Reviews and Discussion
cyberfemmefatale says:
Avoiding the ME3 debate since I just posted on Xandurse's blog… I think that perhaps with Kickstarter we are seeing a new model where players are engaged with the company making a game and that can lead to some amazing results. Working with a community of gamers can lead to some pretty amazing things. However, I think the problem with that is when it comes time to discuss narrative. Creating a narrative within a community would probably be hell. So when deciding on a narrative it seems to me like that is one of the things that should potentially remain in developer control. Gamers seem to be good at giving great constructive feedback about mechanics/art/gameplay; but I'm not sure narrative is something that so many people would be able to agree on. As Xandurse pointed out, Bioware was pretty much screwed with the ME3 ending, no matter what they did there would have been complaints from someone. I think more than anything that shows us how complex and different player inspired narratives can be, but also how having all of those narratives would be completely implausible. So yes, I think there should be a dialogue between gamers and developers, but I think that certain things (like narrative) should be primarily left in the hands of the developers.
That's a really good way to look at it. I'd never really made that distinction before, but I think you nailed it! Narrative is the most artistic and subjective part of a game, and so it's best left in the hand of professional storytellers. Players making suggestions (or criticisms) about gameplay seems arguably more reasonable, as much of that has to do with enjoying the game and the game being accessible to the audience. So really, the audience is the authority there — but not with the narrative.
Now that all this debate has shuffled my opinions in order, I wish I could rewrite my post to express my new thoughts… but I guess that's what's great about debating in the comments section! =)
I may still turn this into a blog post. If you'd really like to express new thoughts it could be a collaborative endeavor?
Oh that's a nice idea. If you do end up blogging about this, I'd be happy to write a section for it, though I think your thoughts helped me figure out my own! =)
Actually I just found an interesting article about this topic, but looking at it from the industry side of things, discussing how the industry sort of "rewards" negative feedback much more than positive — really interesting! That could be part of a post, since it's a fresh perspective on all of this.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/176918/Opinion_Do_we_as_an_industry_reward_negative_attention.php
thesillyandroid says:
Hey Ashley, nice article but i don't totally agree with you on the Mass Effect ending. Whatever their artistic vision may be, BioWare owes its fans big time for supporting their games for so many years. The thing is, fans like me got really attached to the game and the character. Whether it was shepard or miranda or Rex, you have a special spot for these guys. And when you end a trilogy and say this is it, it should be the good guy who wins. This is just a natural expectation. As the gamer, you want to win at the end of the day and know what happened to the characters you love. Imagine the harry potter franchise ending with harry dying or something like that. There would be mass outrage over such an ending. Why, because fans are emotionally attached to a character. Similarly, Mass Effect is a story and BioWare are the authors, so they are responsible to provide closure.
Thanks for the comment! Yeah, I think a lot of people wanted a happy ending. I would have liked one too, as I was very attached to the characters. But I don't think that BioWare owes its fans a happy ending, especially since the ME series includes so many sacrifices and so many character deaths. It's an epic story that's bigger than one person — even Shepard. That's the way I looked at it, anyway.
It's interesting that you compared it to Harry Potter, because that does seem like a fair comparison. Some of the greatest stories in history have been tragedies, but there's something about a big series that makes us want a happy ending even more. We've stuck it out with these characters for so long, it would be fantastic to have a huge pay-off and be able to run off with our in-game love interests for a well-earned retirement! But I don't know, I think if that had happened, some people might have complained that it was a cheap ending. Happy or sad, I just wanted an ending that felt relevant to the series as a whole and provided closure. I think the Extended Cut helped with that.
Robo♥beat is a blog dedicated to sci-fi, fantasy, fiction writing, and video games. Thanks for stopping by!
Video Games, Holodecks, and Playing the Hero
5 of the Funniest Video Games I've Played So Far
How Iron Man Finally Won Me Over
The Problems of Being a Polygamous Gamer
Robo♥beat Turns One Year Old!
Why "Batman" Might Be Telltale's Best Series Yet
What's New -- May 2018
Blogging Update: New Ideas for Robo♥beat
Browse Past Posts
Browse Past Posts Select Month January 2021 (2) December 2020 (1) November 2020 (1) August 2020 (1) July 2020 (1) May 2020 (2) April 2020 (1) March 2020 (3) January 2020 (2) December 2019 (4) November 2019 (2) October 2019 (1) September 2019 (1) August 2019 (1) July 2019 (2) May 2019 (2) April 2019 (1) March 2019 (3) January 2019 (2) September 2018 (2) August 2018 (1) July 2018 (3) June 2018 (3) May 2018 (3) April 2018 (1) March 2018 (6) February 2018 (3) January 2018 (4) December 2017 (3) November 2017 (3) October 2017 (2) September 2017 (4) August 2017 (3) July 2017 (4) June 2017 (4) May 2017 (6) April 2017 (4) March 2017 (9) February 2017 (5) January 2017 (6) December 2016 (4) November 2016 (4) October 2016 (7) September 2016 (10) August 2016 (9) July 2016 (6) June 2016 (8) May 2016 (8) April 2016 (4) March 2016 (9) February 2016 (11) January 2016 (12) December 2015 (10) November 2015 (4) October 2015 (8) September 2015 (5) August 2015 (4) July 2015 (3) June 2015 (7) May 2015 (5) April 2015 (6) February 2015 (2) January 2015 (1) December 2014 (1) November 2014 (1) September 2014 (1) July 2014 (1) June 2014 (2) April 2014 (5) March 2014 (3) February 2014 (5) January 2014 (2) December 2013 (9) November 2013 (2) October 2013 (2) September 2013 (2) August 2013 (3) July 2013 (4) June 2013 (4) May 2013 (10) April 2013 (4) March 2013 (5) February 2013 (5) January 2013 (7) December 2012 (5) November 2012 (8) October 2012 (6) September 2012 (10) August 2012 (11) July 2012 (21)
Browse by Topic Select Category Art (2) Blogging (7) Books (52) Games (231) Life (6) Movies (56) Music (3) Podcasts (1) Science (6) TV (42) Uncategorized (8) Video Posts (9) What's New (44) writing (4)
Follow Robo♥beat on Facebook
YouTube Uploads
Skyrim Stories: Marrying Gorbash the Iron-Hand
https://youtu.be/ACbnvF9aaBg
My Skyrim Husbands
https://youtu.be/QbxLoztc0XQ
5 Things I Love About Wolfenstein: The New Order
https://youtu.be/EggOv9c5xaA


text:
Album of the Week: Funkadelic reworked by Detroiters
Journeying from some distant cosmic slop on the other side of our known universe, Funkadelic's influence on earth has had rippled through the edges of space and time since their arrival. Between them and associated sister act Parliament, they've invented Funk, which became the precursor Disco, leading to House and the group have had left their extraterrestrial touch on everything from R&B, Hip Hop, to rock and even Jazz. An all-black band from Detroit, Funkadelic arrived at their sound through Blues/Jazz, Motown and Rock, and in the convergence of these various styles, Funkadelic arrived at sound that channelled Humour, Sci-Fi and Psychedelia from the outer most realms of known musical traditions and left an enduring heritage.
Their legacy has exceeded the limits of their genre and their sound, and nowhere else has it left its mark more permanently than in their hometown Detroit. Having a direct influence on acts like Amp Fiddler, Dirtbombs and Underground Resistance, artists that have worked with Parliament or Funkadelic (P-Funk) in the past, and their music constantly cropping up in DJ sets from the likes of Moodymann and Marcellus Pittmann, Funkadelic it seems is a constant source of inspiration for the next generation of artist in their hometown, and in this compilation, it's exactly these artists that pay tribute to this legacy.
The remixers handle the original material to great reverential degree, leaving their mark only subtly with a respectful nod to the eccentricities and charm of the original works. Very rarely remixing the tracks to the degree of the modern Techno producer, where little more than a loop, remains, artists like Moodymann and Claude Young Jr, put their own musical identity aside and let Funkadelic take centre stage throughout this compilation.
Funkadelic's gritty bass lines still manage to anchor psychedelic blues arrangements, that the various remixers extend and bolster with new powerful percussive arrangements intended for modern dance floors. That intrinsic humour and otherworldliness remains the allure of their music even fifty years on in timeless classics like "Cosmic Slop" and "Get your ass off and Jam", and the remixers do well to keep that all in tact for this next generation of listeners. The original tracks are hardly left unrecognisable and this compilation will do well to introduce and entirely new generation to the music of Funkadelic, keeping that perpetual influence of one music history's most unlikely stars exactly where it should be, at the centre of the known universe.


My LGB UINTAH 20882 just arrived.
I am very happy with her. She is old (22 years) but she runs fine even on my tight R1 switches.
a) she is fiitted with a nice noise system She normally should feature the braking noise but I don't get it.
The 4 switches are on the right position (on) but ... Is there a trick to get that braking noise.
My engine is fitted with an LGB knuckle coupler I want to connect her on all my bachmann rolling stock having Bachmann knuckle couplers. As you can see on this picture the LGB engine coupler is too high. Before I take my screw driver I take some risk, I would like to know if there is a known solution to this small issue.
The brake squeal may depend on the rate at which you slow down. It may not work if you make a gentle stop. Try coming to a rapid halt from about half speed.
You need to balance CV168 and 169 to get the best brake squeal. CV 4, deceleration, seems to make a difference too.
Trial and error seems to be the best way but start with the defaults in your manual.
The locos speed needs to exceed the setting in CV168 and then when slowed below the setting of CV169 the brake squeal should start. If these are too close together, I find the result is poor. The best squeal comes with a moderately high CV4 and allow the loco speed to coast down whilst the controller is zeroed.
It is switched on I assume ? - CV149 and then the correct bit - 5 I think.
I love that loco. I was pulled by something similar on the Black Hills (of South Dakota) 1880 railroad.
Can you just change the LGB knuckle coupling to a Bachmann Big Hauler one? The LGB one steps up higher but the shank looks to be the same level.
1 the break squeal does depend on the rate at which you come to a stop. as mentioned, too gradual and it wont trigger.
2 I don't have a simple solution. I run mismatched heights, and even on my rough and tumble track work, they seem to stay coupled. I don't recall if you can simply swap a bmann coupler for an LGB, but id try it. seems I recall the bmann centering pin needs to be clipped, and, Im not remembering if the alignment holes quite work either. Id be more inclined to have an idler car with an LGB truck at one end and a Bmann at the other, if it was critical.
Nice big lump of Metal (the real one) the model one is a lot of plastic and some metal for your money. Had a friends one here a year or three back, converted her to Battery Power for him. Aristo kit and Sound Board worked just nicely.
I have a new black with no sound which I bought back in the CLOSE OUT SALE days. I also sourced a USA trains UINTAH RY.Co. caboose to go with it which is very similar but not the same as the Aristocraft classic caboose.
I prefer the USA trains caboose because it's sides drop down lower and has a better narrow gauge look rather than sitting high on it's bolsters like the Aristocraft one does.
I made a long trip on my railroad lasting several minutes under 16.5 volts and stoped sharply my engine : no braking noise.
I got all the other noises but not that one so far.
For the coupler, I might change the lgb coupler by a bachmann one.
For the moment I can connect the two couplers. The train is running fine even with 8 cars but not secure.
Stevedenver, do you lubricate the engine sometimes. Particularly the siderods.
Lgb does not communicate so much about that.
For Bachmann it is recommended to lubricate every twenty hours.
Yes, lubricate: the axels at the point they meet the frame, 1 drop; i use graphite or teflon powder on side rods and valve gear so as to not attract outdoors grit, but, plastic compatible oil works ( but may need to be periodically stripped and reapplied); lube motor and gears in the gear box with Lgb grease, moderately.
Keep an eye on the tire treads and back of the wheels, as they eventually get dirty and the treads slightly pitted, since they have no pick up shoes. I use a track abrasive eraser. Sometimes lighter fluid for sap and other track related gunk.
Try running your loco again with neither a hard or very slow deceleration.
The brake sound can be tricky. Experiment a bit. Slow from road speed into the station, but still rolling, then a slightly greater deceleration to a stop.
Sometimes, after the full throttle thing, as i mentioned, , i will run the loco at about 10v,-12v, with modest consist, and sometimes at this voltage, you may hear brakes sounds on an upgrade or curve which cause slight slowing. This occurs not only on the uintah, but my euro mallets, and, an older sachsen mk IVk .
All of them have braking somewhere between med slow, and the a distinct slow to stop. Sorry, its hard to articulate, but youll get it.
The brake sound takes slight finesse. Otoh, its not that hard, but, yours may not be working.
Fwiw, do you hear anything clattering around in the boiler? If so, its possible a component came off the board.
I mention this unlikely scenario because This happened to my euro mallet. It was easy to find where and how to reattach, as they are a three pin chip, and it was easy for me to see the place on the board where it came loose.
Thankyou stevedenver a lot of useful information for me. I will use all that including shaking the engine just in case one component get loose !!
This may not help, if you do not know what CV's are, but there is a CV where each 'bit' controls if an effect is active under analogue control..
You may also find you do not get an effect if you have not run for (say) 30 seconds or more.
I only have an Aristocraft Mallet here at the moment, so am unable to test his for you.
is CV an acronym for something ?
is CV a software instruction .... ??
CV means configuration variable, terminology used in DCC to configure the decoder to perform in certain ways, like sound whistle when you press F1, and so on.
Aria31....any luck yet with braking sounds?
No I was not successful in getting this brake noise. I tried several speed profiles , running duration , ... etc. No way .
The only thing I didn't do is to ear if a component is loose. What is strange is that all other noises are fine. I have switch off and on the brake switch.
My next step is to make the lubrification as the engine might have not been lubricated over the last 10 years. Shelf life from the previous owner.
Done that trip, very nice. It's close to Mt. Rushmore.
A lot of the cars are old interurbans, from Oregon, I believe.


text:
Q: pycurl install looks for a non-existent file (libcurl.a) I'm running a Gentoo Linux system under which I've never had problems installing anything into my virtualenv using pip.  I've managed installing PIL and django, but for some reason, pycurl (a dependency of cloudkey) is flipping out, claiming that I don't have libcurl.a (note that it's not .la) on my system.
curl is installed.  In fact, pycurl is installed on the host system just fine, but it just won't install into my virtualenv.  Here's the output:
$ pip install cloudkey
Requirement already satisfied (use --upgrade to upgrade): cloudkey in /path/to/virtualenv/lib/python2.6/site-packages
Requirement already satisfied (use --upgrade to upgrade): distribute in /path/to/virtualenv/lib/python2.6/site-packages (from cloudkey)
Requirement already satisfied (use --upgrade to upgrade): simplejson>=2.0.9 in /path/to/virtualenv/lib/python2.6/site-packages (from cloudkey)
Downloading/unpacking pycurl>=7.19.0 (from cloudkey)
  Downloading pycurl-7.19.0.tar.gz (71Kb): 71Kb downloaded
  Running setup.py egg_info for package pycurl
Using curl-config (libcurl 7.23.1)
Installing collected packages: pycurl
  Running setup.py install for pycurl
Using curl-config (libcurl 7.23.1)
building 'pycurl' extension
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -pthread -fPIC -DHAVE_CURL_OPENSSL=1 -DHAVE_CURL_OPENSSL=1 -DHAVE_CURL_OPENSSL=1 -DHAVE_CURL_OPENSSL=1 -DHAVE_CURL_SSL=1 -I/usr/include/python2.6 -c src/pycurl.c -o build/temp.linux-x86_64-2.6/src/pycurl.o
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -pthread -shared build/temp.linux-x86_64-2.6/src/pycurl.o -L/usr/lib64 -lcurl -lssl -lcrypto -lldap -lrt -lssl -lcrypto -lz -lssl -lcrypto -lldap -lrt -lssl -lcrypto -lz -lpython2.6 -o build/lib.linux-x86_64-2.6/pycurl.so /usr/lib64/libcurl.a -Wl,-O1 -Wl,--as-needed
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc: /usr/lib64/libcurl.a: No such file or directory
error: command 'x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc' failed with exit status 1
Complete output from command /path/to/virtualenv/bin/python2.6 -c "import setuptools;__file__='/path/to/virtualenv/build/pycurl/setup.py';exec(compile(open(__file__).read().replace('\r\n', '\n'), __file__, 'exec'))" install --single-version-externally-managed --record /tmp/pip-kkwDnf-record/install-record.txt --install-headers /path/to/virtualenv/include/site/python2.6:
Using curl-config (libcurl 7.23.1)

running install

running build

running build_py

creating build

creating build/lib.linux-x86_64-2.6

creating build/lib.linux-x86_64-2.6/curl

copying python/curl/__init__.py -> build/lib.linux-x86_64-2.6/curl

running build_ext

building 'pycurl' extension

creating build/temp.linux-x86_64-2.6

creating build/temp.linux-x86_64-2.6/src

x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -pthread -fPIC -DHAVE_CURL_OPENSSL=1 -DHAVE_CURL_OPENSSL=1 -DHAVE_CURL_OPENSSL=1 -DHAVE_CURL_OPENSSL=1 -DHAVE_CURL_SSL=1 -I/usr/include/python2.6 -c src/pycurl.c -o build/temp.linux-x86_64-2.6/src/pycurl.o

x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -pthread -shared build/temp.linux-x86_64-2.6/src/pycurl.o -L/usr/lib64 -lcurl -lssl -lcrypto -lldap -lrt -lssl -lcrypto -lz -lssl -lcrypto -lldap -lrt -lssl -lcrypto -lz -lpython2.6 -o build/lib.linux-x86_64-2.6/pycurl.so /usr/lib64/libcurl.a -Wl,-O1 -Wl,--as-needed

x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc: /usr/lib64/libcurl.a: No such file or directory

error: command 'x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc' failed with exit status 1

----------------------------------------
Command /path/to/virtualenv/bin/python2.6 -c "import setuptools;__file__='/path/to/virtualenv/build/pycurl/setup.py';exec(compile(open(__file__).read().replace('\r\n', '\n'), __file__, 'exec'))" install --single-version-externally-managed --record /tmp/pip-kkwDnf-record/install-record.txt --install-headers /path/to/virtualenv/include/site/python2.6 failed with error code 1
Storing complete log in /home/daniel/.pip/pip.log

Any ideas/suggestions?

A: Since you mentioned you were using Gentoo, you may want to use portage to find out what package owns that file.  You can use equery (emerge gentoolkit) to figure out what package owns it:
equery belongs /usr/lib64/libcurl.a

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
using Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authentication;
using Microsoft.AspNetCore.Identity;
using Microsoft.Extensions.Options;
using Abp.Authorization;
using AbpCoreEf6Sample.Authorization.Roles;
using AbpCoreEf6Sample.Authorization.Users;
using AbpCoreEf6Sample.MultiTenancy;
using Microsoft.Extensions.Logging;

namespace AbpCoreEf6Sample.Identity
{
    public class SecurityStampValidator : AbpSecurityStampValidator<Tenant, Role, User>
    {
        public SecurityStampValidator(
            IOptions<SecurityStampValidatorOptions> options,
            SignInManager signInManager,
            ISystemClock systemClock,
            ILoggerFactory loggerFactory)
            : base(options, signInManager, systemClock, loggerFactory)
        {
        }
    }
}


text:
The man who got it right – has gone 24
Being strong supporters of President Trump, we are not happy making moan about his dismissal of John Bolton as his national security adviser. But make moan we do.
For one very important thing, John Bolton has always been right about how to deal with terrorist organizations like the Taliban, and terrorist regimes like Iran's: they should never be negotiated with because to do so is to legitimize them. Now it seems that it is over this issue (inter alia, presumably) that the President and Bolton have parted company. (If proof were needed that in this matter Bolton is right, the Iranian government cheered the news of Bolton's departure.)
Mark Steyn appreciates John Bolton as much as we do.
He writes (in part … read it all for the wit, the sheer fun):
I first met the new National Security Advisor a decade and a half or so back, in a roomful of European prime ministers and foreign ministers. He delivered a line that stunned the joint:
'International law does not trump the US Constitution.'
I was standing next to the Finnish Prime Minister, Paavo Lipponen, who had a genuinely puzzled looked on his face and eventually inquired of me: "He is making a joke, no?"
No. Since then, I've interviewed him at Fox a couple of times and passed him in the green room on many others. …
I first wrote about him fourteen years ago, after Bush nominated him as UN Ambassador. This is from The Spectator of March 19th 2005 – and my remarks about "the code-speak consensus of the global elite" are relevant, I think, to what drove Trump's rise – as Mr Bolton was surely aware:
If you're going to play the oldest established permanent floating transnational crap game for laughs, you might as well pick an act with plenty of material. What I love about John Bolton, America's new ambassador to the UN, is the sheer volume of 'damaging' material. Usually, the Democrats and media have to riffle through decades of dreary platitudes to come up with one potentially exploitable infelicitous soundbite. But with Bolton the damaging quotes are hanging off the trees and dropping straight into your bucket. Five minutes' casual trawling through the back catalogue and your cup runneth over:
The UN building?
'If you lost ten storeys, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.'
Reform of the Security Council?
'If I were redoing the Security Council, I'd have one permanent member … the United States.'
The International Criminal Court?
'Fuzzy-minded romanticism … not just naive but dangerous.'
International law in general?
'It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law.'
Offering incentives to rogue states?
'I don't do carrots.'
But he does do shtick. I happen to agree with all the above statements, but I can see why the international community might be minded to throw its hands up and shriek, 'Quelle horreur!' It's not just the rest of the world. Most of the American media are equally stunned. …
In a roomful of Euro-grandees, [Bolton] was perfectly relaxed … [He] thwacked every ball they served back down their gullets with amazing precision. …He seemed to relish their hostility. At one event, a startled British cabinet minister said to me afterwards, 'He doesn't mean all that, does he?'
But he does. And that's why the Bolton flap is very revealing about conventional wisdom on transnationalism. Diplomats are supposed to be 'diplomatic'. Why is that? Well, as the late Canadian prime minister Lester B. Pearson used to say, diplomacy is the art of letting the other fellow have your way. In other words, you were polite, discreet, circumspect, etc., as a means to an end. Not any more.
None of John Bolton's detractors is worried that his bluntness will jeopardise the administration's policy goals. Quite the contrary. They're concerned that the administration has policy goals — that it isn't yet willing to subordinate its national interest to the polite transnational pieties. In that sense, our understanding of 'diplomacy' has become corrupted: it's no longer the language through which nation states treat with one another so much as the code-speak consensus of a global elite.
For much of the civilised world the transnational pabulum has become an end in itself, and one largely unmoored from anything so tiresome as reality. It doesn't matter whether there is any global warming or, if there is, whether Kyoto will do anything about it or, if you ratify Kyoto, whether you bother to comply with it: all that matters is that you sign on to the transnational articles of faith. The same thinking applies to the ICC, and Darfur, and the Oil-for-Fraud programme, and anything else involving the UN. …
The normal Western deference to the [UN] has grossly over-inflated its 'legitimacy' and 'moral authority'. That's what John Bolton had in mind with his observations about international law:
'It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so — because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States.'
Just so. When George Bush Sr. went through the UN to assemble his coalition for the first Gulf war, it might have been a 'diplomatic triumph' but it was also the biggest single contributing factor to the received wisdom in the decade and a half since that only the UN has the international legitimacy to sanction war — to the point where, on the eve of Iraq's liberation, the Church of England decided that a 'just war' could only be one approved by the Security Council. That in turn amplifies the UN's claim to sole global legitimacy in a thousand other areas, big and small — the environment, guns, smoking, taxation.
Yet the assumption behind much of the criticism of Bolton … is that, regardless of his government's foreign policy, a UN ambassador has to be at some level a UN booster. Twenty years ago, the then Secretary of State George Schultz used to welcome the Reagan administration's ambassadorial appointments to his office and invite each chap to identify his country on the map. The guy who'd just landed the embassy in Chad would invariably point to Chad. 'No,' Schultz would say, 'this is your country' — and point to the United States. Nobody would expect a US ambassador to the Soviet Union to be a big booster for the Soviets. …
A slyer argument is that yes, the UN's in a terrible state, what with the Oil-for-Fraud and the Congolese moppets and the flop response to Darfur and the tsunami, but that's all the more reason why America needs an ambassador able to build consensus for much-needed reforms. The problem with that seductive line is that most of the proposed reforms are likely to make things worse. Again, Bolton is right to be dismissive about restructuring the [UN] Security Council. Even as the Second World War victory parade preserved in aspic, it makes little sense. …
I can find only one example of a senior UN figure having the guts to call a member state a 'totalitarian regime'. It was former secretary-general Boutros Boutros-Ghali … and he was talking about America.
A Secretary-General of the United Nations dared to name a member country as a totalitarian regime, and the country he named was the United States!
John Bolton's sin isn't that he's 'undiplomatic', but that he's correct.
This ship of state has lost a great navigator.
Posted under Afghanistan, Diplomacy, Iran, United Nations, United States by Jillian Becker on Friday, September 13, 2019
Tagged with Boutros Boutros-Ghali, George Schultz, John Bolton, Lester B. Pearson, Mark Steyn, Paavo Lipponen, President George H. W. Bush, President Trump
This post has 24 comments.


text:
Juan Bautista Alberdi (August 29, 1810 – June 19, 1884) was an Argentine political theorist and diplomat. Although he lived most of his life in exile in Montevideo, Uruguay and in Chile, he influenced the content of the Constitution of Argentina of 1853.

Based on his liberal and federal constitutional ideas, Alberdi at the same time tried to satisfy contrary social interests and establish a balance between national political centralization and provincial administrative decentralization: considering that both solutions would contribute to the consolidation and development of the original being of the single nation.

Biography

Early life
Juan Bautista Alberdi was born in San Miguel de Tucumán, capital city of the Tucumán Province, Argentina, on August 29, 1810. His father, Salvador Alberdi, was a Spanish Basque merchant; his mother, Josefa Aráoz y Balderrama, had been born into an Argentine family of Spanish descent. She died as a result of Juan Bautista's birth. Salvador Alberdi supported the patriots during the Argentine War of Independence, and had interviews with general Manuel Belgrano during the Second Upper Peru campaign that was fought in Tucumán and northern areas in 1812 and 1813. His father died as well in 1822; as he was still a minor his siblings Felipe and Tránsita became his legal guardians.

He got a scholarship to the School of Moral sciences (today's '"Colegio Nacional de Buenos Aires") in Buenos Aires, along fellow Tucuman Marco Avellaneda. He studied alongside Vicente Fidel López and Esteban Echeverría. He could not endure the harsh discipline of the school, and briefly left his studies pretending to be sick. He became interested in music, but preferred to learn it through autodidacticism rather than through formal artistic education. He wrote his first book in 1832, El espíritu de la música (). He got a job with Juan Maldes, a friend of his family, and continued the informal learning of his other studies. He resumed his formal studies in 1831, and moved to the University of Córdoba. He returned to his province for family business, and wrote Memoria descriptiva sobre Tucumán () at the request of governor Alejandro Heredia. He declined the governor's request to stay in Tucumán, and returned to Buenos Aires.

Like many other nineteenth century Argentines prominent in public life, he was a freemason.

Civil war

Once in Buenos Aires, Alberdi became friends with Juan María Gutiérrez and Esteban Echeverría. They established the "Generation of '37", a group of liberal intellectuals that met at the Marcos Sastre literary hall. They criticized both factions of the Argentine Civil Wars, deeming the federalists too violent and the unitarians incapable to rule. They thought that both factions should end their disputes and work together. The governor Juan Manuel de Rosas forced Marcos Sastre to close the hall. Alberdi established then a women's magazine, "La Moda" (), writing with the pseudonym "Figarillo". Despite of the main focus, the magazine contained political content as well. Alberdi was concerned about the legal system of Argentina as well, and wrote Fragmento preliminar al estudio del derecho () to point problems and suggest solutions. The members of the Generation of '37 continued as a secret society, known as the "May Association" (in reference to the May Revolution), but the government discovered it. Most members emigrated to other countries; Alberdi emigrated to Uruguay in 1838.

In Montevideo he got a degree as lawyer: he had already finished his studies in Buenos Aires, but refused to make the oath under Rosas' government. Alberdi thought that the real problem in Argentina was not specifically Rosas, but the society that supported him. As a result, he thought that the generation of '37 should understand the reasons of such popular support, and how to earn it for themselves. He worked in antirosist publications, such as "El Grito Arjentino" () and "Muera Rosas" (). He also wrote theater plays, "La Revolución de Mayo" () and "El gigante Amapolas" (). The name of this last one was a word play with the last name of Rosas, as "Rosas" can be also understood in the Spanish language as the plural form of "Rosa", the Rose flower. Alberdi worked as well as secretary to Juan Lavalle, who made a military campaign against Rosas during the French blockade of the Río de la Plata, but left him for political disagreements. Manuel Oribe, president of Uruguay deposed during the Uruguayan Civil War and allied to Rosas, laid siege to Montevideo in 1840, so Alberdi left the city and moved to Europe, alongside Juan María Gutiérrez.

Alberdi met José de San Martín in Paris. The Argentine general of the war of independence was aged sixty-six at the time, Alberdi praised his modesty and vitality. Alberdi returned to the Americas in 1843. He tried to meet the former Argentine president Bernardino Rivadavia during his brief stay in Rio de Janeiro, to no avail. He settled in Valparaíso, Chile. He renewed his degree as lawyer, and worked both as a lawyer and journalist, again with the pseudonym "Figarillo". He studied the United States Constitution, seeking ideas that might work in Argentina, and wrote Sobre la conveniencia de un Congreso General Americano () in 1844. He established the newspaper El Comercio, and wrote the report La República Argentina 37 años después de su Revolución de Mayo () in 1847, calling for an end to the disputes between parties. Rosas was finally defeated by Justo José de Urquiza in 1852, during the battle of Caseros.

Diplomacy

With Rosas deposed, Urquiza called the San Nicolás Agreement and convened a constituent assembly. Alberdi supported the project and wrote Bases y puntos de partida para la organización política de la República Argentina (), a draft for the new constitution. It was published by the printing house of the El Mercurio newspaper. It is heavily influenced by the United States Constitution. Alberdi complemented this work with Elementos de derecho público provincial Argentino (), a comparison between the Argentine Constitution of 1826 and the United States Constitution. He attributed most of the problems of Argentina to its low population density, as the country had a very small population for its huge size; he frequently described the countryside as a desert. His proposed solution was to promote an influx of European immigration. His most known quotation is "Gobernar es poblar" (). He proposed as well to improve the infrastructure in ports, roads and bridges, and introduce the recently invented telegraphy and rail transport in the country. He advocated as well for economic liberalism, rejecting the protectionism of Rosas' government.

Urquiza, the new president of Argentina under the 1853 constitution, supported Alberdi's work, and appointed him ambassador of the Argentine Confederation in Chile. By that time, Buenos Aires seceded from the Confederation as the State of Buenos Aires. The writer Domingo Faustino Sarmiento opposed Urquiza, and extended his criticism to Alberdi. Sarmiento thought that Urquiza was just another caudillo similar to Rosas; and Alberdi thought that the State of Buenos Aires was keeping the policies of Rosas regarding the relations between Buenos Aires and the other provinces and the national organization. Alberdi's ideas on the issue were detailed in the Cartas Quillotanas, written from Quillota. Sarmiento wrote his answer in Las ciento y una. Urquiza proposed Alberdi to be the minister of finances, he declined the offer. Urquiza gave him another appointment: move to Europe and seek recognition for the 1816 Argentine Declaration of Independence and its constitution, and prevent recognition for the state of Buenos Aires as a different country. Alberdi visited the United States in his way to Europe, and had an interview with the American president Franklin Pierce. He visited London, meeting Queen Victoria, and finally settled in Paris. He would stay in this city for 24 years.

Alberdi met the French emperor Napoleon III, who granted the French recognition to the Confederation. Alberdi convinced him as well to remove the French diplomat at the State of Buenos Aires, and send another to the Confederation instead. Alberdi began negotiations with the marquis Pedro José Pidal for the Spanish recognition of the Argentine independence in 1857. He proposed two treaties between both countries: in the first, Spain would decline further sovereignty claims over the Argentine territory, and the second opened the country to commerce. He proposed as well that the Confederation would take the international debt of the former Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, the predecessor State of Argentina under Spanish rule; excluding those belonging to Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay (who had also been part of the viceroyalty, but became different countries). The treaties were signed in 1857 and 1859, and ratified on February 26, 1860. The Spanish queen Isabella II confirmed the treaties. However, the governor of Buenos Aires Carlos Tejedor rejected Alberdi's negotiations.

He also met Rosas, who was living in Southampton since he left power. The Argentine Confederation and the State of Buenos Aires were reunified in 1861, which ceased Alberdi's work as ambassador. He opposed the War of the Triple Alliance, and began a controversy about it with president Bartolomé Mitre. In this time he began to write El crimen de la guerra, a book that he did not finish and was published posthumously in 1895.

Late life
Alberdi returned to Argentina in 1879, after more than forty years living abroad. He had been appointed representative for Tucuman, but was rejected during the rebellion of Carlos Tejedor against Julio Argentino Roca. The civil war ended in 1880 with the federalization of Buenos Aires. Alberdi had received a number of recognitions by this time. The village of Alberdi in Santa Fe Province (which was later incorporated to Rosario as Barrio Alberdi) was named after him, and President Roca sent a bill to Congress to have all of Alberdi's works published. The newspaper La Nación, established by Mitre, criticized those recognitions. Alberdi was sent to Europe, he had a stroke during the journey. His health rapidly declined, and he died near Paris on June 19, 1884.

Legacy

Juan Bautista Alberdi was one of the most notable exponents of the 1837 generation, which allowed to imagine and begin the construction of a prosperous Argentina with full freedoms. In the field of ideas, Alberdi achieved victory and bequeathed to all Argentines a country project, a model of organization and coexistence based on rules, norms, values and ethics. He is also recognized as a great jurist.

His political as well as his economic projects are supported by contemporary Argentine liberal and libertarian economists such as Javier Milei, José Luis Espert, Agustín Etchebarne, Roberto Cachanosky among others.

Selected bibliography

 El espíritu de la música – 1832
 Memoria descriptiva sobre Tucumán – 1834
 Fragmento preliminar al estudio del derecho – 1837
 Sobre la conveniencia de un Congreso General Americano – 1844
 Bases y puntos de partida para la organización política de la República Argentina – 1852
 Elementos de derecho público provincial Argentino – 1852

References

Footnotes

Sources

Further reading
Alberdi y su tiempo, Jorge M. Mayer, Buenos Aires, Eudeba, 1963.
 Las ideas políticas en la Argentina, José Luis Romero, Buenos Aires, Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1975.
Vida de un Ausente, José Ignacio Garcia Hamilton, Buenos Aires, Editorial Sudamericana, 1993.

External links

Ambassadors of Argentina to Chile
Ambassadors of Argentina to France
Ambassadors of Argentina to the Holy See
Ambassadors of Argentina to Spain
Ambassadors of Argentina to the United Kingdom
Unitarianists (Argentina)
Argentine political writers
Argentine male writers
People from San Miguel de Tucumán
Argentine people of Basque descent
Argentine emigrants to France
Argentine classical liberals
1810 births
1884 deaths
Argentine Freemasons

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia