Downloads: 0
Posts: 6
Smile Score: +2
About Me
I am a Free member
Well it goes to Hannah Arendt's notion of Eichmann, the thesis that he embodied the banality of evil. That she had gone to the Eichmann trial to confront the epitome of evil in her mind and expected to encounter something monstrous, and what she encountered instead was this nondescript little man, a bureaucrat, a technocrat, a guy who arranged train schedules, who, as it turned out, ultimately didn't even agree with the policy that he was implementing, but performed the technical functions that made the holocaust possible, at least in the efficient manner that it occurred, in a totally amoral and soulless way, purely on the basis of excelling at the function and getting ahead within the system that he found himself. He was a good family man, in his way. He was loved by his children, participated in civic activities, was in essence the good German. And she [Arendt] said, therein lies the evil. It wasn't that Eichmann was a Nazi or a high official within Nazidom, although he was in fact a Nazi and a relatively highly placed official, but it was exactly the reverse: that given his actual nomenclature, the actuality of Eichmann was that anyone in this sort of mindless, faceless, bureaucratic capacity could be the Nazi. That he was every man, and that was what was truly horrifying to her in the end. That was a controversial thesis because there's always this effort to distinguish anyone and everyone irrespective of what they're doing from this polarity of evil that is signified in Nazidom, and she had breached the wall and brought the lessons of how Nazism actually functioned, the modernity of it, home and visited it upon everyone, calling for, then, personal accountability, responsibility, to the taking of responsibility for the outcome of the performance of one's functions. That's exactly what it is that is shirked here, and makes it possible for people to, from a safe remove, perform technical functions that result in (and at some level, they know this, they understand it) in carnage, emiseration, the death of millions ultimately. That's the Eichmann aspect. But notice I said little Eichmanns, not the big Eichmann. Not the real Eichmann. The real Eichmann ultimately is symbolic, even in his own context. He symbolized the people that worked under him. He symbolized the people who actually were on the trains. They were hauling the Jews. He symbolized the technicians who were making the gas for I.G. Farben. He symbolized all of these people who didn't directly kill anybody, but performed functions and performed those functions with a certain degree of enthusiasm and certainly with a great degree of efficiency, that had the outcome of the mass murder of the people targeted for elimination or accepted as collateral damage. That's the term of the art put forth by the Pentagon. -WC 06

Visit Stats
Last Visit: 6 years ago
Member Since: 11 Oct 2008
Profile Views: 779

Bdobbs's Posts
Average Rating from Bdobbs:

sort: smiles | time

BDobbs reviewed on 09 Jul 2008
Hear does beautiful things to the sound that comes out of my MBP.

I'm an amateur audiophile, but I'm no purist, and as far as I'm concerned, Hear is a fantastic app. It makes listening to music and watching movies much more enjoyable.

I mostly listen to blues, hip-hop and electronic music.

At work I plug my laptop into an auxiliary port on an Aiwa stereo, and it sounds GREAT. At home I Toslink to some Logitech Z-680s, and it really wows. The sound is much richer and fuller. I lack the vocabulary to describe in detail these changes, but I know they sound amazing.

The best feature I've found so far, is that you can individually control the volume of each application on your mac! it's FANTASTIC!

The interface is beautiful (Great icons!), but utterly un mac-like. Kind of frustrating.

Totally unnecessary, but also really badass. I'd recommend it.
[Version 1.0.3]


BDobbs reviewed on 18 Jun 2008
This program does exactly what it purports to, and how. It rocks, I've never had problems with stability or anything else, but I've never delved into its depths.
All that being said, it's ugly as sin. Really heinously, awfully ugly. I'm not a developer, so I don't know how hard it is to make an app with a UI (or at least a good menu-bar icon), but I hope that they release an update soon.
Looks don't really matter that much to me, as long as it's functional, and this is entirely. If it gets a UI facelift, it'll get five stars from me.
[Version 1.5b1]


BDobbs reviewed on 01 Feb 2008
This app is baller. Seriously. Always got the hookup for me. Way better than anything else I've used. Never had any problems, used it for years. Well, since at least .5 anyway...
[Version 1.04]


BDobbs reviewed on 24 Jan 2008
Wow. This game rocks.

It taps into a kind of aesthetic that few other games do well, if their developers try at all.

It has a soul. It's honest and simple.

Makes me think of Asterax a lot.

Highly addictive.

If only there were more power-ups...
[Version 1.2.1]


BDobbs reviewed on 01 Jun 2007
An avid Google fan, I was excited to see that they had finally begun to offer Google Desktop for the Mac. I don't like Spotlight because it doesn't understand Boolean logic and suffers from Apple's crippling focus on computer-ignorant consumers.
My hopes came true: Google Desktop beats Spotlight like a redheaded mule on every count. It's slick (double-command invocation? rad, but I changed it, because I often absentmindedly tap command), it's beautiful and it *just works* on my MBP Core Duo 2.16, 2gb.
Where Google Desktop ultimately fails miserably is in two areas: "proprietarity" and sneakiness.
"Proprietarity" - For some reason, the propeller-heads at Google decided that every Google Application should be linked to a central "Google Updater" application that tracks the versions of all of them. This is ridiculous. There is no reason this is necessary, it's very un-mac and it gets in the way of updating individual Google Applications. I want it to be simple to control each individual application. I DON'T want some weird additional app shoved down my throat. That bugs me a lot, but most users probably won't care.
Sneakiness - A lot of people have complained about the vast array of background processes that Google Desktop craps up your machine with. It's completely reprehensible on Google's part that this occurs, but it's tolerable because they each present a very modest CPU load. True, during the initial indexing the CPU load is high, but who doesn't expect that in a search application? What, do you want instant indexing? Give it a decade or two.

Bottom line: Google Desktop does some annoying stuff that makes me want to punch someone in the face, but it's FAR superior to a vastly slower, ultimately crippled Spotlight. Comparing it to other search/launcher apps is, I believe, unfair because few others focus on the specific needs Google is focusing on.

There are currently no troubleshooting comments by this member.

Displaying 1-5 of 5
Please login or create a new
MacUpdate Member account
to use this feature

- -