?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Overloading the Machine -- Day [entries|friends|calendar]
johnsu01

[ website | wjsullivan.net ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

Unsetting Background Color [03 Sep 2004|01:42am]

I had to figure this out because I connect to the same screen session running emacs from several different locations, with different needs. From my hiptop, the background color of emacs needs to be black, because the default background on the hiptop is light enough that most faces in Gnus, for example, get lost. So I usually just do `M-x set-background-color RET black RET'.

But sometimes later, in the aterm window on my laptop, I like to have a background image or some transparency. The background color covers this up.

`M-x set-background-color' doesn't allow you to set no or nil background color. I'm not sure why it doesn't allow that.

My solution was to do `M-x customize-face RET default RET'. Then uncheck the Foreground box, and set it for the current session.

In my time with Emacs Lisp, I haven't yet looked in to how to directly work with faces; obviously Customize is just a convenient interface. And setting the frame properties directly might work; in a new emacs session, the background-color frame property is set to "unspecified-bg". I'm not sure what what happens if you set that manually after setting a background color.

Addendum. That trick didn't work the second time that I tried it. Instead, this worked: (set-face-background 'default "buddha"). Or, substitute whatever you like for "buddha", as long as it is not actually a color. If you want to appear rational, you can use "unspecified", but it doesn't actually matter.

So now, I can have my terminal background images when I feel like eye-candy, and change the background to something more readable when I need to without having to restart the emacs session.

By the way, the propaganda-debian package has some nice background images in it.

post comment

Protesting the Protest Zone [03 Sep 2004|03:17pm]
Just went back and read this article again about the protest zone in Boston during the DNC.

A different angle. Yet another reason it is an infringement on free speech is that there is no way to protest the zone itself. If during the DNC, I had wanted to protest the concept of free speech zones, not the DNC, I would not have been allowed to unless I was inside the box itself. So, the only legally allowed place for me to protest the cage is from inside the cage?

As this article points out, no one was telling the police officers' union that they would have to be in the protest zone if they wanted to picket about their lack of a contract. So, these kinds of restrictions aren't content-neutral either, which should mean they are not constitutional.

And the intimidation? Cameras all around the zone, armed National Guardsmen in elevated positions surrounding the cage, razor wire.. What could possibly justify this?

This seems cut and dried to me. I don't understand how this concept has managed to survive our legal process.
post comment

navigation
[ viewing | September 3rd, 2004 ]
[ go | previous day|next day ]