Messages

Chris is an awesome juggler.  A lot of what he does would actually be hack, old-hat stuff (many jugglers do similar ideas) if he weren't so technically good and inventive.

My favourites though are Jay Gilligan, and pretty much any of the big Finns of Peopot Video

Also, this group is myself and my pal Graham, we're just starting :

www.propelevator.com

I'm no art expert (my art is terrible, awful, bad, and disturbingly poor in terms of composition), so these may not be errors, but I tried to figure out what it is you might not have liked.



First, the vines and the glow in the left-top area.  It's a bit confusing where some of that light is coming from.  You can see that there's a glow beside the window, but the walls are quite thick--it seems unlikely that the sun would be hitting the wall at such an extreme angle at that time of day.  How does it get against the flat part of the wall?  Some shorter light might help.

Also, the vine appears flat on compated to the rest, for whatever reason does not seem attached to the wall.

At the back of the room, there's the bookshelf, which again is really good, but the shelf seems to poke into empty air a bit where I circled it.  It could angle more down to seem attached to the slanted wall.  As it is it seems a bit fat on that end.

The biggest problem (and they are all minor, it is a fine room) from my perspective is the way the perspective cuts off at the bottom.  It feels as if we're about to fall off the picture, because the angle is so sharp towards the front of the room (circle 3).  It seems as if there is a fairly radical slope, which is unexpected in a castle tower.

That all could be wrong though--that's from a non-artist's perspective LOOKING for problems, because you stated you had some.  Ignore me if I'm totally wrong.

I have to say I disagree to some extent both with Mr. Collossal and Matt Damon.

I agree with Mr. Collossal that some of the situations are extremely unlikely--though if the company wasn't ever going to use the TOS, why would it pay lawyers to rewrite it?  It seems absurd to assume that a company is never going to make use of a TOS just because it might harm someone else.  By law, corporations are forced to care about profit 100% -- anything else is supposed to be incidental.  Perhaps AOL Time-Warner might not use their power next week, but it is overstepping their boundaries considerably to add such a line.  Not that they actually can't--I'm talking about ethical boundaries.  You might say that a company has a right to put anything they like in a TOS, but while that is technically correct from a legal standpoint, in this case it's exploitive and unfair, especially to the technically unsavvy.  They can, just as I can technically get away with driving my SUV over hobos (as long as they're in the outskirts of town, no one would ever notice), I probably shouldn't.  I can also close my plant and move to some free trade zone in Indonesia, but that's not a good thing to do.

Squinky is right though.  We can't actually stop a company from making any crazy TOS they want.  Which is why I think I also appreciate what that dude said.  I won't use those chat things for my chatting either.  I care about my rights.

I do think Mr. Collosall is probably wrong--not only have there been many cases of corporations abusing their copywrite (such as the take-over of the board game Monopoly (for about 30 years any way), to privatization of natural products from indigenous farmers, to Amazon.com vs the amazon lesbian bookstore), but also I think the majority of his annoyance seems to be not specifically with you, but with people who did more or less call that dude a tin-foil hat wearing lunatic (as a joke, but a mean one).  I take that back if Matt didn't mean that.

I disagree with Matt Damon about the specific issues and possibilities he/you site.  I think it's more of an issue of the increasing level of control these companies have over other people's ideas, not specifically what these companies might actually do.  It's turning the world into a highly controlled fear-mongering world of copywrite and controll, a rhizomatic structure of surveilance, both panoptic and diverse, as they say (I'm sure Zinn can explain those terms if you're unfamilliar, "Matt").  It's like that song "something's happenin' here,"-- we better stop, children what's that sound, everybody look what's... da duda da da.  Basically nobody's right if everybody's wrong

Oh yeah, also, Matt, what's this about breaking some laws but depending on others?  I understand some laws are unjust and you're talking about laws that supercede laws, higher authorities of law, etc., but it still seems like a contradiciton there.  Do you just support the laws you like?

Also, not to get personal or nothing, but Matt Damon, for a student of famous historian Howard Zinn, you have a pretty shaky grasp of the UN.  Sure there are rules about privace and such, but a company and a country are two different things.  I suppose you could say that the US should get sanctioned for not taking these criminal corporations down (should any evidence of using what they set out in a TOS come up), but then, we already know the US hasn't paid its UN dues in years and spurns every interesting law the UN signs.  You may as well argue that the US leaders (not the populace, who are not implicated and might be nice people with nice cars) should be locked up for sanctioning illegal acts of detention and arrest, promoting torture and using low-level warfare around the world.  Arrest American leaders for war crimes? That's CRAZY talk.

CRAAZY I tell you.

That's all I'll say.

I always use my real name Matt Damon on any project I'm working on.  Anything else would be dishonest.

Speaking of which...

EDIT: I saw that another peson had posted, but put too much time into my response to just let it evaporate.  Akumayo's questions stand.

1.  Depends on how hot you both are.
2.  Luckily they were constantly on drugs in the 70's and 80's, so they had a close-knit community of jobless hopheads and cranked-up ad-execs saying "Yeah m-f, we're doin' it with towels."
3.  Gummies began obviously enough in the 1930's with gummy hitlers.  Then, when the war started, Hitler became less popular, and it was two Canadian scientists, Max McBean and Shiney Robertson who decided the treats needed a new form.  They were deep in the British Columbian backwoods when they were suddenly attacked by bears.  Not just one bear, or two, and not grizzlies, but normally gentle Brown Bears and Honey Bears by the hundreds, a vast army of bears, tearing apart the forest in rage.
One of the bears, an old grizled (but not Grizly) battle-worn Sow stood up on two-legs and was able to talk, in a gutteral, noisy growling english.  It said "Die humans, for the bears will now rule the world!"

Justifiably terrified, the two men ran into the forest, carrying only their only supplies, a vat of burbling gummy liquid.  Quickly ducking into a cave, they argued about the best way to dissuade the bear army.  Realizing that the only thing that scared bears was other bears, they poured the liquid into a depression in the rocks that just happened to be roughly bear shaped.  As the onslaught approached, they pulled the bears from the mold, hoping that the creatures were not all that bright, despite their newfound ability to speak.
One of the men lifted his bear and shouted "Angry bears!  Forbear!  These are the next step in your evolution!  The ultimate bears of the FUTURE!  Fear them!  Fear the future bears!"
This slowed the bears, who were admittedly easily swayed.  For bears.
The other man then did something that probably saved the human race.  He bit into his bear.  "We are so powerful, we eat these bears as all humans do, just for sport!"
The bear army began to retreat, and then as the men chowed down on their enormous gummy bears the bears began to run, and then scatter.
To this day, superstitious types still eat gummy bears, just in case.

EDIT: I saw that another peson had posted, but put too much time into my response to just let it evaporate.  Akumayo's questions stand.  I also repeat "bear" a lot.

I had a think about the new law and since it was created to stop cyber-stalking, does anyone see any problems with replacing the word "annoy" with "stalk"?

I'd be happier if they cut out "harass" as well.  Harassment is bad, harmful and unproductive, but internet harassment should not be an issue of law unless it reaches the level of abuse or threats.  I reserve the right to harass the leader of Halliburton, for example, assuming I bothered to spell it right.  If it gets to the point of threats...

Of course, all such laws are disproportionately used against the poor and less powerful.  I read some stats on hate laws lately, and it seems that hate laws are more often persecuted against people of colour or various non-white ethnicities by a large factor, while the majority of violence and propaganda is perpetuated by white people like most of us here.  In fact, in BC, the province I live in, something like one or two cases of hate crimes had actually been procecuted (before the agency was disbanded by the current crazy neo-liberal government), and at least half were against underprivileged minorities.

So the law is likely to be used to bolster power for those who already have it, rather than the other way around as progressive people would hope.

More state or corporate control over speech is *almost* always a bad thing, IMHO, but that opinion tends to change from situation to situation.

This law just strikes me as consolidation that will probably be poory executed anyway and hopefully be ignored due to hazy definitions.

And I do mean everything.

Hmmm...

On Purpose : "Shut up, you dickweed"

Not On Purpose: "Buy our enlargement weeds!  They enlarge you!  They're weeds!"


In other words, this law completely absolves Spammers who can always claim they didn't intend to annoy only to sell products, but makes the entire SomethingAwful site a criminal case, because they definitely intend to annoy (at least I hope so--having read the content).

Pranks would not be allowed, but selling drugs to kids would be (as long as they claimed they didn't know that the victims were actually kids).

That's only reading that one dude's comment however.  If that dude is wrong or merely incorrectly stating the facts, then I retract everything I've said.

Perhaps you're right, that is a possible reading of what he said during his life, but some quotes dispute that (depending on your reading of them):

"Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tale as an instrument, then collected information about child psychology and decided what age group I'd write for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out 'allegories' to embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn't write in that way. It all began with images; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion"

Lewis does admit that the Christianity came in as he wrote the book, but the Christianity came in naturally without an intent to create an allegory or to create direct parallels:

"You are mistaken when you think everything in the books 'represents' something in this world. Things do that in The Pilgrim's Progress but I'm not writing in that way."

"When I started The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, I don't think I foresaw what Aslan was going to do and suffer. I think He just insisted on behaving in His own way."

In other words, there is a very Jesuslike life of Aslan but it was not intended from the get go, in fact the first book was just a myth--various elements could stand in for real things, but could be read in various ways.  He uses myth and supposal--the supposal does involve direct comparison between Jesus and Aslan, but this was not how the characters started.  Supposal is much more general than that.  A quote from a book we have in the bookstore I work at:

"Using supposal as the vehicle for getting him there, Lewis views The Chronicles of Narnia as myth. He explains that an allegory is a story with a single meaning, but a myth is a story that can have many meanings for different readers in different generations. According to Lewis, an author puts into an allegory "only what he already knows," but in a myth, he puts "what he does not yet know and could not come by in any other way.""

I should also add that while Lewis's latest biographer argues based on some quotes that Aslan IS Jesus, I would argue he's leaping a bit here.  Many people believe that comparison, but it seems clear from other quotes that Aslan is "as if" Jesus, not, Jesus literally.  Aslan could also be read in other ways, according to Lewis's stepson, who had a great deal of influence on the movie:

"You have to bear in mind that Hinduism has a dying god who dies for his people, then comes back. Norse mythology has the dying god. Greek mythology has the dying god. This myth is not new and it's not unique to Christianity. Yes, Christians who watch the movie or read the book will look for Christian symbolism. But I think that's the wrong way to approach it. I think it's far better to read the book or see the movie and try to find out where you fit into Narnia. Analyze yourself and how you would react under these circumstances. Who are you? Are you an Edmund? Are you a Peter? Or a Lucy or a Susan or a Tumnus? Where do you fit?"

There is little evidence that Douglas and C. S. were in great disagreement--most biographical works on Lewis agree.

Geoff, it's obvious from this you're  a skilled musician, putter-together-er of parts, etc.  It was fun--my one complaint is that it feels a little bland, altogether--It's quite strong, quite cool, but doesn't stand out as well as it could, doesn't quite "pop."

Still, works great as groovin' music.  In fact, I made this little video of a "jam" session I had to your music.  I can't dance, so instead I did some juggling improv.

http://cardboardlogic.com/Videos/Balls/3b/3b%20jam.wmv

It's 3 balls, my favourite prop, and for those of you who have to ask,

No, I don't want to be in the circus, no I'm not putting a hat out, yes, I can juggle more objects, yes, I can juggle fire, yes, I can eat an apple, yes, I've heard of that guy you're thinking of, but he's not as good as you remember.

Thanks for the great music, Geoff--if you don't want me using your track, say the word and I'll remove my video.

Hope you enjoy it!

I think people are just misinformed in general Squinks, not a personal thing per se.

As for the misinterpretation issue, Esper, that interpretation is something Lewis added later on in life.  He and his family maintained up until and after his death that they were not meant to have an explicitly religious meaning (elsewhere in that same article it explains such, and in many introductions to his works, autobiographical writings etc).  If you read the quote carefully, I think you will see what he is arguing.

In general, he is saying you CAN approach Aslan as an idea of what Jesus MIGHT have done, but it is not a direct allegory, IE, it does not HAVE to be read in this way, nor was such a reading originally intended.  As a non-Christian, I don't pick up on very much Christian symbolism at all, and according to Lewis's discussion of the series, that's just fine.

Thus, saying it's all a Christian myth is irrelevant, because it was never intended as such.  It's just a story, but Christianity can be found inside because the author was so deeply Christian.  He did not deny this, but asked that people approach the story just as an adventure for children, not as a metephor for some Christian ideal (although such a reading is possible and intrigued Lewis later in life).

That is the important difference between what many reviewers are saying ("This was all just an excuse for a religious message" or conversely, "The Christian message is lost in the story") to critique the movie, and what C. S. Lewis intended.  If you don't believe me on this point, read through the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.com, and check again through the previous posts.  The assumption that LWW is about Christ specifically is quite common, and my point about the Wikipoedia article is that it was really easy to do more research than many of these reviewers, though my main point is that the movies and books are for a younger audience than many reviewers seem to assume.

That said, I think the Christian underpinnings are much more problematic in something like the Horse and His Boy, where non-Christian "easerners" are clearly mocked--the villains could be made in the film to be something different, but in the book, the people are clearly Arabic and most of them are stupid/evil/power-hungry.  It will be interesting seeing how they produce that one.

Ye Gods.

Internet debates are like the drunk leading the slightly more drunk (I hate to single out the blind, who actually lead each other pretty well, these days).

Here's what C.S had to say about Christian allegory in his books:

"If Aslan represented the immaterial Deity in the same way in which Giant Despair [a character in The Pilgrim's Progress] represents despair, he would be an allegorical figure. In reality however he is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question, 'What might Christ become like, if there really were a world like Narnia and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?' This is not allegory at all."

That's just quoted from a wikipedia site on the Chronicles of Narnia.  Lewis was deeply Christian, so his works had Christian meanings, but he did not set out to put them there, nor did he approve of strict Biblical or religious readings of his books.

Finally, anyone who doesn't like the movie because it's not as mature as LOTR shouldn't have seen the movie.  The books are even *less* mature than the movie and you should have known that before going into the theatre.  The books are aimed at 6-10 year olds (10 is probably almost too old), and any adult should be able to read or skim through them over the course of a day.

Yes, Chronicles uses special effects to display a fantasy world as does LOTR, yes the two were contemporaries and part of the same writing club, but the two stories are clearly aimed at different audiences with different intents.  The aim of LOTR is to entertain but also to build a deep mythology rooted in northern european traditions; thus the huge section of appendacies at the end of RotK.  The writing is much simpler (and actually a little more awkward, including repititious word use when it doesn't quite work) in Chronicles, and in a good production, the movie should reflect that.

It would be wrong to drastically change the source material of a beloved children's classic just to satisfy 17-24 year old males and LOTR fans.

Oh, and in case anyone wonders why Chronicles has such a happy-dappy ending, A: it's more or less so in the book, and B: Super happy endings are the norm among children's stories for a reason: children react well to them.  In retrospect they seem stupid and saccrine, but as cynical as we like to be about our childhood, the vast majority of children prefer an over-the-top happy ending--this one an apt fantasy for young British children of the period.

There are 2 common endings to childrens stories--either the happy ending or the super depressing oldschool Grimm style endings, where kids learn a lesson through being eaten or squished or killed in some horrific way.  Reading kids classics today, the perverseness of these endings is entertaining, and I wouldn't disneyfy them for my kids, but their incessent moralizing is misplaced and often at odds with my own moral code.  Given the choice between either beating morality into my kids or feeding them misery simply for my own entertainment on the one hand and a fantastical happy ending on the other, I would choose the latter, 99 times out of 100.  They deserve a little happiness in their lives before the soul crushing tedium and souless manipulative greed that awaits them in their adult lives.

That said, if you [the collective, not individual you] didn't like LWW because of the acting, I thought it was OK (barely), but I will agree with you on the fact that it was sup-par.  Still, don't then go around and say that you liked any of the Star Wars movies.  Good actors maybe, good acting... Meh.

Why do I only ever post here to rant and insult people?  :

Apologies, as ever.

Alright, I was inspired to write something on this theme, so here you go:

God's Bomb

It's based loosely on a novel I've been working on for the last 10 years or so, but the story is not an exerpt, in fact, the character, the scene and almost everything in it is completely new as of this month.  The story is not perfect (there are some significant flaws in the deneument, which I am always weak on), and it feels a little condensed, but I am confident you will find it unusual and intriguing, hopefully providing a few chuckles as well.

Blah blah blah, read it.

[In other words, forgive and forget John and Yoko, judge them not lest you be judged.]

Just some education for ya:

Nudity :

A Christian Perspective : http://www.religioustolerance.org/nu_bibl.htm

Examples (kids welcolme):

1: Lennon and Yoko
2: Adam and Eve
3: David
4: A young naked Jesus


Porn (adults only):

1. Fun times
2. More Fun Times
3. One more for good measure

I couldn't find any more porn than that, sorry.

Notice that there can be less nudity in Porn than there is in Christian art depicting the saviour and various biblical characters in a highly religious and reverent way.  It's the lust depicted that makes it erotica or Porn, not the nudity, and John and Yoko were very loving and hardly lustful. Their nudity depicts an idea of the pre-fall ignorance of Adam and Eve, and like other art above, it was done long after Adam and Eve were gone.

Also, God hates those who cast judgement, and Jesus was definately opposed to war.  To be in favour of war is to disrespect the word of Jesus, to love the destruction of God's creations and thus to spit in the face of God:

Matthew 26:52 (New International Version)

52"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

Luke 6:27 (New International Version)
27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,

A word against those who accept the authority of rulers (John and Yoko opposed rulers, which is clear in their lyrics):

Ephesians 6:12 (New International Version)
"12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

From Sermon on the Mount:

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

also:     "For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly
    Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their
    trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."

Also: This

In other words, forgive and forget John and Yoko, judge them not lest you be judged.

There is so much more--why would any Christian prefer that men kill the creations of God rather than be nude, or even make love within the confines of Marriage?  Remember that John and Yoko depicted VIRGINS--so even that is too sexy for this particular cover.

If you still hate these two for Christian reasons, read these three articles:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/barnwell/barnwell26.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/007/34.86.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennon#.22More_popular_than_Jesus.22_controversy

Oops, my bad,

didn't see SSH's idea in the posts.

EDIT: Didn't delete idea to avoid confusion, but hadn't noticed SSH's idea, so striketrhough so people know it's not *the* idea.

Okay, 3 opening (obvious) remarks:

1.  No one decided that I should start a thread on this--I have no interest in being a leader anyway.

2.  The old thread seems to be going on a lot about general meta-theory stuff, but a few people have suggested that we just get started, thus, I decided to offer a new thread for the very preliminary stages.

3.  Feel free to lock this if Andail or anyone else has any objections.  I will not be the least bit offended, and neither should anyone else be.  I just thought I'd be proactive and throw some ideas out there.  Since we're talking about being completely open and collaberative, I thought the forums would be a decent place to get started, and we would eventually need several different individual posts each on different aspects.

Again, please lock this if I'm overstepping my bounds here.  OR, erase what I've said and let someone like SSH or Andail post a more formal document.

That said, here is my suggestion for a general idea for the massive collaberative project:

1.  It should be fun--that doesn't mean it can't be a drama, but should not be so serious that people get too heavily involved and attached to one idea that is to be altered by other people.

2.  The basic outline should be a smash hit with just about all potentially involved--otherwise it's going to be tough to get large numbers of people to commit hours to the project.  Individual bits may meet some niggles, but if the whole thing isn't well liked, there isn't going to be much point.

3.  The possibilities for locations and characters must be diverse.  Since a uniform art-style and writing level would be exceptionally difficult given the massive collaberative model (unless all sub-par artists or writers were denied the right to contribute, a bad idea IMO).

That is why I suggest that ideas be well -hashed out with disagreements and adjustments made public.  If people don't like the idea presented below, please say so, and we can A) reject it, or B) adjust it as needed.  The only principle I ask we follow is that responses be respectful and collaberative--no one genious is going to make the ideas better on their own.

I propose dimension travelling as the core concept.  Why?  The idea of multiple intersecting realities is not often included in adventure games, and it rife with possibilities for action and comedy, plus since every imaginable possibility can be played out, graphics have an excuse to be variable, as do situations.

I propose a comedy, or at least a humorous adventure--that is my bias, plain and simple.  It's not any easier than a drama, but it does allow for some slightly more outlandsish ideas to be incorporated.

Here is the idea I thought of this morning.

Three officers and a low-ranking "red uniform" fodder from the Inter-Dimensional Physics Enforcement Squad (IDPES) are on the trail of an at-large physics criminal currently in violation of 3 of the fundamental laws of physics.  Unlike Star Trek, since the IDPES are constantly in other dimensions than their own, there is no desire to prevent massive change to the flow of history, thus there is no "Prime Directive."  For those that aren't Star Trek nerds, that means bascially the police have a carte blanche and investigations often end up being exceptionally violent and random.

Unfortunately for IDPES, about 45 minutes into a high-speed inter-dimensional chase, the four being crew is hit by an angry Hat-rack (in a dimension of intellegent hat-racks and ottomans), tearing open the fuel cells, leading to a last minute crash landing on an alien world in a potentially hostile dimension.

Now the Chief Investigator (man? woman? thing?), the Physician/Scientist, the enormous, head crushing enforcer and the guy who clearly has no purpose other than to be killed part-way through the game must find a way to patch up their ship, re-fuel (hopefully permenantly altering the flow of history in the dimension) and track down their criminal before IDPES command finds out what happened and cuts their doughnut rations for the month.

Perhaps the characters will have to do dimension hopping without their ship, maybe using a lot of cooperative puzzle-solving using all three useful members of the team?  Perhaps there is a larger conspiracy afoot?  Or maybe the adventure is even more straightforward and pointless than it originally seemed?  And what happens when people get away with breaking several laws of physics for any length of time?  Only time will tell.

Additions?  Subtractions?  Cursing my name and family for generations to come?  Please delete or move if it is deemed necessary or this simply isn't all that useful.

The scariest film I have ever seen is Mulholland Drive by David Lynch, for one scene really. Just watch what happens after the guy talks about his nightmare at winkies.
*shudders at memory*

Yes, by far.  My fiance wouldn't watch another David Lynch for months after that -- she wasn't sure if she existed.

Once you've figured out what's going on, the scene with the Spanish singer is the saddest and creepiest scene of the movie.

The one above that said : Next, 3 Goats in a Boat.

I also killed Bush, so I'm putting the Goats in the boat and GW in this post (just 'cause it was my first entry and I didn't want it to go to waste).



(naturally that pathetic patroleum based ice-cream.  Take that oil man!)

And the actual goats in boat:



NEXT: Pie City eaten by crows

I can't draw a sprite to save my life, but I just had to point out something to the odd youngin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Teeth_and_The_Electric_Mayhem

Sorry.

Do Finlanders generally know that you have one of the most highly skilled, artistic and creative juggling groups in the world in your country?

http://www.peapot.net/

http://www.531festival.com/

I know juggling is slightly bigger in Europe than it is in North America (it is actually possible for non-street-performer jugglers and non-cruise-ship acts to make a living), but it's still a fair subculture.  Had you any idea?