`So today marks day 2 of the summer of bike to work. The weather is finally cooperating. This morning started off bad when about a mile into the ride, I discovered that I had not placed my water bottle on the bike. This is not a trip to go drink less and I was too far in to the ride to turn around for it. $1.82 for some Gatorade. Oh well.
So the one thing that I picked up from my rides last year was that it is a bad idea to run full tilt the entire way. It's more about maintaining a decent average speed. Earlier I would race downhill as fast as I could, or burn rubber on the flats only to be burnt out when the big hills came. Now I let gravity do the work on the downhills, then maintain a higher pace on the flats. Then when the hills come catch a good gear and for God's sake, breath!
You need to establish a good deep breathing pattern to keep a good flow of oxygen to the legs. A lot of people breath incorrectly and burn out. Either they breath too shallowly or too erratically. This wastes energy and results in early fatigue. So the lesson today is practice regulating your breathing when cycling.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Why Cablevision will cease to exist
So it's July. It's time for Tour De France. If you want to see it live, and live in NJ you have two choices:
1) Versus Streampass which allows you to watch the coverage live over the internet or
2) Versus channel 408 on Cablevision.
Now I would go route #1 but I'm not keen to sit in front of my laptop to watch the stream and as I said in my last post next year will be a Mac Mini running media instead of the AppleTV so I'll be good then. So I'm stuck with option 2 which is the topic of this post.
Now anyone with IO digital service knows that you have this box that you "rent" from the cable company. This box has a card that "validates" the connection. With this box you can run up on a channel and press a button and have on demand video. Cool technology this is. Right? Right? Well not so much.
See in order to get Versus channel 408, you have to have the "family pack." I have basic cable. That is regular broadcast. Why do I pay for that? because after 9-11 reception went to hell. 20 bucks for guaranteed reception wasn't going to break me so no problem. Besides I don't watch all that much TV.
Anyway. So I have to go up to the "family pack" which runs fifty odd bucks a month just so that I can qualify to get charged another $5.95 for Versus. 60 bucks to watch one channel for all of 3 hours a day. Oh yeah, and some technician has to come out to my place and fiddle with a box to activate all this. I kid you not.
Someone please explain to me how, in the age of video on demand and two way validation boxes and TCP/IP, is it not possible to press a button, activate a channel for 24 hours or whatever (or even call customer service to turn on a channel) and be done? Seriously. CableVision: this is bad business.
So here's the addendum to the Mac Mini plan: While On vacation next week I will be purchasing a digital converter box and I will hook up my active antenna and I'll see if I can get reception. If I get reception, when the Tour De France is over, CableVision will have permanently lost a customer.
I told the customer mugger..sorry, customer service fellow that I understand that he's just doing his job, but that this was an example of why people are ditching cable and getting their content over the internet. And maybe he ought to let his higher ups know that their business model has no future.
Of course I fully expect that the cable companies will try to give the public the "Boxee" treatment in order to protect this racket they have going on. I even expect that these execs will try to get congress to pass laws requiring laptops and other portable computing devices to refuse to play video on anything but the main screen or to probe the attached screen for it's ID and if it doesn't match up with some sort of valid string the video will refuse to show. 'Cause you know, it's never that the business model is wrong. It's the customer that "doesn't understand."
Well I understand and in the near future CableVision will have had it's hand removed from my wallet. Enjoy that 60 bucks.
1) Versus Streampass which allows you to watch the coverage live over the internet or
2) Versus channel 408 on Cablevision.
Now I would go route #1 but I'm not keen to sit in front of my laptop to watch the stream and as I said in my last post next year will be a Mac Mini running media instead of the AppleTV so I'll be good then. So I'm stuck with option 2 which is the topic of this post.
Now anyone with IO digital service knows that you have this box that you "rent" from the cable company. This box has a card that "validates" the connection. With this box you can run up on a channel and press a button and have on demand video. Cool technology this is. Right? Right? Well not so much.
See in order to get Versus channel 408, you have to have the "family pack." I have basic cable. That is regular broadcast. Why do I pay for that? because after 9-11 reception went to hell. 20 bucks for guaranteed reception wasn't going to break me so no problem. Besides I don't watch all that much TV.
Anyway. So I have to go up to the "family pack" which runs fifty odd bucks a month just so that I can qualify to get charged another $5.95 for Versus. 60 bucks to watch one channel for all of 3 hours a day. Oh yeah, and some technician has to come out to my place and fiddle with a box to activate all this. I kid you not.
Someone please explain to me how, in the age of video on demand and two way validation boxes and TCP/IP, is it not possible to press a button, activate a channel for 24 hours or whatever (or even call customer service to turn on a channel) and be done? Seriously. CableVision: this is bad business.
So here's the addendum to the Mac Mini plan: While On vacation next week I will be purchasing a digital converter box and I will hook up my active antenna and I'll see if I can get reception. If I get reception, when the Tour De France is over, CableVision will have permanently lost a customer.
I told the customer mugger..sorry, customer service fellow that I understand that he's just doing his job, but that this was an example of why people are ditching cable and getting their content over the internet. And maybe he ought to let his higher ups know that their business model has no future.
Of course I fully expect that the cable companies will try to give the public the "Boxee" treatment in order to protect this racket they have going on. I even expect that these execs will try to get congress to pass laws requiring laptops and other portable computing devices to refuse to play video on anything but the main screen or to probe the attached screen for it's ID and if it doesn't match up with some sort of valid string the video will refuse to show. 'Cause you know, it's never that the business model is wrong. It's the customer that "doesn't understand."
Well I understand and in the near future CableVision will have had it's hand removed from my wallet. Enjoy that 60 bucks.
Monday, July 6, 2009
From Apple TV to the Old Powerbook G4
And so this weekend, after discovering that Hulu once again, does not work on Boxee, leading to aborted attempts to watch new episodes of Burn Notice, I went and purchased a DVI to HDMI cable and hooked up the old Powerbook G4 to my TV.
At this point I truly regret purchasing the Apple TV. I admit this is mostly my fault since Boxee wasn't releaseware (perpetual alpha-beta) and that a Mac mini, while costing me about twice as much would have resulted in a far more capable media center.
But many people would have to admit that the draw for Boxee was full screen on your TV Hulu. It was and is the cable replacement for many of us. But alas, because the people at Hulu have decided that somehow watching Hulu content on your TV represented some major threat to their business model, Hulu on Boxee is all but a dead case. Of course I still watch Hulu on my TV and I still don't have "premium" cable content. so I'm not sure how Hulu wins here. And it's not all that inconvenient either. The biggest obstacle being that the PB does not have a remote so I have to use it's keyboard and trackpad. This could be alleviated with some bluetooth device but I won't go there. If Hulu continues to not work on Boxee I'll be ditching the Apple TV and purchasing a Mini to take it's place. I'll probably see some power savings too given how warm the ATV can get.
At this point I truly regret purchasing the Apple TV. I admit this is mostly my fault since Boxee wasn't releaseware (perpetual alpha-beta) and that a Mac mini, while costing me about twice as much would have resulted in a far more capable media center.
But many people would have to admit that the draw for Boxee was full screen on your TV Hulu. It was and is the cable replacement for many of us. But alas, because the people at Hulu have decided that somehow watching Hulu content on your TV represented some major threat to their business model, Hulu on Boxee is all but a dead case. Of course I still watch Hulu on my TV and I still don't have "premium" cable content. so I'm not sure how Hulu wins here. And it's not all that inconvenient either. The biggest obstacle being that the PB does not have a remote so I have to use it's keyboard and trackpad. This could be alleviated with some bluetooth device but I won't go there. If Hulu continues to not work on Boxee I'll be ditching the Apple TV and purchasing a Mini to take it's place. I'll probably see some power savings too given how warm the ATV can get.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
Jury Gives RIAA a Bailout
If there is anything that shows just how bad the jury system in America has gotten we have the case of Jammie Thomas who was just ordered by a jury to pay $1.92 million for "sharing" 24 songs on Kazaa.
Yes, there is more than the simple filesharing, There is the swapped HD. But seriously. This is a case of awards being far in excess of actual damages. And yes, we understand that there's willful infringement and penalties, but $1.92 for something that's not even class action?
Look each song is worth at most 99 cents at the time she had them. She would have to share each song 750 times just to make the minimum statutory damages. That's 18,000 shares. Just to meet the minimum. At best the MediaSentry program that the RIAA used to catch Jammie found 1 instance of sharing. One. Everything after that is speculation since there is no evidence to show how long she had been sharing the file or how many people actually "stole" the material from her.
Look I think she's guilty of file sharing. No doubt. But no way no how am I voting for an award so out of proportion to the actual damages. I understand that there is a desire to use judgments to deter other file sharing. No problem. at $750 a track the award would have been $18,000. That's the cost of a Kia. The average American faced with such a sudden debt would be seriously hurt by such an award. In fact for the average black person in America, that could actually bankrupt them.
I hope that none of these jury members find themselves in this position due to some behavior like say, smoking, that they had clear control over. Then they will now how it feels to be dicked by a small committee.
Yes, there is more than the simple filesharing, There is the swapped HD. But seriously. This is a case of awards being far in excess of actual damages. And yes, we understand that there's willful infringement and penalties, but $1.92 for something that's not even class action?
Look each song is worth at most 99 cents at the time she had them. She would have to share each song 750 times just to make the minimum statutory damages. That's 18,000 shares. Just to meet the minimum. At best the MediaSentry program that the RIAA used to catch Jammie found 1 instance of sharing. One. Everything after that is speculation since there is no evidence to show how long she had been sharing the file or how many people actually "stole" the material from her.
Look I think she's guilty of file sharing. No doubt. But no way no how am I voting for an award so out of proportion to the actual damages. I understand that there is a desire to use judgments to deter other file sharing. No problem. at $750 a track the award would have been $18,000. That's the cost of a Kia. The average American faced with such a sudden debt would be seriously hurt by such an award. In fact for the average black person in America, that could actually bankrupt them.
I hope that none of these jury members find themselves in this position due to some behavior like say, smoking, that they had clear control over. Then they will now how it feels to be dicked by a small committee.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Bike to Work 2009
And so this morning heralded the beginning of the 2009 Summer bike to work (Once a week). Last year I stopped after 3 trips due to a combination of vacation, weather and the closure of the cafeteria. The latter point was a real deal breaker as the last day I did it, I had to scramble to find food that I could both afford and get to me. I finally found a Chinese food joint but the prospect for walking around hungry after the ride was not appealing.
To that end, this year I have a small fridge in my office. I have plenty of water as I refuse to pay $2 for a 16 oz. bottle out the vending machine and on bike days I can easily hit that machine up 3-4 times. I keep lunch meat, bread, lettuce and carrot cake in there too. The object being to not to crash round 'bout midday.
See, the ride to work is mostly uphill with some steep portions. The ride back is easier but a bit more dangerous because it is downhill and I attain higher speeds and it appears that most people do not think a bike is moving 25 MPH (I've hit 33 MPH).
Today was humid and I had on layers because it was below 65 degrees so I sweated. A lot. I'll probably leave two of the layers in the locker overnight and take them home tomorrow. This leads me to the highlight of this post. There's a lot of talk about how people ought to bike to work. I think that most of the people who say this fall in the following categories:
1) They only need to go a mile or so and can take their own sweet time and not get sweaty.
2) The only go a mile or so and have access to showers at work.
3) Can go to work sweaty and nobody cares because everyone else is sweaty.
Most people are not in the shape to go long distance such as my commute (12 miles each way). It takes me an hour to make that trip thanks to the hills. For most people it would take closer to two hours to do. Who's leaving home 2.5 hours ahead of time to get to work when they don't have to?
Most places of employment to do not have community showers and lockers so that the employees can shower and change clothes, so a lot of people, even if they wanted to, could not bike to work.
Lastly, many places simply do not have storage for bikes. I know that when I started last year, one of my biggest concerns was where to put my bike. it could not go into my office and I didn't want to just leave it out. I ended up leaving it out but viewable by other staff members. Still it's not like there are bike racks all over the place.
Anyway, my N800 seems to have a dying touchscreen so I did not run e-coach to map my speed and altitude. I'll probably end up purchasing an 810 since I've come to depend on this thing for many things. I may run it this afternoon provided I haven't killed the battery (which usually happens on days I don't bring my laptop).
'Till next time.
To that end, this year I have a small fridge in my office. I have plenty of water as I refuse to pay $2 for a 16 oz. bottle out the vending machine and on bike days I can easily hit that machine up 3-4 times. I keep lunch meat, bread, lettuce and carrot cake in there too. The object being to not to crash round 'bout midday.
See, the ride to work is mostly uphill with some steep portions. The ride back is easier but a bit more dangerous because it is downhill and I attain higher speeds and it appears that most people do not think a bike is moving 25 MPH (I've hit 33 MPH).
Today was humid and I had on layers because it was below 65 degrees so I sweated. A lot. I'll probably leave two of the layers in the locker overnight and take them home tomorrow. This leads me to the highlight of this post. There's a lot of talk about how people ought to bike to work. I think that most of the people who say this fall in the following categories:
1) They only need to go a mile or so and can take their own sweet time and not get sweaty.
2) The only go a mile or so and have access to showers at work.
3) Can go to work sweaty and nobody cares because everyone else is sweaty.
Most people are not in the shape to go long distance such as my commute (12 miles each way). It takes me an hour to make that trip thanks to the hills. For most people it would take closer to two hours to do. Who's leaving home 2.5 hours ahead of time to get to work when they don't have to?
Most places of employment to do not have community showers and lockers so that the employees can shower and change clothes, so a lot of people, even if they wanted to, could not bike to work.
Lastly, many places simply do not have storage for bikes. I know that when I started last year, one of my biggest concerns was where to put my bike. it could not go into my office and I didn't want to just leave it out. I ended up leaving it out but viewable by other staff members. Still it's not like there are bike racks all over the place.
Anyway, my N800 seems to have a dying touchscreen so I did not run e-coach to map my speed and altitude. I'll probably end up purchasing an 810 since I've come to depend on this thing for many things. I may run it this afternoon provided I haven't killed the battery (which usually happens on days I don't bring my laptop).
'Till next time.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Stuck on Stupid with Sexting
This week has been chock full of articles written by people who are supposedly intelligent discussing things with what I can only say is shockingly weak supporting arguments. The latest from Alternet (which seems to have had a good run of this type of stuff of late)Super Prude Prosecutors Charge Teenagers with Pornography and Worse For Sexy Text Messages which leads with:
Lets understand a few things:
1) Minors, by and large are legally unable to consent to various things. One of those things is to be photographed or filmed while under the age of 18.
2) Minors who are photographed or filmed engaging in sexual activities are legally victims of child pornography. There is no provision that the photographer be a certain age.
3) the Dissemination of photographs or video featuring a nude minor engaged in sexual activities is a crime. It's called distribution of child pornography.
Now it is apparently clear that parents have their heads stuck in the ground regarding these little facts. Furthermore; while many parents rail about sex-offenders living in their neighborhoods, they are completely blinded to the idea that their little boy or girl is in fact a sex-offender. And many of them are now caught in the "careful what you ask for situation." Of course little Johnny is not like THOSE men out THERE. Sure. Whatever.
Somewhere along the line the parents neglected to inform their sons and daughters about the RESPONSIBILITIES that comes with this thing called a camera-phone. Let's take for example the young man who was on Good Morning America a couple of weeks back. His ex sent him pictures of herself. They broke up, he got mad, posted the pictures to the Web. Boo-Hoo. Now he's a registered sex offender.
Back to the Alternet piece though. I'm not saying that girls and boys ought to be barred from sending certain types of photos to each other. However; it needs to be understood that the photo in question is only for the recipient. Any other distribution of the photo/video is dissemination. That needs to be clear. Paedophiles love it when these guys (and gals) post this stuff to the net and I believe this is asking for legal trouble. If a teen can give permission to have her picture taken then why can't any OTHER man be in possession of said material? Or for another example is a porn star from the 70's or 80's, I can't recall her name but she starred in a few films before it was found out that she was under-age. Being in possession of any material of her when she was underage can land you in jail even though she willingly performed, willingly signed contracts, and is now "old as dirt."
I simply cannot see how if it is allowed that a minor can view and distribute what is legally child pornography, that one can prosecute and convict an adult for the same. Oh I can see the emotional arguement, but if justice is blind, that won't fly.
Meanwhile I suggest parents have serious sit down's with their children if they are giving them phones or other devices capable of multimedia. I think schools should hold assemblies or hand out documentation about the relevant laws. A part of growing up is learning the rules.
Sending a nude or semi-nude picture to a friend's cell phone is apparently a crime -- if you're a teen.
Lets understand a few things:
1) Minors, by and large are legally unable to consent to various things. One of those things is to be photographed or filmed while under the age of 18.
2) Minors who are photographed or filmed engaging in sexual activities are legally victims of child pornography. There is no provision that the photographer be a certain age.
3) the Dissemination of photographs or video featuring a nude minor engaged in sexual activities is a crime. It's called distribution of child pornography.
Now it is apparently clear that parents have their heads stuck in the ground regarding these little facts. Furthermore; while many parents rail about sex-offenders living in their neighborhoods, they are completely blinded to the idea that their little boy or girl is in fact a sex-offender. And many of them are now caught in the "careful what you ask for situation." Of course little Johnny is not like THOSE men out THERE. Sure. Whatever.
Somewhere along the line the parents neglected to inform their sons and daughters about the RESPONSIBILITIES that comes with this thing called a camera-phone. Let's take for example the young man who was on Good Morning America a couple of weeks back. His ex sent him pictures of herself. They broke up, he got mad, posted the pictures to the Web. Boo-Hoo. Now he's a registered sex offender.
Back to the Alternet piece though. I'm not saying that girls and boys ought to be barred from sending certain types of photos to each other. However; it needs to be understood that the photo in question is only for the recipient. Any other distribution of the photo/video is dissemination. That needs to be clear. Paedophiles love it when these guys (and gals) post this stuff to the net and I believe this is asking for legal trouble. If a teen can give permission to have her picture taken then why can't any OTHER man be in possession of said material? Or for another example is a porn star from the 70's or 80's, I can't recall her name but she starred in a few films before it was found out that she was under-age. Being in possession of any material of her when she was underage can land you in jail even though she willingly performed, willingly signed contracts, and is now "old as dirt."
I simply cannot see how if it is allowed that a minor can view and distribute what is legally child pornography, that one can prosecute and convict an adult for the same. Oh I can see the emotional arguement, but if justice is blind, that won't fly.
Meanwhile I suggest parents have serious sit down's with their children if they are giving them phones or other devices capable of multimedia. I think schools should hold assemblies or hand out documentation about the relevant laws. A part of growing up is learning the rules.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)