Monday, November 30, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
The Obesity Epidemic
So today I had a thought on the obesity epidemic as I was going to work.
Right now I am possibly in the best shape of my life and no where near my 20's. It took a while to get there but the habits I have formed that got me here provided me with an insight, which ought to be obvious, as to how I got it done. Yes it helps that I am naturally slim, but don't mistake that for the magic metabolism(tm) that some people have. I was on my way to being very out of shape and heavy before I snatched the reigns. Anyway the obesity epidemic as broken down by habit:
In the morning I have a small high fibre breakfast(Oatmeal (160 Calories), which includes nothing with high fructose corn syrup, two fruits (apple and banana @80 and 108 calories respectively) and plenty of water. A lot of people will grab a bagel with all manner of high carb toppings and coffee in the morning(A DD sesame bagel is 330 calories. add 150 for the cream cheese and another 120 for the latte for a total of 660 Calories. You don't even want to discuss how much of that are from fat. Really you don't even want to think about it). The calorie count of these things are high and the nutritional value, questionable. There are also long lines at the Dunkin Doughnut stores I pass, usually a large portion of the line are people who simply ought not to be there. They are getting bagels, doughnuts and creamed coffee. So a lot of these people have hit nearly 1,000 calories before 9AM. Particularly if they work in an office with food around. Meanwhile I may have hit 300 or so of far more nutritious food.
Then they work at a job that usually requires a lot of sitting. You don't burn all that much energy sitting. What your body does not use, it excretes or stores. At my weight, 189, it takes me 20 minutes running at 8.6 MPH to burn 440 calories. So we can safely assume that persons who are sitting down for the morning have not burned through most of what they ate in the morning though at noon, they will be "hungry".
So at noon, these individuals, who had close to if not 1,000 calories in the AM most of which were carbs, will go and eat McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's, KFC or something else. The calorie counts on these meals can reach 2k calories. Say they have a large fries(570 calories), cheeseburger(310 Calories),and large coke(310 calories)and an Apple Pie (250 Calories) That's a 1.4K Calorie lunch. So by 1PM a lot of people have eaten more calories than the average human will expend in a full day. Yet their entire physical activities for the day will contain: walk to the car, drive, walk from the car, sit, walk to the car, drive, eat, sit, walk to the car, sit.
At noon, I eat a sandwich, hand made, lean cuts, low fat butter. I have some chocolate chip cookies, cause, hey.. I'm not on a diet. I also work out for an hour. So usually by 1PM I'm running a calorie deficit but maintain protein to keep my body from eating away at my muscles.
By the time I get home in the evening I am hungry. I should be. So is the average American. The difference here is that I am hungry because I'm running a calorie deficit for the day and I need to refuel. The average person is hungry in the evening because he or she is used to being fed. Many people are hungry at certain times simply because their bodies are conditioned to expect food. In any case. Dinner is my largest (calorie wise)meal plenty of carbs and protein but still balanced. A lot of people eat far more than I do of food high in fat. Mind you they haven't done much to "earn" that meal by way of physical activity but it's likely they've eaten another 1.5-2k calories at meal time. So if we look at what average people are consuming daily we can see that they are ingesting around 3500 calories each day. In exercise terms, I would have to run 2 hours and 20 minutes at 8.6 MPH to burn all that. Each. Day. Most people aren't even power walking for 20min a day much less running. I wont even get into my no snacking after 10PM rule.
So you understand why someone who was say 120 lbs at age 20 can balloon to 300+ pounds in 10 years. people are taking in upwards of 17,000 calories each work week but all they are doing is sitting down all day. They hire other people to do yard work if they have one. They are parked in front of tv and computer screens in the evenings. It is no surprise then that we have people who are not only out of shape but people are literally gorging themselves to death. If we want to look at the incidences of hypertension, heart disease, etc. we cannot escape that people are having these problems primarily due to how they eat. And the fact is that companies are all willing to profit from this. Republicans like to talk about so called "death panels" but the real death panels are in the corporate boardrooms where they think of new ways to get Americans to eat more fat calories per sitting.
It's a really sad state of affairs. And while I agree that overweight people ought not be discriminated against, I believe the whole "fat acceptance" thing is simply adding fuel to this fire by attempting to legitimize very bad eating and exercise habits and passing it off as self-esteem and anti-thin-establishment.
Right now I am possibly in the best shape of my life and no where near my 20's. It took a while to get there but the habits I have formed that got me here provided me with an insight, which ought to be obvious, as to how I got it done. Yes it helps that I am naturally slim, but don't mistake that for the magic metabolism(tm) that some people have. I was on my way to being very out of shape and heavy before I snatched the reigns. Anyway the obesity epidemic as broken down by habit:
In the morning I have a small high fibre breakfast(Oatmeal (160 Calories), which includes nothing with high fructose corn syrup, two fruits (apple and banana @80 and 108 calories respectively) and plenty of water. A lot of people will grab a bagel with all manner of high carb toppings and coffee in the morning(A DD sesame bagel is 330 calories. add 150 for the cream cheese and another 120 for the latte for a total of 660 Calories. You don't even want to discuss how much of that are from fat. Really you don't even want to think about it). The calorie count of these things are high and the nutritional value, questionable. There are also long lines at the Dunkin Doughnut stores I pass, usually a large portion of the line are people who simply ought not to be there. They are getting bagels, doughnuts and creamed coffee. So a lot of these people have hit nearly 1,000 calories before 9AM. Particularly if they work in an office with food around. Meanwhile I may have hit 300 or so of far more nutritious food.
Then they work at a job that usually requires a lot of sitting. You don't burn all that much energy sitting. What your body does not use, it excretes or stores. At my weight, 189, it takes me 20 minutes running at 8.6 MPH to burn 440 calories. So we can safely assume that persons who are sitting down for the morning have not burned through most of what they ate in the morning though at noon, they will be "hungry".
So at noon, these individuals, who had close to if not 1,000 calories in the AM most of which were carbs, will go and eat McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's, KFC or something else. The calorie counts on these meals can reach 2k calories. Say they have a large fries(570 calories), cheeseburger(310 Calories),and large coke(310 calories)and an Apple Pie (250 Calories) That's a 1.4K Calorie lunch. So by 1PM a lot of people have eaten more calories than the average human will expend in a full day. Yet their entire physical activities for the day will contain: walk to the car, drive, walk from the car, sit, walk to the car, drive, eat, sit, walk to the car, sit.
At noon, I eat a sandwich, hand made, lean cuts, low fat butter. I have some chocolate chip cookies, cause, hey.. I'm not on a diet. I also work out for an hour. So usually by 1PM I'm running a calorie deficit but maintain protein to keep my body from eating away at my muscles.
By the time I get home in the evening I am hungry. I should be. So is the average American. The difference here is that I am hungry because I'm running a calorie deficit for the day and I need to refuel. The average person is hungry in the evening because he or she is used to being fed. Many people are hungry at certain times simply because their bodies are conditioned to expect food. In any case. Dinner is my largest (calorie wise)meal plenty of carbs and protein but still balanced. A lot of people eat far more than I do of food high in fat. Mind you they haven't done much to "earn" that meal by way of physical activity but it's likely they've eaten another 1.5-2k calories at meal time. So if we look at what average people are consuming daily we can see that they are ingesting around 3500 calories each day. In exercise terms, I would have to run 2 hours and 20 minutes at 8.6 MPH to burn all that. Each. Day. Most people aren't even power walking for 20min a day much less running. I wont even get into my no snacking after 10PM rule.
So you understand why someone who was say 120 lbs at age 20 can balloon to 300+ pounds in 10 years. people are taking in upwards of 17,000 calories each work week but all they are doing is sitting down all day. They hire other people to do yard work if they have one. They are parked in front of tv and computer screens in the evenings. It is no surprise then that we have people who are not only out of shape but people are literally gorging themselves to death. If we want to look at the incidences of hypertension, heart disease, etc. we cannot escape that people are having these problems primarily due to how they eat. And the fact is that companies are all willing to profit from this. Republicans like to talk about so called "death panels" but the real death panels are in the corporate boardrooms where they think of new ways to get Americans to eat more fat calories per sitting.
It's a really sad state of affairs. And while I agree that overweight people ought not be discriminated against, I believe the whole "fat acceptance" thing is simply adding fuel to this fire by attempting to legitimize very bad eating and exercise habits and passing it off as self-esteem and anti-thin-establishment.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Engineering Fail
And so as it is with many an old car I heard rattling from a rear speaker. So I go to replace the speaker when I discover the following:
No?
There are no screws holding the speaker to the frame. Yes, BMW in their infinite wisdom thought it was a good idea to attach the speaker to the frame such that it cannot be removed without breaking the frame. Clearly no one in that department thought that was a good idea. Not. Or maybe someone in the accounting dept. thought that replacements for this part would be a nice money maker for BMW. No way no how someone didn't think that maybe a speaker would get blown and have to be replaced. Rather than go to the store and buy a replacement BMW thought that the buyer, being rich and adverse to doing things him or herself, would think nothing of shelling out what must be a few hundred bucks to pay for the part and labor (nearly $100/hour the last time I hit the dealership).
What makes this worse is that the space left by removing this thing is not to any standard for simply replacing everything. a 6X9 wont fit flush and a 5" won't fit either. Apparently some speaker companies out there provide a new frame for replacement speakers.
So this leaves me with a few options:
1) pay the dealer. Not.
2) Find a junker, hope the part is still there and not broken. Not fun.
3) Pay for a new frame and a new set of speakers. Not.
4) Leave the speaker out. What I'm doing now.
5) Use duct tape to "reconnect" the cone to the rubber. Probably what I'll do.
I can only hope that new BMW's don't have this design. My suggestion to auto manufacturers: Hire people who work on cars for a living to go over your designs. They are the ones who will be seeing your 10 year old "fault" later and that includes your own mechanics at the service area of your dealerships.
No?
There are no screws holding the speaker to the frame. Yes, BMW in their infinite wisdom thought it was a good idea to attach the speaker to the frame such that it cannot be removed without breaking the frame. Clearly no one in that department thought that was a good idea. Not. Or maybe someone in the accounting dept. thought that replacements for this part would be a nice money maker for BMW. No way no how someone didn't think that maybe a speaker would get blown and have to be replaced. Rather than go to the store and buy a replacement BMW thought that the buyer, being rich and adverse to doing things him or herself, would think nothing of shelling out what must be a few hundred bucks to pay for the part and labor (nearly $100/hour the last time I hit the dealership).
What makes this worse is that the space left by removing this thing is not to any standard for simply replacing everything. a 6X9 wont fit flush and a 5" won't fit either. Apparently some speaker companies out there provide a new frame for replacement speakers.
So this leaves me with a few options:
1) pay the dealer. Not.
2) Find a junker, hope the part is still there and not broken. Not fun.
3) Pay for a new frame and a new set of speakers. Not.
4) Leave the speaker out. What I'm doing now.
5) Use duct tape to "reconnect" the cone to the rubber. Probably what I'll do.
I can only hope that new BMW's don't have this design. My suggestion to auto manufacturers: Hire people who work on cars for a living to go over your designs. They are the ones who will be seeing your 10 year old "fault" later and that includes your own mechanics at the service area of your dealerships.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Cash for Debt
Glad to know I wasn't the only one who thought there was something odd about enticing people with cash to go into debt:
For starters, who says the smartest thing for people with working cars is to buy new ones? Indeed, because personal debt is supposed to be a problem, why not look at this as bribing consumers into taking out car loans they don't need? Even with the $4,500 subsidy, not all of these customers are going to be paying cash upfront for their new cars. So they'll be swapping serviceable-but-paid-for cars for nicer cars that are owned by the banks.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Breathing is Fundamental
`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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
RE:'I Was Raped' Should Horrify
An agreeable article marred by faulty writing. Let's take for example this:
My first and major objection here is the apparent equivocation of "rape" with "sexual assault." Yes all rapes are sexual assaults. No, all sexual assaults are not rapes. Yet this, and a great deal of other writings on the subject continuously (and I believe purposely) exchange the two. Clearly it is easier to, and more "shocking" to make a statement about something that happens every two minutes (a statistical argument) rather than one that may happen, statistically speaking, once every five minutes (and that's a quick hack up based on 1996 numbers 71/100,000 females and using the current US population of 300,000,000 divided in half. the rates of rape have dropped since then).
Also given that a great deal of rapes occur between people who know each other, it's not likely that on average a woman outside of a war zone is going to be grabbed up by a man.
So that 'quibble" aside, we get to the next problem. The use of rape by people to describe bad situations they've found themselves in. While I can see the point of the author that the random use of the phrase "raped" to describe a non-sexual intercourse situation, I think it also is a recognition of rape as a power play by the rapist imposed upon his or her victim. If one says one feels "raped" by a certain situation, one is saying that one felt powerless and victimized by the other party. Usually when I've heard the term used, it is in connection with the taking of something valuable or a great defeat. So in a sense those wishing to get the point across that rape is about power have succeeded.
I think that if the author is serious about keeping rape "serious", then I think it should start with not exchanging the general category of sexual assault (which can be an unwanted pinch on the ass), with rape.
Clearly this was not a fun experience for Kitsch, and you feel for him. Doing badly on an audition sucks. But it does not suck as much as sexual assault, something that happens every two minutes in America.
My dictionary defines rape as "The unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse," is experiencing a dangerous shift in meaning.*
My first and major objection here is the apparent equivocation of "rape" with "sexual assault." Yes all rapes are sexual assaults. No, all sexual assaults are not rapes. Yet this, and a great deal of other writings on the subject continuously (and I believe purposely) exchange the two. Clearly it is easier to, and more "shocking" to make a statement about something that happens every two minutes (a statistical argument) rather than one that may happen, statistically speaking, once every five minutes (and that's a quick hack up based on 1996 numbers 71/100,000 females and using the current US population of 300,000,000 divided in half. the rates of rape have dropped since then).
Also given that a great deal of rapes occur between people who know each other, it's not likely that on average a woman outside of a war zone is going to be grabbed up by a man.
So that 'quibble" aside, we get to the next problem. The use of rape by people to describe bad situations they've found themselves in. While I can see the point of the author that the random use of the phrase "raped" to describe a non-sexual intercourse situation, I think it also is a recognition of rape as a power play by the rapist imposed upon his or her victim. If one says one feels "raped" by a certain situation, one is saying that one felt powerless and victimized by the other party. Usually when I've heard the term used, it is in connection with the taking of something valuable or a great defeat. So in a sense those wishing to get the point across that rape is about power have succeeded.
I think that if the author is serious about keeping rape "serious", then I think it should start with not exchanging the general category of sexual assault (which can be an unwanted pinch on the ass), with rape.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Andre 3000 speeding in GA
Apparently he was caught doing 109 in a 65 in his Porsche. I ask: Is that all? I had a rented Mercury Sable which I hit the rev or speed limiter on between Tuskegee and Montgomery. On the NJ Turnpike I hit 116 MPH in a rented Taurus and the best Andre could do in his Porsche was 103? Wimpy, Wimpy, Wimpy.
And dude if you're going to push that kind of speed you need to have a built in omni-directional radar/lidar detector/jammer. Seriously.
The dumb part though is the law that Ga wants to pass a law adding an additional $200 fine for speeds over 85 MPH. 85? Clearly these idiots haven't been to Michigan, where going 85 will get you passed by grannies.
Anyway the problem is not the extremely rare 1 ton crowd out there. It's the damn cell phone users. I mean I've seen fools driving through parking lots while texting! But in a country full of nervous nellies 85 MPH speed surcharges scores political points. Asking people to pay attention to their driving: not so much.
And dude if you're going to push that kind of speed you need to have a built in omni-directional radar/lidar detector/jammer. Seriously.
The dumb part though is the law that Ga wants to pass a law adding an additional $200 fine for speeds over 85 MPH. 85? Clearly these idiots haven't been to Michigan, where going 85 will get you passed by grannies.
Anyway the problem is not the extremely rare 1 ton crowd out there. It's the damn cell phone users. I mean I've seen fools driving through parking lots while texting! But in a country full of nervous nellies 85 MPH speed surcharges scores political points. Asking people to pay attention to their driving: not so much.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
LG Shine and Nokia N800
If you're looking for a phone to use as to tether your N800 to the net sans wifi, the LG shine works out of the box with the standard N800 Diablo OS. Inexpensive with a contract (free at some places with contract).
Technorati Tags: N800
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
New iPod Shuffle
So Apple has released a new Shuffle.
Clearly the person who made the decision to put the controls on the earbuds doesn't run or has had earbuds fall out repeated during runs. They obviously don't think you could possibly prefer to use other headphones. I was in the market to replace my now dead shuffle. I guess not.
Clearly the person who made the decision to put the controls on the earbuds doesn't run or has had earbuds fall out repeated during runs. They obviously don't think you could possibly prefer to use other headphones. I was in the market to replace my now dead shuffle. I guess not.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
RE:New Mac Mini Misses the Mark for Small Business
PC World Writes:
Five minutes of Google:
Mac USB-Ethernet Adapters:
Will PC World pay me?
Now, back to what I did not realize: There is no way to add a second network adapter to a Mac mini. Apple does not offer one, nor do any third parties. I called tech support to inquire about my options and decided that running Leopard Server with only one network card was not a very good idea. I abandoned the project.
Five minutes of Google:
Mac USB-Ethernet Adapters:
I understand Apple's USB-to-Ethernet adaptor should work on other Macs running Leopard 10.5.2 or later (Daniel Sumorok has verified this)
Will PC World pay me?
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Good For Coach Calhoun
I saw that the Governor of Conn. claimed that Coach Calhoun was an "embarrassment" for the way he answered a question about his salary. I say the Governor ought to have kept her mouth shut. Clearly Calhoun did not appreciate being questioned about his salary. It was clear from when the question was started; "Not a dime back."
Sometimes reporters ask some assinine questions and sometimes they try to act like they are owed an explanation for anything that pops into their heads. This particular disease is in evidence with Senator Burris, where certain news organizations have, in my opinion, willfully distorted his testimony in order to push a particular agenda.
In Calhoun's case it was that he is the highest state employee at $1.6 million/year. The reporter was attempting to make the point that with the state in a budget crunch (which is most of the time), there may be something amiss for the Coach to be making so much. Calhoun clearly didn't feel so and made the excellent point that the team he coaches brings in $12 million a year. He gave a nice hint to this issue when he said "what was the take?" meaning how much money did the game they just played bring in to the University of Connecticut. See unlike the Wall Street people. He does his job and brings a direct monetary benefit to the state. In light of that the question was rude and I'm glad Calhoun put the reporter in his place.
Also as Calhoun pointed out, the press meeting was about the game, not Calhoun's salary. As he pointed out the reporter would have been free to see Calhoun after the report or at any other time since Calhoun can be found on campus for his position on his salary rather than try to call him out.
Sometimes reporters ask some assinine questions and sometimes they try to act like they are owed an explanation for anything that pops into their heads. This particular disease is in evidence with Senator Burris, where certain news organizations have, in my opinion, willfully distorted his testimony in order to push a particular agenda.
In Calhoun's case it was that he is the highest state employee at $1.6 million/year. The reporter was attempting to make the point that with the state in a budget crunch (which is most of the time), there may be something amiss for the Coach to be making so much. Calhoun clearly didn't feel so and made the excellent point that the team he coaches brings in $12 million a year. He gave a nice hint to this issue when he said "what was the take?" meaning how much money did the game they just played bring in to the University of Connecticut. See unlike the Wall Street people. He does his job and brings a direct monetary benefit to the state. In light of that the question was rude and I'm glad Calhoun put the reporter in his place.
Also as Calhoun pointed out, the press meeting was about the game, not Calhoun's salary. As he pointed out the reporter would have been free to see Calhoun after the report or at any other time since Calhoun can be found on campus for his position on his salary rather than try to call him out.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
No Content Found
Tonight, when I was set to sit down and watch my queued up episodes of Burn Notice and Damages, I flicked on Hulu from my Apple TV running Boxee and saw "No Content Found." Yes Hulu had officially offed Boxee.
reading the posts on the Boxee blog and Hulu's blog it is pretty clear that this cruel interruption to my New Year's resolution was the work of some old white males in expensive suits in mid-town Manhattan who like their ancestors of yore believe that what's yours is there's to profit off of. Presumably it is the "content owners" who have determined that somehow viewing Hulu flash video anywhere except through one of the following:
Safari
Firefox
Internet Explorer
is somehow a breech of some contract. We'll get to that in a minute. You'll note that I didn't say computer, rather I said browser because clearly since a user can connect their computing device (laptop, tower, tablet) to any external video monitor the device is capable of connecting to, the TV is not the PRIMARY issue. Well maybe it is. But trust me, the old white men in mid-town Manhattan, most of whom probably have the internet knowledge equal of John McCain, have been told that the internet can only be seen on a web browser on a computer and of course computers can't be connected to a TV. I mean after all WHO is still using WebTV? SO while the white men in mid-town Manhattan may be clueless, I believe that the real culprit lies elsewhere: The Cable companies.
See I'm old enough to remember life before cable. A time when Cable was for HBO and Showtime and little else. I saw how Cable went from something extra for the TV to something necessary for TV. Most of the compelling TV has moved to cable. OTA (over the air) broadcast is basically, medical shows, CSI shows and "unscripted" reality shows. That's it really. Well if you don't include the weekend sports. So OTA is really only useful for local news casts. And since 9-11, reception of traditional air broadcasts have sucked by me. So most people pay at least $12 for basic cable (AKA clear OTA programming). Now all those other stations, TBS, SPIKE, etc. are revenue streams for the likes of Time Warner, Cablevision, etc. as well as the "content providers." Cable companies and their local subsidiaries also have a monopoly on break in advertising. They sell advertising on various channels to local businesses. This is a brisk business that has branched out into movie theatres as well. Hulu breaks this business model completely since a great deal of people who use Boxee have cut the cable/satelite and use Boxee as their content viewer of choice. So the really big losers here: Cable companies. Not only are they losing customers who no longer pay the 70+ bucks/month for "premium content." They also lose the advertising bucks because they can't claim to reach x-amount of people per station.
The "content providers" still make money because all Hulu programming has advertising so they can still make a profit and that profit would increase as more people moved from Cable to Boxee.
Now if you don't want to believe me about the cable angle, then take a look at the Boxee blog where they discuss the cable company execs that came to "visit" Boxee at CES. If you think those execs left the Boxee booth saying: Yo, good shit they have there. I suggest laying off the herb. I will lay out cold cash that these execs were on the cell phones with lawyers and "content execs" as soon as they left the Boxee booth. I surmise the conversations went something like: WTF!!! WTF!!!These people are putting your shit on OUR TV's!!!! We have CONTRACTS!!! WTF!!!!(Think Christian Bale interrupted during a Terminator shoot). I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't some threat to not broadcast any "content provider" who continued to allow Boxee access to their content. Think not? How many times have you seen the scrolling threat to cut off some set of channels or another over some dispute with the tag: please call such and such company....?
Yes folks, my thinking is that the "content providers" were more than happy to get Boxee users streaming Hulu content to their shiny flat panel TV's. I believe that the cable companies saw the end to their business. Of course had they NOT decided to stick the public for way overpriced "content delivery." They wouldn't have had this problem, but anyone who did the math I did, realized that streaming video over their internet connection which is a must have today, along with a AppleTV costs less per year even in the first year, than a cable subscription.
Of course this also means that Apple stands to lose "big." I believe that Apple TV sales went up because of Boxee. Not iTunes, not movies available from iTunes, but Boxee. iTunes and Apple TV are not the most economical choice. You can get DVD's from Red Box at Shop and Stop for a buck vs 3.99 for the cheapest rental from iTunes. I'm not paying a buck a show from iTunes. Biggest rip-off ever. Seriously. One buck every time I choose to watch a show? I have to find storage for it and if I lose it or whatever I have to pay again? No thanks. Which brings me to my conclusion.
I've never pirated music or movies. I thought it was bad form when Star Wars Ep III made it out on DVD before it hit the big screen. I like for artists to get paid and for studios to make money off their investments. But this blatant money grab? Not having it. I'm still not going to pay for cable. I'm not going to incriminate myself here but needless to say there is a website that starts with a "P" and ends with a "Y.org" and the "Content providers" should be happy since people have to use a browser to use the site. lol.
reading the posts on the Boxee blog and Hulu's blog it is pretty clear that this cruel interruption to my New Year's resolution was the work of some old white males in expensive suits in mid-town Manhattan who like their ancestors of yore believe that what's yours is there's to profit off of. Presumably it is the "content owners" who have determined that somehow viewing Hulu flash video anywhere except through one of the following:
Safari
Firefox
Internet Explorer
is somehow a breech of some contract. We'll get to that in a minute. You'll note that I didn't say computer, rather I said browser because clearly since a user can connect their computing device (laptop, tower, tablet) to any external video monitor the device is capable of connecting to, the TV is not the PRIMARY issue. Well maybe it is. But trust me, the old white men in mid-town Manhattan, most of whom probably have the internet knowledge equal of John McCain, have been told that the internet can only be seen on a web browser on a computer and of course computers can't be connected to a TV. I mean after all WHO is still using WebTV? SO while the white men in mid-town Manhattan may be clueless, I believe that the real culprit lies elsewhere: The Cable companies.
See I'm old enough to remember life before cable. A time when Cable was for HBO and Showtime and little else. I saw how Cable went from something extra for the TV to something necessary for TV. Most of the compelling TV has moved to cable. OTA (over the air) broadcast is basically, medical shows, CSI shows and "unscripted" reality shows. That's it really. Well if you don't include the weekend sports. So OTA is really only useful for local news casts. And since 9-11, reception of traditional air broadcasts have sucked by me. So most people pay at least $12 for basic cable (AKA clear OTA programming). Now all those other stations, TBS, SPIKE, etc. are revenue streams for the likes of Time Warner, Cablevision, etc. as well as the "content providers." Cable companies and their local subsidiaries also have a monopoly on break in advertising. They sell advertising on various channels to local businesses. This is a brisk business that has branched out into movie theatres as well. Hulu breaks this business model completely since a great deal of people who use Boxee have cut the cable/satelite and use Boxee as their content viewer of choice. So the really big losers here: Cable companies. Not only are they losing customers who no longer pay the 70+ bucks/month for "premium content." They also lose the advertising bucks because they can't claim to reach x-amount of people per station.
The "content providers" still make money because all Hulu programming has advertising so they can still make a profit and that profit would increase as more people moved from Cable to Boxee.
Now if you don't want to believe me about the cable angle, then take a look at the Boxee blog where they discuss the cable company execs that came to "visit" Boxee at CES. If you think those execs left the Boxee booth saying: Yo, good shit they have there. I suggest laying off the herb. I will lay out cold cash that these execs were on the cell phones with lawyers and "content execs" as soon as they left the Boxee booth. I surmise the conversations went something like: WTF!!! WTF!!!These people are putting your shit on OUR TV's!!!! We have CONTRACTS!!! WTF!!!!(Think Christian Bale interrupted during a Terminator shoot). I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't some threat to not broadcast any "content provider" who continued to allow Boxee access to their content. Think not? How many times have you seen the scrolling threat to cut off some set of channels or another over some dispute with the tag: please call such and such company....?
Yes folks, my thinking is that the "content providers" were more than happy to get Boxee users streaming Hulu content to their shiny flat panel TV's. I believe that the cable companies saw the end to their business. Of course had they NOT decided to stick the public for way overpriced "content delivery." They wouldn't have had this problem, but anyone who did the math I did, realized that streaming video over their internet connection which is a must have today, along with a AppleTV costs less per year even in the first year, than a cable subscription.
Of course this also means that Apple stands to lose "big." I believe that Apple TV sales went up because of Boxee. Not iTunes, not movies available from iTunes, but Boxee. iTunes and Apple TV are not the most economical choice. You can get DVD's from Red Box at Shop and Stop for a buck vs 3.99 for the cheapest rental from iTunes. I'm not paying a buck a show from iTunes. Biggest rip-off ever. Seriously. One buck every time I choose to watch a show? I have to find storage for it and if I lose it or whatever I have to pay again? No thanks. Which brings me to my conclusion.
I've never pirated music or movies. I thought it was bad form when Star Wars Ep III made it out on DVD before it hit the big screen. I like for artists to get paid and for studios to make money off their investments. But this blatant money grab? Not having it. I'm still not going to pay for cable. I'm not going to incriminate myself here but needless to say there is a website that starts with a "P" and ends with a "Y.org" and the "Content providers" should be happy since people have to use a browser to use the site. lol.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Fake Holocaust Story
The author says today on GMA:
It was a lie. But it was true in my imagination so it was true.
???
It was a lie. But it was true in my imagination so it was true.
???
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Quantum of Stupid
I know that it's a game but seriously, if I shoot a guy in the head with a shotgun he ought to go down immediately. The suspension of disbelief is going a bit far when a character wearing a t-shirt can take a full clip to the torso and still run around like a track star.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Daring Fireball
Given Jon Gruber's numerous missives on Barry Bonds now confirmed steroid use, I'm waiting for him to post up on A-Rod. 36 hours and counting.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Free Phelps!
I don't do drugs. I don't do drugs of any kind. I don't do illegal substances. I don't do the legal ones either. The only reason I have any kind of drug would be because it was either prescribed, is an anti-inflamatory (I run) or anti-histamine.
I grew up in the "just say no" era. Where Nancy Reagan had her little news conferences and we were told to "just say no." Simple for me as I never said yes. I was convinced by people who I'm, sure had my best interest at heart that drug use was a one way street to unemployment, homelessness and all other manner of ill things. Indeed I was convinced that if one did drugs you just couldn't BE anything. Good reason to abstain.
Well somewhere between then and now an interesting thing happened. Public figures of all kinds started admitting to drug use. Weed in particular. Of course I had grown up with the images of Marion Barry of DC fame caught on tape getting high so such admissions were kind of unsettling to me. Eventually we got to the point where NY Mayor Bloomberg admitted to taking a toke and claimed to have enjoyed it. And this bloke got re-elected to office? Huh? So apparently then, one can inbibe and still be a decent human being, be responsible, run a billion dollar company and NYC. Wow.
Of course, the NYPD had made news stopping young black men on the street with no probable cause and either givng them summonses or outright arresting them for having small amounts of herb on their person. Hypocritical to say the least. It's not like people who drink alcohol are accosted while walking down the street. I mean drunk drivers kill people all the time and yet alcohol is freely available to anyone of legal age. Talk about double standards.
But it doesn't stop there. In Novemeber the US elected a president who admitted to not only taking a toke but of using the far more potent (and of no medical value) cocaine. Think about that for a minute. The commander in Chief is a known ex coke head, a former weed user and still has a cigarette habit. How are the people of the US and corporations, who undoubtedly gave millions in donations to the Obama camp, going to turn around and say that Phelps " is not consistent with the image of Kellogg,”
I suppose that since there aren't tapes of Obama or Bloomberg taking hits they can be passed on but it' OK to shit on Phelps because someone at a party decided it was a good idea to give a picture to a tabloid for some undisclosed sum (And they had better had made a profit since they have cost Phelps a nice coin).
To top things off "USA Swimming publicly reprimanded Phelps, temporarily withdrawing its financial support from him and barring him from competition for the months."
Why? Did his use of Sensimela give him an unfair advantage in the pool? No? Right. Oh perhaps there's some kind of "morality clause" in his contract (and I assume he has one). Oh it's for the kids! The poor kids who will soon enough learn that their government leaders have been taking hits and that the president of the US had a coke habit. When I was a kid I assumed that if you did such things you couldn't become mayor of a large city or president of the US. Now I'm grown and realize that such things not true. Same for the kids. Now is a nice time to have a conversation with the kids about that thing called privacy. How you ought not go selling pictures of your "friends" to newspapers and trashy websites. How some people choose to imbibe but in your house it is/ or is not allowed for whatever reasons.
Michael Phelps ought to have called out Bloomberg and the POTUS and discussed how weed use, like alcohol use is about moderation. Anyone can abuse either substance and make a wreck of themselves and their lives and unlike tobacco it won't send you to the hospital for treatment but rather you're likely to be sent home with the herb FOR treatment.
My message to Phelps: Grow a pair. Tell Kellogg to kiss your *ss and for future contracts make sure that the so called "morality clause" is stricken. Don't let these money grubbers who stand to make far more off you than they will pay you, dictate what you can and cannot do on your personal time cause they sure as hell won't let you dictate to them how to run their business.
I grew up in the "just say no" era. Where Nancy Reagan had her little news conferences and we were told to "just say no." Simple for me as I never said yes. I was convinced by people who I'm, sure had my best interest at heart that drug use was a one way street to unemployment, homelessness and all other manner of ill things. Indeed I was convinced that if one did drugs you just couldn't BE anything. Good reason to abstain.
Well somewhere between then and now an interesting thing happened. Public figures of all kinds started admitting to drug use. Weed in particular. Of course I had grown up with the images of Marion Barry of DC fame caught on tape getting high so such admissions were kind of unsettling to me. Eventually we got to the point where NY Mayor Bloomberg admitted to taking a toke and claimed to have enjoyed it. And this bloke got re-elected to office? Huh? So apparently then, one can inbibe and still be a decent human being, be responsible, run a billion dollar company and NYC. Wow.
Of course, the NYPD had made news stopping young black men on the street with no probable cause and either givng them summonses or outright arresting them for having small amounts of herb on their person. Hypocritical to say the least. It's not like people who drink alcohol are accosted while walking down the street. I mean drunk drivers kill people all the time and yet alcohol is freely available to anyone of legal age. Talk about double standards.
But it doesn't stop there. In Novemeber the US elected a president who admitted to not only taking a toke but of using the far more potent (and of no medical value) cocaine. Think about that for a minute. The commander in Chief is a known ex coke head, a former weed user and still has a cigarette habit. How are the people of the US and corporations, who undoubtedly gave millions in donations to the Obama camp, going to turn around and say that Phelps " is not consistent with the image of Kellogg,”
I suppose that since there aren't tapes of Obama or Bloomberg taking hits they can be passed on but it' OK to shit on Phelps because someone at a party decided it was a good idea to give a picture to a tabloid for some undisclosed sum (And they had better had made a profit since they have cost Phelps a nice coin).
To top things off "USA Swimming publicly reprimanded Phelps, temporarily withdrawing its financial support from him and barring him from competition for the months."
Why? Did his use of Sensimela give him an unfair advantage in the pool? No? Right. Oh perhaps there's some kind of "morality clause" in his contract (and I assume he has one). Oh it's for the kids! The poor kids who will soon enough learn that their government leaders have been taking hits and that the president of the US had a coke habit. When I was a kid I assumed that if you did such things you couldn't become mayor of a large city or president of the US. Now I'm grown and realize that such things not true. Same for the kids. Now is a nice time to have a conversation with the kids about that thing called privacy. How you ought not go selling pictures of your "friends" to newspapers and trashy websites. How some people choose to imbibe but in your house it is/ or is not allowed for whatever reasons.
Michael Phelps ought to have called out Bloomberg and the POTUS and discussed how weed use, like alcohol use is about moderation. Anyone can abuse either substance and make a wreck of themselves and their lives and unlike tobacco it won't send you to the hospital for treatment but rather you're likely to be sent home with the herb FOR treatment.
My message to Phelps: Grow a pair. Tell Kellogg to kiss your *ss and for future contracts make sure that the so called "morality clause" is stricken. Don't let these money grubbers who stand to make far more off you than they will pay you, dictate what you can and cannot do on your personal time cause they sure as hell won't let you dictate to them how to run their business.
Like That Creature in the Log
So I was thinking on the recent spate of trojans affecting Macs and it got me to thinking about what I said to a client of mine:
Using limewire is kind og like that scene in the Flash Gordon movie where Flash has to put his hand into a log where this apparently poisonous creature lives.
Sure a lot of people do it and don't get bitten but also be sure that a whole lotta people got bit
Using limewire is kind og like that scene in the Flash Gordon movie where Flash has to put his hand into a log where this apparently poisonous creature lives.
Sure a lot of people do it and don't get bitten but also be sure that a whole lotta people got bit
Barry "Junk" Bonds
In previous postings on the matter of Barry Bonds, I have defended the man based on one thing. His alleged clear tests for steroids. Regardless of what people said, my position was that if he hasn't tested positive then there's no case. It's kind of like a rape kit. You can call me a rapist all day, but if you can't put me at (or in) the scene, then it's a wrap.
Last night we find that Barry Bonds did in fact fail at least two steroid tests. Still though, Bonds made an ass of himself when he said he used some cream that he didn' know the contents of. I train to run, nothing goes on or in my body without me knowing what is in it. So it was pretty disingeneous to claim that he had no clue as to what he was putting on or in his body. He's a grown man. It's only kids who you get to tell "trust me it'll make you better" to.
Junk Bonds. And the Aaron's record ought to be re-instated.
Last night we find that Barry Bonds did in fact fail at least two steroid tests. Still though, Bonds made an ass of himself when he said he used some cream that he didn' know the contents of. I train to run, nothing goes on or in my body without me knowing what is in it. So it was pretty disingeneous to claim that he had no clue as to what he was putting on or in his body. He's a grown man. It's only kids who you get to tell "trust me it'll make you better" to.
Junk Bonds. And the Aaron's record ought to be re-instated.
Monday, January 26, 2009
GarageBand Frequency (Maybe iTunes)?
I've been working on some music in GarageBand and I've been listening to the music in iTunes with a Graphic EQ and noticed that the highest frequencies are all but missing. I'm one of those people who can hear when a tube tv is whining, even though I am getting to the stage in life where I won't be able to do that for too much longer.
I believe it to be Garageband because the missing frequencies are very obvious compared to a file downloaded from iTunes. Anyone else seen this issue?
I believe it to be Garageband because the missing frequencies are very obvious compared to a file downloaded from iTunes. Anyone else seen this issue?
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Apple TV Sales Triple Last Year...
Yes, and I'm one of them. ATV with Boxee, as noted has replaced cable and the rental store for me (maybe even regular Best Buy DVD sales). No Boxee, no sale though. Apple should either buy Boxee or make sure any update to the ATV software works with Boxee. For real though.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Disappearing shows
Fully a week into basic cable and Boxee I feel compelled to discuss the problem of the disappearing shows and movies. Yesterday it was reported on how Hulu on demand from FX, pulled all past episodes of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia which cause a great deal of grief to Hulu users. The consensus seems to be that FX wants people to purchase the DVD set. Not that I watch Sunny but really this "buy the DVD" thing is in my opinion silly. When I saw the price for the box set of Star Trek Deep Space Nine. I passed on it. I have the choice of watching re-runs on cable and sit through commercials or buy a box set and perhaps be motivated to pop in a DVD. Or I could watch it via boxee (if it were available) commercials and all, at my convenience, without having to store a DVD, case and all or a ripped version on my NAS (taking up valuable storage capacity). Of course since I can't get DS9 on Boxee or any other legal means on the net, I simply don't watch. Lost money for Viacom. Speaking of DS9, Where is Star Trek on Hulu or Joost or Boxee? Seriously people. Yes the classic ones are there but I want my DS9, TNG and Voyager please.
Now previously I had found Spenser for Hire on AOL tv. Then not two days after finding it did it disappear. Now I've found it on Joost via boxee, though it's missing many episodes (but has no adverts).
In the end, these companies need to realize that internet delivery "on demand" is the future. With products like Boxee, I don't care whether they are in a Hulu or a channel branded site. So long as I can access it through the TV set I'm satisfied.
Now previously I had found Spenser for Hire on AOL tv. Then not two days after finding it did it disappear. Now I've found it on Joost via boxee, though it's missing many episodes (but has no adverts).
In the end, these companies need to realize that internet delivery "on demand" is the future. With products like Boxee, I don't care whether they are in a Hulu or a channel branded site. So long as I can access it through the TV set I'm satisfied.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Sun VirtualBox
A little request to Sun Microsystems about Virtualbox: It would be nice to have the windows task bar disappear in "seamless mode" That it floats there above the OS X dock is kind of ridiculous.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
NJ Drivers
I always thought there was something not quite right with NJ drivers. The NY Times has now confirmed my suspicions
You know, the latest thing that I have observed here in NJ are people who are so impatient to make left turns that they will actually go around you to make a left turn. This is especially true of SUV drivers. Never mind that people usually do not look to see if the person BEHIND them is making the left turn at the same time they are so that's a huge accident waiting to happen. There ought to be huge huge fines for that kind of behavior.
Oh and this..this is classic:
Then there's this:
I do have to agree with one thing on though, there are plenty of people in NJ who seem not to understand that when there is a merge up ahead and there are cars looking to enter, one ought to change lanes to give them space if you can. It would be even more polite to give a flash to let them know that you see them and are letting them in.
You know, the latest thing that I have observed here in NJ are people who are so impatient to make left turns that they will actually go around you to make a left turn. This is especially true of SUV drivers. Never mind that people usually do not look to see if the person BEHIND them is making the left turn at the same time they are so that's a huge accident waiting to happen. There ought to be huge huge fines for that kind of behavior.
“There was a lot of traffic, and I couldn’t figure out when it was my turn to go into the other lane,” she said. “I guess I wasn’t doing it quickly enough for my husband because he started yelling: ‘Merge! Merge!’ I just pulled the car over, got out, and handed him the keys..."Turn? It's your turn to get into the other lane when there's enough space between oncoming vehicles for your car to fit and accelerate to the speed of traffic.Please someone revoke this woman's license. Seriously nervous drivers are the worst. They hit their brakes for no other reason than that they are scared.
“I had to drive on Route 46 to take my New Jersey driver’s test,” said Ms. McClenahan, who is in her early 40s. “That was really traumatic — all the cars were whizzing by. I thought I was going to have a nervous breakdown. After that experience I said, I am never going on Route 46 again.”And please, do stay off 46. Personally I think she ought to have failed the test. Perhaps it's just me, but while I was anxious about my driving test, It was not traumatic. And I took my test in Michigan. I did most of my practicing on highways. Personally I think there ought to be a confidence score. If a person is really shook, they ought not be licensed.
Oh and this..this is classic:
“I’m afraid of simultaneously keeping my eye on the speedometer, merging, and looking at signs to see where I’m going,” said Ms. Schneider, 40, who got her license at age 34 after she and her family moved to the suburbs...She said she has driven on highways about five times so far, mostly using a GPS device in her minivan, but doesn’t plan to hit Route 3 again anytime soon."Hey stupid. When merging you don't look at your speed. there's no need. You can't be merging AND looking for signs at the same time. Looking for signs means you're trying to get off. If you're trying to get off, then you ought to be in the rightmost lane ANYWAY (for right sided exits). And although she's confused by the array of things she has to look at she's got the GPS in the car. I'l lay odds that this one also has a phone. I will put money on it.
Then there's this:
Ms. Kelly has also sworn off highways for good. “I’m not going to be a highway driver; that won’t be happening,” she said. “I have no clue how people merge at high speeds. I can’t even imagine it. I mean, are you people nuts?”No seriously, did she really ask HOW people merge at high speeds? FIrst and foremost there's this thing called relativity. If Were both moving in the same direction and I'm going 80 and you're going 70, I'm moving faster than you are by 10 MPH. really It's not that hard to merge with a 10 MPH gap. What you do is press that thing called an accelerator as much as you need to to get up to speed. If you have to press hard enough you'll trip what is called the "kick down" response in the computer and the car will down shift for more acceleration. You should try it. It's what you're expected to do. If my 20 year old car can make it, your relatively new one can
I do have to agree with one thing on though, there are plenty of people in NJ who seem not to understand that when there is a merge up ahead and there are cars looking to enter, one ought to change lanes to give them space if you can. It would be even more polite to give a flash to let them know that you see them and are letting them in.
Friday, January 9, 2009
New Year, New Modes of Living
And so this year I have a few resolutions:
1) To be more fit. Anyone who knows me knows I'm already way fit. Not built. Fit. I'm trying to get stronger and faster. Not the easiest thing for someone running up to 40 years old but a goal I can reach.
2) Stop wasting money. Yes thought I am fortunate at this time to be employed (and seeing the recent unemployment stats that is saying a lot). But this year I'm doing my best to leverage frugality. So first thing is that my 88 325i died. So I had the opportunity to replace it with a '97 318i which gets about 50% more useful gas mileage as my other vehicle, a '97 Z3 2.8. When you're pumping premium, that matters. Not that when gas prices hit $5 I was sweating all that much as I live within my means (and I had been biking to work), but why spend the money if you don't have to?
So I'm looking at a minimum of a 20% reduction in my gas usage this year, without changing my habits. That's about $300 bucks for the year. I'm not keeping full tabs on my gas usage because it comes out of my weekly allowance.
Next is the reduction in land line phone service. Why do I still have a land line? DSL and legacy. I've had my phone number for ever. Don't want to give it up. Sue me. Anyway. I have a Gizmo number which I can get mad minutes for 20 bucks. I don't make a lot of phone calls. So the biggest money waster is actually my cell phone, but I prefer to be available and I'm not clear that a pay-go plan will work for me for when I do use the phone heavily. In any event, between my Gizmo number and my Google Grand Central number, Vocito on the Mac and Dial Central on the Nokia Internet Tablet, I don't pay for phone calls. Nothing. Nada. Not even long distance. If I was convinced that both Gizmo and Grand Central will remain free I would probably drop the land line altogether. But as of now I'm saving $20/month. It's possible that I can go lower but these phone companies have so many fees and such. I may end up going with Vonage or something when it begins to annoy me enough. But as of now I'm looking at $240 for the year in savings.
Next up: Apple TV and Boxee. I've reduced my CableVision to basic cable. I just bought an Apple TV and installed Boxee on it. I get CNN news. I get all those reruns that Spike, FX, TNT, and everyone one else broadcasts and then some. Of course we have torrents but you know, that wouldn't be legal. I realized I was ready for this when I was willing to sit at my computer and watch Spenser for Hire at my laptop. I suppose my Spenser watching caught the attention of AOL because not 48 hours after I discovered their monster stash of Spenser, then they took it down. Next time, I use my browser plugin and rip that stuff. Note to media companies: suddenly making stuff unavailable is a bad idea. Not that I'm threatening to do anything illegal. So my Cable bill was just cut by $30/month. In July I'll have to pony up for Versus so I can watch Le Tour (unless it ends up online somewhere). But for now that's $360 for the year. The Apple TV of course will eat into that particular saving but I still come out ahead by $140 if you include it's cost. However since I had an Airport Express that died on New Years, I'm not going to include it in the cost because I would have paid for a replacement anyway.
So what we have is a possible $900 savings for the year if it all works out as planned ($75/month). Not too shabby for cutting expenses without really impacting my life. If I wasn't attached to my land line phone number I'd probably be able to reach a grand. Well lets see how this goes.
1) To be more fit. Anyone who knows me knows I'm already way fit. Not built. Fit. I'm trying to get stronger and faster. Not the easiest thing for someone running up to 40 years old but a goal I can reach.
2) Stop wasting money. Yes thought I am fortunate at this time to be employed (and seeing the recent unemployment stats that is saying a lot). But this year I'm doing my best to leverage frugality. So first thing is that my 88 325i died. So I had the opportunity to replace it with a '97 318i which gets about 50% more useful gas mileage as my other vehicle, a '97 Z3 2.8. When you're pumping premium, that matters. Not that when gas prices hit $5 I was sweating all that much as I live within my means (and I had been biking to work), but why spend the money if you don't have to?
So I'm looking at a minimum of a 20% reduction in my gas usage this year, without changing my habits. That's about $300 bucks for the year. I'm not keeping full tabs on my gas usage because it comes out of my weekly allowance.
Next is the reduction in land line phone service. Why do I still have a land line? DSL and legacy. I've had my phone number for ever. Don't want to give it up. Sue me. Anyway. I have a Gizmo number which I can get mad minutes for 20 bucks. I don't make a lot of phone calls. So the biggest money waster is actually my cell phone, but I prefer to be available and I'm not clear that a pay-go plan will work for me for when I do use the phone heavily. In any event, between my Gizmo number and my Google Grand Central number, Vocito on the Mac and Dial Central on the Nokia Internet Tablet, I don't pay for phone calls. Nothing. Nada. Not even long distance. If I was convinced that both Gizmo and Grand Central will remain free I would probably drop the land line altogether. But as of now I'm saving $20/month. It's possible that I can go lower but these phone companies have so many fees and such. I may end up going with Vonage or something when it begins to annoy me enough. But as of now I'm looking at $240 for the year in savings.
Next up: Apple TV and Boxee. I've reduced my CableVision to basic cable. I just bought an Apple TV and installed Boxee on it. I get CNN news. I get all those reruns that Spike, FX, TNT, and everyone one else broadcasts and then some. Of course we have torrents but you know, that wouldn't be legal. I realized I was ready for this when I was willing to sit at my computer and watch Spenser for Hire at my laptop. I suppose my Spenser watching caught the attention of AOL because not 48 hours after I discovered their monster stash of Spenser, then they took it down. Next time, I use my browser plugin and rip that stuff. Note to media companies: suddenly making stuff unavailable is a bad idea. Not that I'm threatening to do anything illegal. So my Cable bill was just cut by $30/month. In July I'll have to pony up for Versus so I can watch Le Tour (unless it ends up online somewhere). But for now that's $360 for the year. The Apple TV of course will eat into that particular saving but I still come out ahead by $140 if you include it's cost. However since I had an Airport Express that died on New Years, I'm not going to include it in the cost because I would have paid for a replacement anyway.
So what we have is a possible $900 savings for the year if it all works out as planned ($75/month). Not too shabby for cutting expenses without really impacting my life. If I wasn't attached to my land line phone number I'd probably be able to reach a grand. Well lets see how this goes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
