A little too dark in the foreground, especially with the bright background, but this is one of the few good shots I have of her.
January 14, 2007
Ma mere
A little too dark in the foreground, especially with the bright background, but this is one of the few good shots I have of her.
Light and shadows
Isn't Bo so cute? He tears the stuffing right out of those toys, though. Literally.
More colours
The `Muse of Architecture' statue in my mom's front yard. There was no Muse of Architecture, and none of them were male, but that's how it was advertised. Again, I'm amazed my camera managed to get these colours.
I have no idea how this came out
There is no way my cheap little digital, with all its low light problems, should have been able to take this shot -- much less get these colours. November 2006
How to make a cup of tea in the most pretentious way possible
Sure, you could just stick a bag of Lipton in a mug of water and heat the whole thing up in the microwave for 2 1/2 minutes. But why do that when you can turn the simple act of making a cup of tea into a ridiculously elaborate production?
First, you need the tea. Black tea has a long list of increasingly silly-named and expensive categories, and none of these go into ordinary tea bags. Instead, the stuff in tea bags is called `dust', and to the pretentious asshole, it tastes about as appetizing. I order whole leaf (`orange pekoe') tea from Peets, a coffee and tea company that is located almost exclusively in the Bay Area. For the slightly less pretentious, megamarts usually stock Twinings whole leaf tea on the top shelf above the bagged tea. My favourite blend is Irish Breakfast.
Second, you something in which to brew the tea. To enjoy the full flavour of your overpriced whole-leaf tea, it needs to brew in such a way that the water can flow freely around it. Tea infusers are usually too small to do this with maximum pretentiousness (especially if you're going to make multiple cups at once), so I use a French press. You'll want one teaspoon in the bottom of the press for every cup of tea.
Third, water. Freshly-drawn cold tap water should be filtered and heated in a kettle, whether electric or on a stove. Avoid boiling the water for more than a few seconds -- boiling causes oxygen to be released from the water, which can make the tea taste flat. Pour the water over the tea and let it steep for three to five minutes, depending on how strong you want it. Keep the plunger on the press up while the tea steeps; that's the whole reason we're using the press, after all.
Fourth, milk, whether cow's or soy, is an important part of developing the full flavour profile of the tea. Black tea contains tannins, which are the same compounds that make red wine dry, and get their name from their use in the tanning process. These enzymes literally attack and dehydrate your tongue, but in strong tea they can overwhelm your sense of taste. When milk is added, the tannins attack the milk instead of your tongue; the tea will not taste as dry, but you will be able to taste the full flavour profile.
If you plan on using cow's milk, fill each teacup or the tea pot with hot tap water while the tea is steeping. Dump this out, and add a small amount of milk in the bottom of the cups or pots before pouring the tea.
If you plan on using soy milk instead, I recommend Silk's Unsweetened, as it gives you more control over the final sweetness of the tea. Soy milk curdles more easily than cow's milk, which can give the tea an unpleasant grassy flavour. To avoid this, do not heat the cup or pot, and let the tea sit for three minutes after pouring before adding the milk.
Fifth, sweetener. Carefully (it's still extremely hot!) taste the tea before sweetening. If brewed for too long, black tea can taste bitter, and many people like a small amount of sweetener even in perfectly-brewed tea. I use local honey, about half a teaspoon for two cups of tea. Honey is much sweeter than sugar, and must be stirred longer in order to dissolve completely.
You have now spent half an hour making a single cup of tea. Bon appetit!
First, you need the tea. Black tea has a long list of increasingly silly-named and expensive categories, and none of these go into ordinary tea bags. Instead, the stuff in tea bags is called `dust', and to the pretentious asshole, it tastes about as appetizing. I order whole leaf (`orange pekoe') tea from Peets, a coffee and tea company that is located almost exclusively in the Bay Area. For the slightly less pretentious, megamarts usually stock Twinings whole leaf tea on the top shelf above the bagged tea. My favourite blend is Irish Breakfast.
Second, you something in which to brew the tea. To enjoy the full flavour of your overpriced whole-leaf tea, it needs to brew in such a way that the water can flow freely around it. Tea infusers are usually too small to do this with maximum pretentiousness (especially if you're going to make multiple cups at once), so I use a French press. You'll want one teaspoon in the bottom of the press for every cup of tea.
Third, water. Freshly-drawn cold tap water should be filtered and heated in a kettle, whether electric or on a stove. Avoid boiling the water for more than a few seconds -- boiling causes oxygen to be released from the water, which can make the tea taste flat. Pour the water over the tea and let it steep for three to five minutes, depending on how strong you want it. Keep the plunger on the press up while the tea steeps; that's the whole reason we're using the press, after all.
Fourth, milk, whether cow's or soy, is an important part of developing the full flavour profile of the tea. Black tea contains tannins, which are the same compounds that make red wine dry, and get their name from their use in the tanning process. These enzymes literally attack and dehydrate your tongue, but in strong tea they can overwhelm your sense of taste. When milk is added, the tannins attack the milk instead of your tongue; the tea will not taste as dry, but you will be able to taste the full flavour profile.
If you plan on using cow's milk, fill each teacup or the tea pot with hot tap water while the tea is steeping. Dump this out, and add a small amount of milk in the bottom of the cups or pots before pouring the tea.
If you plan on using soy milk instead, I recommend Silk's Unsweetened, as it gives you more control over the final sweetness of the tea. Soy milk curdles more easily than cow's milk, which can give the tea an unpleasant grassy flavour. To avoid this, do not heat the cup or pot, and let the tea sit for three minutes after pouring before adding the milk.
Fifth, sweetener. Carefully (it's still extremely hot!) taste the tea before sweetening. If brewed for too long, black tea can taste bitter, and many people like a small amount of sweetener even in perfectly-brewed tea. I use local honey, about half a teaspoon for two cups of tea. Honey is much sweeter than sugar, and must be stirred longer in order to dissolve completely.
You have now spent half an hour making a single cup of tea. Bon appetit!
January 13, 2007
Raising the minimum wage has no negative effect on employment
For the past year and a half, a group of students at ND has been fighting a campaign to raise the minimum wage paid to university staff (especially janitors and plant maintenance folks) to a living wage of $10-12/hr. The group makes some interesting -- and, I think, undeniably logically valid -- appeals to Catholic notions of social justice, but the university's policy has basically been to completely ignore the issue. Naturally, this is a fight that shows up in the letters to the editor to the Observer, the main student daily paper, with opponents of a living wage tossing out standard arguments (non-sequiturs in this case) about how raising the minimum wage increases unemployment.
Amp has found pretty solid evidence that this is simply false. I want to hang on to this reference so I can cite it when the issue inevitably bubbles up again.
The link has more general interest to us bloggy folks because Amp narrates a failed conservative effort to refute the study.
Amp has found pretty solid evidence that this is simply false. I want to hang on to this reference so I can cite it when the issue inevitably bubbles up again.
By comparing changes in employment in the two states (a procedure they referred to as “differences-indifferences”), Card and Krueger were able to estimate the employment effects of the New Jersey increase. Using this approach, they found that the differences in employment growth between the two states were not statistically significant. They concluded, therefore, that the minimum-wage increase did not lower employment in New Jersey.
The link has more general interest to us bloggy folks because Amp narrates a failed conservative effort to refute the study.
January 12, 2007
Taking A Break
I've been on a hell of a tear here at work today, mostly because I spent a little too much time blogging at work this week and got way behind. But look at me, master typer, I've almost completely caught up and I have an hour left at work, so I decided to take a quick break and read up a bit on last night's hockey madness when I came across this story. Seriously, that's some Hollywood shit right there.
On top of the sweetness of the story, I also have Selanne on my fantasy hockey team.
On top of the sweetness of the story, I also have Selanne on my fantasy hockey team.
Noumena who? + a review
I'm back! California was excellent, as California always is, but the new semester looms just over the horizon of next week, and so I have returned to Indiana.
And to not totally waste your time reading this useless post, let's start things up again with a review of Blood diamond.
Over the past decade or so, we've seen a growing microgenre of films I'll call White People Realising How Badly They've Fucked Things Up, or WPRHBTFTU. Only that's really awkward, so I think I'll just call them Liberal Guilt films. That term might be slightly misleading, but I think it does generally capture the audience and message these films are meant to portray: they're made by and for liberal, relatively wealthy, white people in the US and Europe, and the point is to make that audience feel guilty about the way we have collectively fucked up some other part of the world, in nominal but probably ultimately futile hopes that we'll go fix things. Prior to the release of Blood diamond, I would say that Three kings was the best example in this microgenre. An inconvenient truth also falls into it, as do Hotel Rwanda, Syriana, and Constant gardener.
Films in the Liberal Guilt microgenre have a number of factors that must be carefully managed. First, a complex history of several forms of exploitation must be represented, for the sake of an easily-digestible narrative, by a relatively contained historical act. In Blood diamond, this exploitation is the exchange of military support for both sides in factional conflicts for mineral wealth over the past three centuries or so, and the single historical event are the circumstances of the civil war in Sierra Leone in 1999. Portrayed awkwardly, the result might have been an oversimplification -- historical, systematic exploitation is turned into an isolated incident. Blood diamond avoids this, though mostly by bracketing the film between a few expository scenes.
Next, and perhaps more importantly, when whites are portrayed as the primary agents there is a risk that the non-white population will be portrayed as either their passive victims or their brutish auxiliaries. Constant gardener suffered this flaw, with its complete lack of fully-developed black African characters. Blood diamond occasionally comes close to having the same problem, though it's hard to tell for sure whether it's crossed the line. The primary narrative drive of the film is the recovery of a large diamond discovered by Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou), a black African, so that he can be reunited with his family, by selling it to Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio), a white African. Archer often takes the lead and the initiative, expecting Vandy to simply do as he's told. He does so, but there are moments when it is clear that Vandy is not really interested in the diamond at all, is helping Archer because he feels it is necessary to get his family back, and is far more aware than Archer of the racism implicit in their `partnership'. This subtle self-consciousness might have redeemed Blood diamond from any accusations of racism, except that the filmmaker has Archer, not Vandy, develop the not-so-intricate plot that plays out over the final fifteen minutes of the film and gives Archer, not Vandy, a romantic subplot, thereby designating Archer, not Vandy, the protagonist.
While a bit needlessly long (143 minutes, and half an hour really should have been cut out), Blood diamond is quite watchable, and is certainly successful in instilling guilt in its target liberal audience. I highly recommend both seeing this film and spending an hour or so afterwards talking about it over something hot and caffeinated; while very much an action film, it is one that requires a fair amount of processing afterwards. As a good film should be.
And to not totally waste your time reading this useless post, let's start things up again with a review of Blood diamond.
Over the past decade or so, we've seen a growing microgenre of films I'll call White People Realising How Badly They've Fucked Things Up, or WPRHBTFTU. Only that's really awkward, so I think I'll just call them Liberal Guilt films. That term might be slightly misleading, but I think it does generally capture the audience and message these films are meant to portray: they're made by and for liberal, relatively wealthy, white people in the US and Europe, and the point is to make that audience feel guilty about the way we have collectively fucked up some other part of the world, in nominal but probably ultimately futile hopes that we'll go fix things. Prior to the release of Blood diamond, I would say that Three kings was the best example in this microgenre. An inconvenient truth also falls into it, as do Hotel Rwanda, Syriana, and Constant gardener.
Films in the Liberal Guilt microgenre have a number of factors that must be carefully managed. First, a complex history of several forms of exploitation must be represented, for the sake of an easily-digestible narrative, by a relatively contained historical act. In Blood diamond, this exploitation is the exchange of military support for both sides in factional conflicts for mineral wealth over the past three centuries or so, and the single historical event are the circumstances of the civil war in Sierra Leone in 1999. Portrayed awkwardly, the result might have been an oversimplification -- historical, systematic exploitation is turned into an isolated incident. Blood diamond avoids this, though mostly by bracketing the film between a few expository scenes.
Next, and perhaps more importantly, when whites are portrayed as the primary agents there is a risk that the non-white population will be portrayed as either their passive victims or their brutish auxiliaries. Constant gardener suffered this flaw, with its complete lack of fully-developed black African characters. Blood diamond occasionally comes close to having the same problem, though it's hard to tell for sure whether it's crossed the line. The primary narrative drive of the film is the recovery of a large diamond discovered by Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou), a black African, so that he can be reunited with his family, by selling it to Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio), a white African. Archer often takes the lead and the initiative, expecting Vandy to simply do as he's told. He does so, but there are moments when it is clear that Vandy is not really interested in the diamond at all, is helping Archer because he feels it is necessary to get his family back, and is far more aware than Archer of the racism implicit in their `partnership'. This subtle self-consciousness might have redeemed Blood diamond from any accusations of racism, except that the filmmaker has Archer, not Vandy, develop the not-so-intricate plot that plays out over the final fifteen minutes of the film and gives Archer, not Vandy, a romantic subplot, thereby designating Archer, not Vandy, the protagonist.
While a bit needlessly long (143 minutes, and half an hour really should have been cut out), Blood diamond is quite watchable, and is certainly successful in instilling guilt in its target liberal audience. I highly recommend both seeing this film and spending an hour or so afterwards talking about it over something hot and caffeinated; while very much an action film, it is one that requires a fair amount of processing afterwards. As a good film should be.
January 11, 2007
Review: Children Of Men
As we walked out of the movie last night, one of the people with me said something like, “That was a great movie. I never want to see it again.” Children of Men is not a light, happy movie in either production or story. I’ve heard the film techniques used described as “like Saving Private Ryan” and that comparison is apt. The colors are bleak and gritty while the characters are nearly always mussed and dirty in some way. The world is loud and distracting, filled with as much auditory horror as visual.
Children of Men takes place in the mid-21st Century, twenty years after all the women on Earth inexplicably ceased being able to have babies. With no children, and thus no future, the world has degenerated into chaos. Most of the major world powers have collapsed, leaving Britain as the presumably last stable country, and barely stable at that. Clive Owen plays Theodore, former political activist currently in a job he hates. Most people in the movie come off as just waiting for the inevitable end, and Theo is certainly one of those at the beginning of the film. Obviously in a film such as this the main character gets shaken out of their ennui by a variety of events and becomes active in an desperately important struggle. I’m not giving anything away (it’s in the trailer and is pretty obvious based on the concept) by telling you that Theo is introduced to a young woman who is pregnant with the first baby in eighteen years.
I’ve become convinced that the very best drama isn’t necessarily serious from start to finish. Joss Whedon uses humor to great effect in his works as a way to really hammer home the tragedy when something bad happens. In Children of Men the same is true. Most of the movie you’re slack jawed at the nonstop tragedy of the movie only to unexpectedly find yourself laughing at some weird, quirky moment. The most powerful moments of the film revolve around those light, happy moments.
I understand exactly what the person I was with meant. I’m certain that I’ll never be lounging around on a Saturday afternoon and think to myself, “I’m going to pop in Children of Men!” When I will watch it again, however, is any time I’m with someone and am forced to say, “What?! You’ve never seen Children of Men?! Well you’re going to see it right now!”
This movie is chaotic, visceral, and one of the best looking and sounding movies I've seen in a long time.This is a movie everyone should see. It’s dark, bleak, and depressing, but it’s also fantastic.
Children of Men takes place in the mid-21st Century, twenty years after all the women on Earth inexplicably ceased being able to have babies. With no children, and thus no future, the world has degenerated into chaos. Most of the major world powers have collapsed, leaving Britain as the presumably last stable country, and barely stable at that. Clive Owen plays Theodore, former political activist currently in a job he hates. Most people in the movie come off as just waiting for the inevitable end, and Theo is certainly one of those at the beginning of the film. Obviously in a film such as this the main character gets shaken out of their ennui by a variety of events and becomes active in an desperately important struggle. I’m not giving anything away (it’s in the trailer and is pretty obvious based on the concept) by telling you that Theo is introduced to a young woman who is pregnant with the first baby in eighteen years.
I’ve become convinced that the very best drama isn’t necessarily serious from start to finish. Joss Whedon uses humor to great effect in his works as a way to really hammer home the tragedy when something bad happens. In Children of Men the same is true. Most of the movie you’re slack jawed at the nonstop tragedy of the movie only to unexpectedly find yourself laughing at some weird, quirky moment. The most powerful moments of the film revolve around those light, happy moments.
I understand exactly what the person I was with meant. I’m certain that I’ll never be lounging around on a Saturday afternoon and think to myself, “I’m going to pop in Children of Men!” When I will watch it again, however, is any time I’m with someone and am forced to say, “What?! You’ve never seen Children of Men?! Well you’re going to see it right now!”
This movie is chaotic, visceral, and one of the best looking and sounding movies I've seen in a long time.This is a movie everyone should see. It’s dark, bleak, and depressing, but it’s also fantastic.
Help Me Not Become A Gambling Addict
Ok, money has been tight in the House o' Ben lately and when I find the cash flowing a bit slower than I like my mind invariably drifts to dreams of getting rich quick. This particular instance has presented itself by constant thoughts of gambling, spurred, I'm sure, by the fact that the last time I visited nearby Atlantic City I walked away with $150 in winnings. Unfortunately, I've become convinced that I've figured out a way to play roulette which is "sure to win."
...
...
...
I had written a long paragraph describing my strategy and why it's impossible to lose. Then I cruised over to Wikipedia and found that the gambling strategy I "discovered" was rather like the Martingale System, which operates on the Gambler's Fallacy. So, I think reading the article sufficiently sobered me that I won't daydream about winning big money in the casinos any time soon, but I'm probably *still* going to play under my system the next time I'm playing roulette. It still seems like your best shot at winning.
Update: Ok, I'm still not entirely convinced. The Martingal System works under the assumption that a game, such as a coin flip, will have odds approximating 50/50. If I'm playing two collumns in roulette I should have a slightly less than 2/3 chance of winning, right? The idea that streaks are not impossible, just unlikely still applies, but it should apply less so because the chances of a streak on half the numbers, say all the red ones, is more likely than a streak on one third of the numbers, say a collumn plus the green zeroes. Someone more versed in math than I (I'm looking at you Noumena) should reply in the comments why this is wrong.
...
...
...
I had written a long paragraph describing my strategy and why it's impossible to lose. Then I cruised over to Wikipedia and found that the gambling strategy I "discovered" was rather like the Martingale System, which operates on the Gambler's Fallacy. So, I think reading the article sufficiently sobered me that I won't daydream about winning big money in the casinos any time soon, but I'm probably *still* going to play under my system the next time I'm playing roulette. It still seems like your best shot at winning.
Update: Ok, I'm still not entirely convinced. The Martingal System works under the assumption that a game, such as a coin flip, will have odds approximating 50/50. If I'm playing two collumns in roulette I should have a slightly less than 2/3 chance of winning, right? The idea that streaks are not impossible, just unlikely still applies, but it should apply less so because the chances of a streak on half the numbers, say all the red ones, is more likely than a streak on one third of the numbers, say a collumn plus the green zeroes. Someone more versed in math than I (I'm looking at you Noumena) should reply in the comments why this is wrong.
Thanks Atrios
For again showing me another example of why nobody should take Fox News seriously. At its most charitable interpretation she's saying he's openly hostile to the White House but I think another fair interpretation would be that she's saying he's a hostile enemy of the country. All this on national TV. Are you kidding me?!
The War
Link. It's been a while since I've blogged about the war in Iraq, but that's mostly because there haven't been any major changes. The Iraq Study Group released a report that was ignored by the Administration and then quickly forgotten by the media. President Bush plans an escalation of troops with no clear or new plan that will turn this thing around. Iraqis and US troops keep dying. The country continues to get worse.
I have to say that I'm not gung ho about immediate withdrawl. Lots of folks on the internet, and even some real life friends, have the conviction to steadily and firmly call for pulling our guys out now. I find myself uncharitaristically hesitant though. Mostly it's arguments about the human rights disaster that will absolutely occur when we pull out. Shiite militias *will* band together to round up groups of Sunnis and execute them. A proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran will be fought in Iraq. It will be bloody. It will be awful. It will be our fault. Many arguments for staying that I come across use this inevitable outcome as justification for staying. "We're not making the country better, per se, we're just barely keeping the lid on another Rwanda." Most of these people admit that the country is getting worse and none that I've seen offer any hope that this is going to turn around. If that is the case, all we're doing is slowing the country's decent into anarchy rather than letting it fall in one horrible explosion.
Ok, I understand that argument and it makes a certain amount of sense. The problem is that none of these people offer any timetables or benchmarks for us to look for when the time has finally come to leave. If we're not even expecting things to get better anymore, when will things have gotten bad enough, ever so slowly under our careful watch, that it will be time to leave?
I have to say that I'm not gung ho about immediate withdrawl. Lots of folks on the internet, and even some real life friends, have the conviction to steadily and firmly call for pulling our guys out now. I find myself uncharitaristically hesitant though. Mostly it's arguments about the human rights disaster that will absolutely occur when we pull out. Shiite militias *will* band together to round up groups of Sunnis and execute them. A proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran will be fought in Iraq. It will be bloody. It will be awful. It will be our fault. Many arguments for staying that I come across use this inevitable outcome as justification for staying. "We're not making the country better, per se, we're just barely keeping the lid on another Rwanda." Most of these people admit that the country is getting worse and none that I've seen offer any hope that this is going to turn around. If that is the case, all we're doing is slowing the country's decent into anarchy rather than letting it fall in one horrible explosion.
Ok, I understand that argument and it makes a certain amount of sense. The problem is that none of these people offer any timetables or benchmarks for us to look for when the time has finally come to leave. If we're not even expecting things to get better anymore, when will things have gotten bad enough, ever so slowly under our careful watch, that it will be time to leave?
January 10, 2007
Guitar Hero 360
Game Informer has announced some Guitar Hero goodness for the Xbox 360, including 10 exclusive songs that will be available.
Possum Kingdom—Toadies*
Salvation—Rancid
Life Wasted—Pearl Jam
Billion Dollar Babies—Alice Cooper
Hush—Deep Purple
Rock and Roll Hoochie Koo—Rick Derringer
Dead!—My Chemical Romance*
The Trooper—Iron Maiden
Bonus unlockable songs
Drink Up—Ounce of Self
Kicked to the Curb—Noble Rot
Still Thinking
So I spent some time mulling over how cool the iPhone is. Then I cruised the 'net a bit and read all kinds of gushing by a bunch of different people. Clearly the iPhone is the winner of CES (the tradeshow at which it was announced). Now that I've had a chance to react against other gushing folks though, I'm not as excited. It took Apple ten generations of operating systems to really come up with something that appeals to non-Mac enthusiasts. It took them four generations of iPod before they really got it right*. The iPod Nano shipped with screens that got scratched if you breathed on them. Apple is a company that comes up with great ideas and gets them right eventually. Are they getting better at reducing the number of lame first generation products they release? Possibly. But I'm more glad than ever that I just recently locked myself into a new 2 year cell phone contract because by the time my contract is up they'll probably be a few months off from releasing the third generation iPhone, which is probably about the time it will be all that it should be.
Also, by then I should have more money.
Don't count Microsoft out though. Yeah, they took a long time to get into the MP3 market. It's probably even fair to say that they waited so long that Apple entrenched itself in the zeitgeist as *the* MP3 company. Still, there's nothing particularly wrong with the Zune as far as I've heard. Indeed, prior to the iPhone announcement I was pretty excited about the machine. The comparison to their console business couldn't be more clear. Their first generation machine is kind of a clunker. It's so late to the party that nobody even considers the possibility that they'll take the crown away from Sony. It's got some good features and is in many ways superior to the PS2 but that doesn't matter because Sony *was* console gaming in the minds of the gaming public. Microsoft takes a few years to build some infrastructure and do some research and then release the 360, a very good machine that has a good shot at capturing marketshare if not holding onto the lead they've already forged for themselves. Microsoft has talked about getting into the cell phone market for years. They *will* get into the cell phone market and it's almost certain that the first product they release will be some extension of the Zune. How will it stack up to the iPhone? Who knows, but the first company to release a new, innovative product is not always the company that delivers the best product. The 18 year old me would care enough about being the first to have an iPhone that he'd be willing to put up with the innevitable quirks. The 27 year old me is willing to wait for somebody to get it right.
*People forget that the first generation iPods sucked pretty bad, despite their great potential. The click circle was actually a movable click wheel that fell off the thing after moderate use. The battery died if you even thought about playing Freebird back to back. The screen was dark, drab and not nearly as easy to read as their newer models, and compared to the current product the thing was a brick.
Also, by then I should have more money.
Don't count Microsoft out though. Yeah, they took a long time to get into the MP3 market. It's probably even fair to say that they waited so long that Apple entrenched itself in the zeitgeist as *the* MP3 company. Still, there's nothing particularly wrong with the Zune as far as I've heard. Indeed, prior to the iPhone announcement I was pretty excited about the machine. The comparison to their console business couldn't be more clear. Their first generation machine is kind of a clunker. It's so late to the party that nobody even considers the possibility that they'll take the crown away from Sony. It's got some good features and is in many ways superior to the PS2 but that doesn't matter because Sony *was* console gaming in the minds of the gaming public. Microsoft takes a few years to build some infrastructure and do some research and then release the 360, a very good machine that has a good shot at capturing marketshare if not holding onto the lead they've already forged for themselves. Microsoft has talked about getting into the cell phone market for years. They *will* get into the cell phone market and it's almost certain that the first product they release will be some extension of the Zune. How will it stack up to the iPhone? Who knows, but the first company to release a new, innovative product is not always the company that delivers the best product. The 18 year old me would care enough about being the first to have an iPhone that he'd be willing to put up with the innevitable quirks. The 27 year old me is willing to wait for somebody to get it right.
*People forget that the first generation iPods sucked pretty bad, despite their great potential. The click circle was actually a movable click wheel that fell off the thing after moderate use. The battery died if you even thought about playing Freebird back to back. The screen was dark, drab and not nearly as easy to read as their newer models, and compared to the current product the thing was a brick.
Heathcare
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed a healthcare reform package for the State of California that has people on both the left and right all razzled up. Ezra breaks it down here much better than I could hope to. Hey, no skin off my back, the kid's an internet genius focusing in healthcare. I'm just glad I could understand most of it. Anyhow, I know we have a few lawyers, at least one doctor, and folks interested in politics reading the blog and I'd like to hear your opinions on this particular bill and universal healthcare (which Ezra rightly points out, this bill is *not*) generally.
Personally, given the horrible state of our healthcare system I think this is obviously a step in the right direction but, as Ezra says, not anywhere near what we need.
I looked briefly for a conservative take on this proposal, but being at work I couldn't devote a significant amount of time to searching. Unfortunately I didn't run across any sources that I know/recognize as respected conservative bloggers. I'll throw up a link if I find something, but feel free to post a link in the comments if you see something pertinent.
Incidentally, while looking for a conservative response to this plan I ran across this bit from Jonah Goldberg at The Corner discussing Star Trek's Prime Directive. He, of course, gets it wrong. Series subsequent to the Original Series have made clear that Kirk's era played fast and loose with all kinds of rules, often leading to bad results. The Prime Directive is there for a reason and breaking it is among the most serious offenses in the mythos. Obviously.
Personally, given the horrible state of our healthcare system I think this is obviously a step in the right direction but, as Ezra says, not anywhere near what we need.
I looked briefly for a conservative take on this proposal, but being at work I couldn't devote a significant amount of time to searching. Unfortunately I didn't run across any sources that I know/recognize as respected conservative bloggers. I'll throw up a link if I find something, but feel free to post a link in the comments if you see something pertinent.
Incidentally, while looking for a conservative response to this plan I ran across this bit from Jonah Goldberg at The Corner discussing Star Trek's Prime Directive. He, of course, gets it wrong. Series subsequent to the Original Series have made clear that Kirk's era played fast and loose with all kinds of rules, often leading to bad results. The Prime Directive is there for a reason and breaking it is among the most serious offenses in the mythos. Obviously.
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW!!!!!
So after drooling over the iPhone some more I went over to Ezra's place (where I found out about the phone in the first place) to check the comments. Most of the discussion revolves around why Apple would make this phone a Cingular exclusive, which led to a lot of discussion about which carriers are better than others.
There's no consensus about which carrier is the best, but there's plenty of discussion about which ones *aren't* the best, particularly Sprint. I've been with Sprint for four and a half years now and I guess I just don't understand what the cell phone experience is supposed to be. Other than the state of Nebraska, where Sprint, it seems, believes people are still using the String-and-Can network of communication, the only place I have had with coverage is in my old apartment. I don't know what it was about that place (I lived in a room in a very old house), but the second I stepped outside I got full coverage, so it wasn't that Sprint was bad in that area. My old phone (recently replaced with a shiny *new* phone) didn't do text messaging so well, but I was, and still am, able to get on regular internet pages while folks on other networks don't seem to be able to.
I don't know, is there something I'm missing? Some piece of the cell phone experience that I'm not missing because I don't realize I should be having it?
I did just read that Cingular is the only carrier in the US that's fully unionized, which I like, but that can't be the way these companies jockey for customers. Is getting exclusive phones really persuasive to you guys, enough so that you'd switch providers? And what, if anything, is it that you like about your current provider?
There's no consensus about which carrier is the best, but there's plenty of discussion about which ones *aren't* the best, particularly Sprint. I've been with Sprint for four and a half years now and I guess I just don't understand what the cell phone experience is supposed to be. Other than the state of Nebraska, where Sprint, it seems, believes people are still using the String-and-Can network of communication, the only place I have had with coverage is in my old apartment. I don't know what it was about that place (I lived in a room in a very old house), but the second I stepped outside I got full coverage, so it wasn't that Sprint was bad in that area. My old phone (recently replaced with a shiny *new* phone) didn't do text messaging so well, but I was, and still am, able to get on regular internet pages while folks on other networks don't seem to be able to.
I don't know, is there something I'm missing? Some piece of the cell phone experience that I'm not missing because I don't realize I should be having it?
I did just read that Cingular is the only carrier in the US that's fully unionized, which I like, but that can't be the way these companies jockey for customers. Is getting exclusive phones really persuasive to you guys, enough so that you'd switch providers? And what, if anything, is it that you like about your current provider?
January 09, 2007
I've Said It Before...
And I'll say it again, I love Apple products, it's just that damn Mac attitude that makes me cringe. Still, it's hard not to drool at the new iPhone (scroll down a ways). Seriously, that thing's awesome. Hopefully they'll release a version for Sprint eventually so I can get one. Hopefully by then the phones will have more memory. 8 gigs is plenty for a randomized music playlist, but if we start talking about video I'd like to have a bit more room to play with.
January 08, 2007
For The Word Nerds
After hitting up the Dictionary.com Word of the Day pretty much every day for the last few years, I finally signed up for the email list a few months ago. Now i get new words every day! But if that's not enough lexico-nerdacity for you, check out A Word A Day for even more words! Now I get two word related emails per day!
Update: Strangely enough, not ten minutes after posting this I ended up here.
Update: Strangely enough, not ten minutes after posting this I ended up here.
January 07, 2007
You, Tube!
It's a Wonderful Life: The Undirector's Cut
The Simpsons UK Christmas Greeting
Drumming in various rooms of an apartment. Pretty cool.
The Simpsons UK Christmas Greeting
Drumming in various rooms of an apartment. Pretty cool.
Go Birds! Cah-Caaawwww!!!!
Well Seattle sqeaked out a win last night. Well, really, Dallas squeaked out a loss, but we'll take it. Later today Philly takes on the Giants. I'm hoping for an Eagles/Seahawks conference championship, so let's go birds!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)