I'm not normally one to pile on good causes that do stupid things. Well. Wait. Yes I am. And really, I should stop making fun of cancer-related subjects. But really this registration form is one of the worst designed forms I've ever seen.
I'm not unfamiliar with marketing forms and surveys and registration forms. Part of my Masters work was in Marketing Analysis and I worked for many years as a web designer writing registration forms and surveys. I even wrote an automated survey generator - just type in some questions and answers, click a few buttons and instantly formatted survey or test with full grading and analysis. Anyway, the point is - I've seen a lot of forms and I understand how to make them correctly; or at least not incorrectly.
Some brief information about this form. It's a registration form to help volunteer for the American Cancer Society Run/Walk in Madison, WI the weekend of 4/8. I wanted to volunteer to help out with the run/walk. Not really sure what they'll need me to do, but I'm always happy to help. So, you go their main site and then you click on "volunteer registration" and you are presented with a form.
The first question (statement) is: "I am a cancer survivor" then a yes/no. OK, not a bad way to start - I can understand that they will likely give priority to cancer survivors since they ARE the American Cancer Society. If they have to choose between me (not a cancer survivor) and someone else that is a cancer survivor, they'd rather have the other guy. Fair enough. But I've had family members with cancer, it's not like I am unfamiliar with the issues. But, again, not a bad way to start - I understand it, and it's not required. I click 'no' and move on.
The second question (statement) is: "Select the Race with which you most closely identify." I half expect to see "5K run" and "5K walk" as the options. But no, the options are (in order): African-American/Black; American-Indian/Alaskan Native; Asian; Caucasian/White; Hispanic/Latino; Pacific Islander; Other. Leaving the options themselves alone, WHAT THE FUCK!? Why does this matter? I'm fucking volunteering to help you out. What do YOU care if I'm black, white, or asian? The only conclusion I can come to is that they want to find out who are the minorities so they can make sure they get them where the cameras are and/or that it's some sort of 'affirmative action' question. As if for VOLUNTEERING they are going to give preference to one race over another. Also interesting is the phrasing of the question: "which race do you most closly identify." What do you mean "identify?" Don't you want to know what race I AM? I may not identify with my own race. If I grew up among those of a different race, I may more closely identify with that race. They are my 'culture' and 'family' so to speak despite the fact that I am not, genetically, one of them. Clearly, they are ashamed to be asking the question because they are trying to be delicate about the phrasing. But why ask the question at all? What purpose does the question serve? Luckily it's not required, so I move on.
It doesn't get better with the third question: I have read and agree to the Terms and Conditions outlined above. This one's required and there is only one option: "yes." But, if you look at the form carefully you will notice something is missing. Yes, that's right - THERE ARE NO TERMS AND CONDITIONS! Not even a LINK to terms and conditions. What am I clicking 'yes' to? In virtually every other instance I would stop filling out this form right here. There's no way in HELL I'm going to click 'yes' to terms that I are not only presented RIGHT UP FRONT, but terms that I can't even discover from the page that I am agreeing to them on. I've been told that the terms are actually on the "participant's registration" but there is nothing on THIS FORM to indicate that. I reluctantly click "yes" because, really, how bad can the 'terms' actually be? Plus, I'm an attorney, and I know that I can't be held responsible for terms that I've never been given notice of. (let's set aside for the moment the fact that I have submitted a position paper to the American Bar Association that suggests that users have a duty to discover terms that they know exist, even if there is no notice of where exactly the terms are, and failure to discover the terms is not a defense to them)
The next question is: If eligible, I waive my incentive prize. What? What incentive prize? There is nothing here about incentive prizes. Why would I waive it? How do I get it? What is it? Well, there's no way in hell I'm going to waive a prize that may be rightly mine, so I leave this one blank.
Then they get into the name/address information. But they never ask me what I want to volunteer to do! I know that run/walks need a lot of people to a lot of different things. I've participated in many; I've volunteered for them once or twice. It is entirely possible that my EXPERTISE IN RUNNING AN EVENT MIGHT BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT FUCKING RACE I AM! But, alas, they will never know if I am the greatest timer of all time. Because I will be put into the hat and when they draw out names I may be put at a drink station.
Unless of course, they prefer to use a cancer survivor or a minority for that position.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Friday, March 10, 2006
Network Neutrality and Paying for the Intertron
A little background for those non-techies who stumble across this mess. Once upon a time in a land not so far away some really geeky dudes in the military wanted a way to communicate with each other in case phone lines went out. Telegraph was one option, but, being geeks, they wanted to invent something entirely new. They worked for an entity called "DARPA" (Defense something something something). The thing they created would be what we currently think of as some weird hybrid between IM and e-mail; sort of like SMS over phone lines. But, it was taking too much time and there was parallel work going on over at MIT and on the west coast at Stanford, so they turned over their research and, more importantly, the physical wires, to the public domain and asked the university folks to do it for them. The university folks were interested in a slightly different application - they wanted to not only talk to each other, but to share documents with each other online. What they realized is that the wires were good for not only sharing these IMs, but also for sharing documents. The only real difference was the language that the computers at each end used to talk to each other. But both messages could travel on the same wires at the same time because the network itself was neutral. In other words, neither the wires themselves, nor the intermediate connecting points, contained any preference for whether the thing they were transferring was an IM or a document. It was all data.
This is important because later more and more types of data made their way on to this thing that came to be called the internet. But the physical network didn't care. So long as it traveled in bits and packets, the network could care less what it was. Some time in the late 90s or so, the sheer amount traffic on these networks required more lines be laid. Since telcos and cable companies were already laying line, it made sense to use their lines. But the lines themselves are not fundamentally different, they still just carry bits and packets around the country without any regard or preference for what is contained in them.
Now, though, these 'private' lines far outnumber the 'public' lines. And the telcos have all established their own little gateways to get on to the internet (called ISPs). Many of them have very lucrative contracts with content providers (Time Warner, Disney, etc.) and most have, or are looking to establish, their own marketplaces for this content. They have realized that companies like Google (not an ISP) provide a very profitable service - they serve up content (of all types) and get paid for it.
Enter the argument. The telcos/cable companies basic argument is this: Google accounts for the vast majority of traffic on our wires, and if we add our traffic to their traffic we'll need to eventually put in more wires, so Google should pay us for this traffic. But the problem is even slightly more nefarious than that. What, say, AT&T has noticed is that Google and Skype and YouTube and others are doing is essentially competing with AT&T. AT&T offers phone and voip (Skype) and television (Google Video and YouTube) and they think that these others are essentially getting a 'free ride' on their lines for their competing services. So, their (AT&T and other telcos/cables) solution is this: let's charge Google and Skype and others for using our lines for these services. Now, their argument is even a little more nuanced than that - because to deny them outright unless they pay would be illegal. So, they are saying "we will provide a base level of service, but if you want to transfer enough packets for a high quality service, you'll have to pay us."
And that, my friends, is a problem. First of all it's a fallacy. They are already being paid for the traffic. When you and I pay for our ISP service - we are paying them for access to these exact kinds of services. It's not my fault that they charge me the same amount of money whether I use it strictly for email (a low-bandwidth use) or for video (a high-bandwidth use). But, the very essence of the internet is that it remain open to any and all types of uses. Because the next step is that only AT&T will allow video, only Comcast will allow voip, you get the idea. And then the net is divided up into these little areas that are controlled by the telcos and cables. Only those transfer mechanisms and protocols that they deign to be permitted will be allowed on the internet, and improvement and technological advance are rendered null because it is controlled by those that hold the right to allow it to travel over the wires in the first place.
So, what are the options? I'm a free-market kind of guy. I think that if the telcos and cables provide the wires and charge for access, that's fine, they have every right to do that. But they shouldn't able to control what gets on to the internet or how it is used. In my opinion, the best solutions is a 'usage' billing system - that way, those that use the 'high-bandwidth' applications pay more. This is, to me, a reasonable solution. If use the internet to watch TV and download movies and music and stream audio, I am using up a lot of band-width. If enough of us do this more lines will have to be laid. Telcos/cables should not have to be in a position where they do this gratis; it's not to be expected of them. So, those of that use more, pay more. We accept this for other utilities: water, gas, electric, etc. If we look at the internet as a utility (which it is because it a public service), then there's no reason to not charge like a utility.
A usage billing system will have one most immediate impact: a drastic decrease in the amount of traffic on the internet. Will it stop? Of course not. People want to use the internet. I will grant that if they had used this system initially, the internet probably would have never grown. But any more it is a necessity. There are things that simply absolutely must be done online. Provided the usage charge is reasonble, bills shouldn't change drastically; particularly because I imagine it will be a "stepped" or "tiered" charge rather than a purely usage fee. Something like: 0-5GB transferred per month = $20; 5GB-30GB $50; 30GB - 100GB $75, etc. Keep in mind that one downloaded movie is about 5GB (so for what most people pay now - about $50/month - they would be able to use the equivalent bandwidth of about 6 movies; quite frankly, I don't know if that's a lot or a little - I know that I currently have 6GB of downloads queued up in Azureus and that's about my normal download activity for a month - although, to be fair, this doesn't include all the back-ground transfers that go on - games I play online, etc. but it seems to me that 30GB is quite a bit of data and 100GB would be transferring my entire media hard-drive in one month; I would think that most people - and most people don't download tons of movies or play tons of video games, etc. - use between 5GB and 30GB of data in an average month). And each month you would just be charged for the amount of bandwidth you used that month. This is similar to the charging for certain applications, but it isn't discriminatory like the other model. It doesn't say "Google, you must pay $X if you want to transfer high quality video" it says to the consumer, "hey, I have no idea what the hell you were doing, but you used a whole lot of bandwidth." And that's a huge difference. As a consumer, I still have choices - I can choose to watch high-quality, or low-quality, I can choose not watch it over the internet at all. But the primary advantage is that it isn't discriminatory.
(An added advantage would be a drastic decrease in piracy; who's going to download libraries of data if they have to pay for it all - of course, it will decrease the amount of 'legal' downloading as well because then you are paying twice for it - admittedly this is a disadvantage, and a fairly big one at that - but I still think the theory is sound, and that this is just something that would be worked out - maybe a 'legal' puchase would act as a credit towards your monthly bill - or, more likely, legal downloads from authorized sources would not 'count' as traffic - though that starts to look less and less like network neutrality - but as long as there were a 'compulsory license' for payment of the bandwidth taken out of the purchase price and the authorizing agency was a third party - maybe the government?? sort of like a 'sales tax' is charged? the 'internet transfer tax' maybe would be collected and authorized by the government and remitted to an ISP fund that is split ratably amongst the ISPs based on number of users? - there shouldn't be too much of a problem? OK, I'll admit, this a pretty tough part of this problem).
I would place one caveat on this: a federal regulation that all houses that have either phone or cable lines must have internet access and that the first GB be free. The internet will have far more potential if every house has access to it. If the house pays for cable or phone, it shouldn't be a problem - it's just another type of data to travel over the line. Hardware developers could build the modems into the products (DSL into phones, Cable into cable boxes or just have the modem as part of the physical house/unit itself, sitting between the outside line and the inside line).
The other option, besides usage-billing, is reverting to government control over the internet. The federal government would buy the lines from the telcos/cables and they would lease it to the municipalities, whatever. I think this is silly, because I think that the free-market can do it itself. But, if private companies can't be responsible about it (and quite frankly, right now there's no reason to think that they can) then it is better off in the hands of the governments where they dole it out as a public utility and ensure that everyone has access.
Anyway. It's just a little rant/essay on why it's important to pay attention to how the telcos/cables are screwing their customers behind their backs. Luckily, it has appeared that the vast majority of the public is standing up to the telcos on this issue. Google has publicly said "bugger off we're not going to pay you." And the technology industry in general has made it clear how terrible of an idea eliminating network neutrality is. But, the telcos are insistent on pushing forward with this. And, if a reasonable alternative isn't developed, we will have many 'personal' internets - there will be an AT&T net, a Comcast net, a Sprint net, a Google net, a Microsoft net, etc. And that will be bad for everyone.
This is important because later more and more types of data made their way on to this thing that came to be called the internet. But the physical network didn't care. So long as it traveled in bits and packets, the network could care less what it was. Some time in the late 90s or so, the sheer amount traffic on these networks required more lines be laid. Since telcos and cable companies were already laying line, it made sense to use their lines. But the lines themselves are not fundamentally different, they still just carry bits and packets around the country without any regard or preference for what is contained in them.
Now, though, these 'private' lines far outnumber the 'public' lines. And the telcos have all established their own little gateways to get on to the internet (called ISPs). Many of them have very lucrative contracts with content providers (Time Warner, Disney, etc.) and most have, or are looking to establish, their own marketplaces for this content. They have realized that companies like Google (not an ISP) provide a very profitable service - they serve up content (of all types) and get paid for it.
Enter the argument. The telcos/cable companies basic argument is this: Google accounts for the vast majority of traffic on our wires, and if we add our traffic to their traffic we'll need to eventually put in more wires, so Google should pay us for this traffic. But the problem is even slightly more nefarious than that. What, say, AT&T has noticed is that Google and Skype and YouTube and others are doing is essentially competing with AT&T. AT&T offers phone and voip (Skype) and television (Google Video and YouTube) and they think that these others are essentially getting a 'free ride' on their lines for their competing services. So, their (AT&T and other telcos/cables) solution is this: let's charge Google and Skype and others for using our lines for these services. Now, their argument is even a little more nuanced than that - because to deny them outright unless they pay would be illegal. So, they are saying "we will provide a base level of service, but if you want to transfer enough packets for a high quality service, you'll have to pay us."
And that, my friends, is a problem. First of all it's a fallacy. They are already being paid for the traffic. When you and I pay for our ISP service - we are paying them for access to these exact kinds of services. It's not my fault that they charge me the same amount of money whether I use it strictly for email (a low-bandwidth use) or for video (a high-bandwidth use). But, the very essence of the internet is that it remain open to any and all types of uses. Because the next step is that only AT&T will allow video, only Comcast will allow voip, you get the idea. And then the net is divided up into these little areas that are controlled by the telcos and cables. Only those transfer mechanisms and protocols that they deign to be permitted will be allowed on the internet, and improvement and technological advance are rendered null because it is controlled by those that hold the right to allow it to travel over the wires in the first place.
So, what are the options? I'm a free-market kind of guy. I think that if the telcos and cables provide the wires and charge for access, that's fine, they have every right to do that. But they shouldn't able to control what gets on to the internet or how it is used. In my opinion, the best solutions is a 'usage' billing system - that way, those that use the 'high-bandwidth' applications pay more. This is, to me, a reasonable solution. If use the internet to watch TV and download movies and music and stream audio, I am using up a lot of band-width. If enough of us do this more lines will have to be laid. Telcos/cables should not have to be in a position where they do this gratis; it's not to be expected of them. So, those of that use more, pay more. We accept this for other utilities: water, gas, electric, etc. If we look at the internet as a utility (which it is because it a public service), then there's no reason to not charge like a utility.
A usage billing system will have one most immediate impact: a drastic decrease in the amount of traffic on the internet. Will it stop? Of course not. People want to use the internet. I will grant that if they had used this system initially, the internet probably would have never grown. But any more it is a necessity. There are things that simply absolutely must be done online. Provided the usage charge is reasonble, bills shouldn't change drastically; particularly because I imagine it will be a "stepped" or "tiered" charge rather than a purely usage fee. Something like: 0-5GB transferred per month = $20; 5GB-30GB $50; 30GB - 100GB $75, etc. Keep in mind that one downloaded movie is about 5GB (so for what most people pay now - about $50/month - they would be able to use the equivalent bandwidth of about 6 movies; quite frankly, I don't know if that's a lot or a little - I know that I currently have 6GB of downloads queued up in Azureus and that's about my normal download activity for a month - although, to be fair, this doesn't include all the back-ground transfers that go on - games I play online, etc. but it seems to me that 30GB is quite a bit of data and 100GB would be transferring my entire media hard-drive in one month; I would think that most people - and most people don't download tons of movies or play tons of video games, etc. - use between 5GB and 30GB of data in an average month). And each month you would just be charged for the amount of bandwidth you used that month. This is similar to the charging for certain applications, but it isn't discriminatory like the other model. It doesn't say "Google, you must pay $X if you want to transfer high quality video" it says to the consumer, "hey, I have no idea what the hell you were doing, but you used a whole lot of bandwidth." And that's a huge difference. As a consumer, I still have choices - I can choose to watch high-quality, or low-quality, I can choose not watch it over the internet at all. But the primary advantage is that it isn't discriminatory.
(An added advantage would be a drastic decrease in piracy; who's going to download libraries of data if they have to pay for it all - of course, it will decrease the amount of 'legal' downloading as well because then you are paying twice for it - admittedly this is a disadvantage, and a fairly big one at that - but I still think the theory is sound, and that this is just something that would be worked out - maybe a 'legal' puchase would act as a credit towards your monthly bill - or, more likely, legal downloads from authorized sources would not 'count' as traffic - though that starts to look less and less like network neutrality - but as long as there were a 'compulsory license' for payment of the bandwidth taken out of the purchase price and the authorizing agency was a third party - maybe the government?? sort of like a 'sales tax' is charged? the 'internet transfer tax' maybe would be collected and authorized by the government and remitted to an ISP fund that is split ratably amongst the ISPs based on number of users? - there shouldn't be too much of a problem? OK, I'll admit, this a pretty tough part of this problem).
I would place one caveat on this: a federal regulation that all houses that have either phone or cable lines must have internet access and that the first GB be free. The internet will have far more potential if every house has access to it. If the house pays for cable or phone, it shouldn't be a problem - it's just another type of data to travel over the line. Hardware developers could build the modems into the products (DSL into phones, Cable into cable boxes or just have the modem as part of the physical house/unit itself, sitting between the outside line and the inside line).
The other option, besides usage-billing, is reverting to government control over the internet. The federal government would buy the lines from the telcos/cables and they would lease it to the municipalities, whatever. I think this is silly, because I think that the free-market can do it itself. But, if private companies can't be responsible about it (and quite frankly, right now there's no reason to think that they can) then it is better off in the hands of the governments where they dole it out as a public utility and ensure that everyone has access.
Anyway. It's just a little rant/essay on why it's important to pay attention to how the telcos/cables are screwing their customers behind their backs. Luckily, it has appeared that the vast majority of the public is standing up to the telcos on this issue. Google has publicly said "bugger off we're not going to pay you." And the technology industry in general has made it clear how terrible of an idea eliminating network neutrality is. But, the telcos are insistent on pushing forward with this. And, if a reasonable alternative isn't developed, we will have many 'personal' internets - there will be an AT&T net, a Comcast net, a Sprint net, a Google net, a Microsoft net, etc. And that will be bad for everyone.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
8th Grade Math Is Easy
I'm pretty sure I knew how to do this in 8th grade, too. In any event - if this is what standardized tests require 8th graders to know, the students have it pretty easy.
I always hear how "hard" the standardized test are. But from the questions I've seen from them, they err on the side of too easy. It's just a shame that students that fail these things blame anyone other than themselves. I can guarantee you that everything on those tests is in every curriculum in the country. The really disappointing thing I've found though is that schools are basing their curriculums around these exams, which seems to me to be dumbing down the curriculum. This is stuff that should be a given to an 8th grader, stuff they learned on the way to learning to other stuff - not what the 8th grader should be striving to learn.
| You Passed 8th Grade Math |
 Congratulations, you got 10/10 correct! |
I always hear how "hard" the standardized test are. But from the questions I've seen from them, they err on the side of too easy. It's just a shame that students that fail these things blame anyone other than themselves. I can guarantee you that everything on those tests is in every curriculum in the country. The really disappointing thing I've found though is that schools are basing their curriculums around these exams, which seems to me to be dumbing down the curriculum. This is stuff that should be a given to an 8th grader, stuff they learned on the way to learning to other stuff - not what the 8th grader should be striving to learn.
Monday, February 27, 2006
The Modern State of the Music Industry
I can't see anyone giving an interview like this any more.
Thurston Moore, Beck, and Mike D - hilarity ensues. My favorite part is when Beck throws his shoe. Unfortunately most of the music is cut out.
I can't think of a single current modern band (released a debut album post-2000) that can compare. The Strokes, maybe; But they're more "drunk" than "goofy." The rap folks all take themselves entirely too seriously to "lower" themselves to some good ol' "fuckin' around in front of the camera because MTV was dumb enough to let us." The Jackass guys (Bam Margera, etc.) would - but a) they aren't musicians, and b) it's what they do for a living.
The beauty of the interview is that there is a sense of sincerity to it, which just makes it weird. It's not people stupid for the sake of being stupid. Well, there's some of that. But it's just 3 guys being goofy in front of the tv, because that's how they've chosen to be that day. I get the feeling in watching the video that Beck answered many other questions that day by throwing a shoe.
Anyway. Amusing. It's about 6.5 minutes of 1994 goodness.
Thurston Moore, Beck, and Mike D - hilarity ensues. My favorite part is when Beck throws his shoe. Unfortunately most of the music is cut out.
I can't think of a single current modern band (released a debut album post-2000) that can compare. The Strokes, maybe; But they're more "drunk" than "goofy." The rap folks all take themselves entirely too seriously to "lower" themselves to some good ol' "fuckin' around in front of the camera because MTV was dumb enough to let us." The Jackass guys (Bam Margera, etc.) would - but a) they aren't musicians, and b) it's what they do for a living.
The beauty of the interview is that there is a sense of sincerity to it, which just makes it weird. It's not people stupid for the sake of being stupid. Well, there's some of that. But it's just 3 guys being goofy in front of the tv, because that's how they've chosen to be that day. I get the feeling in watching the video that Beck answered many other questions that day by throwing a shoe.
Anyway. Amusing. It's about 6.5 minutes of 1994 goodness.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Sectarian Stupidity
Sectarian: of or relating to or characteristic of a sect or sects; "sectarian differences"
Sect: a subdivision of a larger religious group
Prior to yesterday I hadn't heard the word "sectarian" more than 5 times in my entire life. Maybe 5 times. Tops. Between yesterday and today I have heard the word AT LEAST 7 times. NY Times headline, Washington Post headline, NPR yesterday (twice), and NPR this morning (three times! in less than 30 minutes!!!). It's like everyone forgot this word existed and now there is mad dash to see who can use it the most.
Some headlines from around the world:
Iraq Imposes Daytime Curfew to Stem Sectarian Violence (Voice of America)
Curfew in Baghdad after sectarian violence (Telegraph - UK)
Iraq sectarian violence kills 130 (Reuters)
Analysis: Iraq sectarian bloodshed not yet civil war (Middle East Online)
Iraq Imposes Curfew to Stem Sectarian Violence (Update1) (Bloomberg)
SECTARIAN VIOLENCE EXPLODES ACROSS IRAQ (SF Chronicle)
Iraq under curfew to quell sectarian violence (CNN International)
Sectarian Violence in Iraq Limiting US Military Response (ABC News)
Nigerian Muslims flee city as sectarian violence subsides (Irish Examiner)
Nigerian Muslims Flee Sectarian Violence (Washington Post)
Sectarian violence continues in southern Nigerian (Jeruslem Times)
NIGERIA: Dozens dead as sectarian violence continues in southern Nigeria (Reuters)
U.S. Envoy Says Sectarian Violence Threatens Iraq's Future (NY Times)
And the two that started it all:
Sectarian Fury Turns Violent in Wake of Iraq Shrine Blast (NY Times)
Shrine Bombing Sparks Sectarian Violence (Washington Post)
I mean, WTF?!? And speaking of "sectarian violence." I have the sneaking suspicion we are about to witness some here in the good ol' US of A. Apparently the state of South Dakota (is that even still a state??) is going to pass a law that makes performing an abortion a felony. Yes, that's right. Good ol' political antagonism. Apparently pissed off that Tom Daschle got beat out for the Senate seat in South Dakota the Republicans are on the warpath there and are going to piss off the entire country. It's called cutting off your nose to spite your face. But, the Republicans think that now that they have a stacked deck in the Supreme Court they can finally get that damned Roe v. Wade case over-turned. Even if they COULD get Roe v. Wade overturned, how many states would ban abortions? South Dakota? So, the South Dakotans who need abortions sneak over the border into North Dakota. Or Minnesota. Or Wyoming. Or Montana. Or the doctors there perform them and take the risk. Seriously, what purpose do these people think banning an abortion would serve? Congratulations, you have forced someone who doesn't want a kid and probably can't afford the kid to give birth (additional medicare expenses) and raise it (more welfare) in crappy living conditions (low-income, low-literacy). And if they give it up for adoption there's even MORE strain on the state budgets. I'm not saying we should all be out having abortions; it's not like it's fun and games. I'm sure the people who go through with them think about the consequences very, very seriously before doing so. And hopefully they are having them done by competent medical professionals. But now, this ban would prevent competent medical professionals from performing them. And quite frankly, if I were a competent medical professional I wouldn't move to practice in South Dakota. And, as an attorney, knowing there are fewer competent medical professionals in South Dakota, I might just move there - seems like a money-making proposition for me. So, congratulations South Dakota, you've added another social cost to the stupidity - increased medical malpractice costs from suits and increased insurance premiums.
Oh, I guess I'm not the only one to draw the connection.
Sect: a subdivision of a larger religious group
Prior to yesterday I hadn't heard the word "sectarian" more than 5 times in my entire life. Maybe 5 times. Tops. Between yesterday and today I have heard the word AT LEAST 7 times. NY Times headline, Washington Post headline, NPR yesterday (twice), and NPR this morning (three times! in less than 30 minutes!!!). It's like everyone forgot this word existed and now there is mad dash to see who can use it the most.
Some headlines from around the world:
Iraq Imposes Daytime Curfew to Stem Sectarian Violence (Voice of America)
Curfew in Baghdad after sectarian violence (Telegraph - UK)
Iraq sectarian violence kills 130 (Reuters)
Analysis: Iraq sectarian bloodshed not yet civil war (Middle East Online)
Iraq Imposes Curfew to Stem Sectarian Violence (Update1) (Bloomberg)
SECTARIAN VIOLENCE EXPLODES ACROSS IRAQ (SF Chronicle)
Iraq under curfew to quell sectarian violence (CNN International)
Sectarian Violence in Iraq Limiting US Military Response (ABC News)
Nigerian Muslims flee city as sectarian violence subsides (Irish Examiner)
Nigerian Muslims Flee Sectarian Violence (Washington Post)
Sectarian violence continues in southern Nigerian (Jeruslem Times)
NIGERIA: Dozens dead as sectarian violence continues in southern Nigeria (Reuters)
U.S. Envoy Says Sectarian Violence Threatens Iraq's Future (NY Times)
And the two that started it all:
Sectarian Fury Turns Violent in Wake of Iraq Shrine Blast (NY Times)
Shrine Bombing Sparks Sectarian Violence (Washington Post)
I mean, WTF?!? And speaking of "sectarian violence." I have the sneaking suspicion we are about to witness some here in the good ol' US of A. Apparently the state of South Dakota (is that even still a state??) is going to pass a law that makes performing an abortion a felony. Yes, that's right. Good ol' political antagonism. Apparently pissed off that Tom Daschle got beat out for the Senate seat in South Dakota the Republicans are on the warpath there and are going to piss off the entire country. It's called cutting off your nose to spite your face. But, the Republicans think that now that they have a stacked deck in the Supreme Court they can finally get that damned Roe v. Wade case over-turned. Even if they COULD get Roe v. Wade overturned, how many states would ban abortions? South Dakota? So, the South Dakotans who need abortions sneak over the border into North Dakota. Or Minnesota. Or Wyoming. Or Montana. Or the doctors there perform them and take the risk. Seriously, what purpose do these people think banning an abortion would serve? Congratulations, you have forced someone who doesn't want a kid and probably can't afford the kid to give birth (additional medicare expenses) and raise it (more welfare) in crappy living conditions (low-income, low-literacy). And if they give it up for adoption there's even MORE strain on the state budgets. I'm not saying we should all be out having abortions; it's not like it's fun and games. I'm sure the people who go through with them think about the consequences very, very seriously before doing so. And hopefully they are having them done by competent medical professionals. But now, this ban would prevent competent medical professionals from performing them. And quite frankly, if I were a competent medical professional I wouldn't move to practice in South Dakota. And, as an attorney, knowing there are fewer competent medical professionals in South Dakota, I might just move there - seems like a money-making proposition for me. So, congratulations South Dakota, you've added another social cost to the stupidity - increased medical malpractice costs from suits and increased insurance premiums.
Oh, I guess I'm not the only one to draw the connection.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Stop Snitching (backdated)
First off, this post is backdated because I think the one above it is better and I didn't want people to not see that one. So, this story that I'm linking to actually was posted on 2/24/2006. Anyway.
The greatest quote I've read in a long, long time:
"In its a priori dismissal of the "Stop Snitching" campaign, the general public has failed to acknowledge the moral complexity and legitimacy of an anti-snitching position." (emphasis in original)
Whenever I hear about the "stop snitching" stuff, I'm always reminded of grade school bullies. Do I have an "anti-snitching position"? No, not really. I can guarantee that if some jackass guns down a friend of mine while I'm standing 2 feet away I will snitch. So, if you're one of those people that will get upset if I snitch - don't gun down my friends while I'm standing there watching. Bastards.
I can tell you, though, that I do, in fact, recognize the "moral complexity and legitimacy" of the "anti-snitching position." I fully support other people's right not snitch. But, recognize that, at least in my mind, there is a significant difference between not snitching on someone for stealing your lunch and not snitching on someone for SHOOTING you (or someone else).
The greatest quote I've read in a long, long time:
"In its a priori dismissal of the "Stop Snitching" campaign, the general public has failed to acknowledge the moral complexity and legitimacy of an anti-snitching position." (emphasis in original)
Whenever I hear about the "stop snitching" stuff, I'm always reminded of grade school bullies. Do I have an "anti-snitching position"? No, not really. I can guarantee that if some jackass guns down a friend of mine while I'm standing 2 feet away I will snitch. So, if you're one of those people that will get upset if I snitch - don't gun down my friends while I'm standing there watching. Bastards.
I can tell you, though, that I do, in fact, recognize the "moral complexity and legitimacy" of the "anti-snitching position." I fully support other people's right not snitch. But, recognize that, at least in my mind, there is a significant difference between not snitching on someone for stealing your lunch and not snitching on someone for SHOOTING you (or someone else).
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Greed and Loathing in the United States
Verizon
Mobil
Shell
BP
Alaska
Anyway, you get the idea. I can understand the need to make a buck. I can understand the need to satisfy shareholders. I even understand the arguments that "social welfare" isn't exactly compatible with corporate objectives and isn't necessary from a "free market" point of view. The unfortunate problem is that we don't live in a perfect free market. For example, utilities, such as oil, phones, internet service, water, electric, etc. are not "free markets." You and I cannot just start up an electric plant and start competing with ComEd. You and I cannot just start up a telephony company and start competing with AT&T (or SBC or Cingular, or whoever the hell AT&T is these days). You and I cannot just throw down an oil rig and start competing with Mobil, BP and Shell. There are significant barriers to entry to each of the utility markets. Some are practical: high costs of capital, high costs for fixed assets, labor intensive, technical knowledge, etc. Some are regulatory: licensing for operation, licensing for drilling, licensing to dig to lay down fiber, licensing from entities that already have lines down to use their lines, etc.
Unlike Microsoft's "monopoly" which is more the failure of the market to create a competitive product than the doings of any over-arching conspiracy, the utility "oligolopy" creates a bigger threat. The current players spend millions of dollars a year lobbying congress for two things: deregulation and rigorous licensing standards. The reason is obvious, though maybe not intuitive.
Before deregulation of most of the utilities in the 1980s, the government set hard caps on the prices utilities could charge, the markets they were allowed to enter, and the number of them that exist. The companies argued that with de-regulation there would be greater competition and lower prices. (why would the government listen to the companies?? Did they really think that industry was interested in more competition and lower prices?!?) With deregulation, these barriers were removed, they could charge whatever the market would bear. They could buy up whatever markets they wanted. And they could consolidate into a very few large national companies. These companies have no incentive to "compete" against each other. Rather, they have a large incentive to compete with each other. One agrees to lay down the infrastructure, the others agree to lease it from them. The leases ensure that prices have a floor - at a minimum, no company is going to charge less than what they have to pay to lease the line. High physical barriers to entry ensure that start-ups cannot compete. If a start-up manages to get its foot in the door, deregulation ensures that one of the few can buy out the company before any significant threat is realized.
Going hand in hand with that is difficult and laborious licensing procedures. The companies that already exist already have the licenses. Getting one more isn't going to present a problem. On the other hand, a start-up faces the daunting task of getting all them before they even begin. The minutia involved and the local political grumblings practically ensure that no one other than the big players can lay lines without the permission of the entity that's already there.
What all of this means for the consumer is prices that bear no resemblences to "free market" competition. The companies don't compete against for lowest price to attract customers. For the most part the utilities are necessities of daily life - the consumer cannot boycott the high prices. So, the companies have no incentive to keep prices low; it's not like they are going to lose customers. They only have to ensure that they stay within a reasonable distance of their competitors. And it's a leap-frog up the chain instead of down. Company A charges X, Company B charges X.01; while everyone might go to Company A to start, Company B still makes some money (for instance, BP routinely is .01 above its surrounding competition because of its advertising and 'status' as a 'premium' supplier, it's why they spend so much money to keep clean stores and good lighting). Having no incentive to keep prices low, Company A gets greedy, they realize that they can charge X.02. They can do this because Company B has no incentive to keep their price at X.01 - their shareholders demand increasing profits, so they have every incentive to keep up by charging their "loyal customers" (you know, the ones with the Company B "discount" card) X.03. And so on and so forth. And in the meantime, customers have no recourse because they can't not buy the resource.
Oil prices are at an all-time high. Yet the oil companies are making record profits. Cable and Electric prices are all-time highs, yet they are bending truths to wring more money out. And meantime, we, the customers are bending over and taking it because we have no choice.
Mobil
Shell
BP
Alaska
Anyway, you get the idea. I can understand the need to make a buck. I can understand the need to satisfy shareholders. I even understand the arguments that "social welfare" isn't exactly compatible with corporate objectives and isn't necessary from a "free market" point of view. The unfortunate problem is that we don't live in a perfect free market. For example, utilities, such as oil, phones, internet service, water, electric, etc. are not "free markets." You and I cannot just start up an electric plant and start competing with ComEd. You and I cannot just start up a telephony company and start competing with AT&T (or SBC or Cingular, or whoever the hell AT&T is these days). You and I cannot just throw down an oil rig and start competing with Mobil, BP and Shell. There are significant barriers to entry to each of the utility markets. Some are practical: high costs of capital, high costs for fixed assets, labor intensive, technical knowledge, etc. Some are regulatory: licensing for operation, licensing for drilling, licensing to dig to lay down fiber, licensing from entities that already have lines down to use their lines, etc.
Unlike Microsoft's "monopoly" which is more the failure of the market to create a competitive product than the doings of any over-arching conspiracy, the utility "oligolopy" creates a bigger threat. The current players spend millions of dollars a year lobbying congress for two things: deregulation and rigorous licensing standards. The reason is obvious, though maybe not intuitive.
Before deregulation of most of the utilities in the 1980s, the government set hard caps on the prices utilities could charge, the markets they were allowed to enter, and the number of them that exist. The companies argued that with de-regulation there would be greater competition and lower prices. (why would the government listen to the companies?? Did they really think that industry was interested in more competition and lower prices?!?) With deregulation, these barriers were removed, they could charge whatever the market would bear. They could buy up whatever markets they wanted. And they could consolidate into a very few large national companies. These companies have no incentive to "compete" against each other. Rather, they have a large incentive to compete with each other. One agrees to lay down the infrastructure, the others agree to lease it from them. The leases ensure that prices have a floor - at a minimum, no company is going to charge less than what they have to pay to lease the line. High physical barriers to entry ensure that start-ups cannot compete. If a start-up manages to get its foot in the door, deregulation ensures that one of the few can buy out the company before any significant threat is realized.
Going hand in hand with that is difficult and laborious licensing procedures. The companies that already exist already have the licenses. Getting one more isn't going to present a problem. On the other hand, a start-up faces the daunting task of getting all them before they even begin. The minutia involved and the local political grumblings practically ensure that no one other than the big players can lay lines without the permission of the entity that's already there.
What all of this means for the consumer is prices that bear no resemblences to "free market" competition. The companies don't compete against for lowest price to attract customers. For the most part the utilities are necessities of daily life - the consumer cannot boycott the high prices. So, the companies have no incentive to keep prices low; it's not like they are going to lose customers. They only have to ensure that they stay within a reasonable distance of their competitors. And it's a leap-frog up the chain instead of down. Company A charges X, Company B charges X.01; while everyone might go to Company A to start, Company B still makes some money (for instance, BP routinely is .01 above its surrounding competition because of its advertising and 'status' as a 'premium' supplier, it's why they spend so much money to keep clean stores and good lighting). Having no incentive to keep prices low, Company A gets greedy, they realize that they can charge X.02. They can do this because Company B has no incentive to keep their price at X.01 - their shareholders demand increasing profits, so they have every incentive to keep up by charging their "loyal customers" (you know, the ones with the Company B "discount" card) X.03. And so on and so forth. And in the meantime, customers have no recourse because they can't not buy the resource.
Oil prices are at an all-time high. Yet the oil companies are making record profits. Cable and Electric prices are all-time highs, yet they are bending truths to wring more money out. And meantime, we, the customers are bending over and taking it because we have no choice.
Monday, January 23, 2006
A New Blog
Because I have so much free time (that's sarcasm for those of unfamiliar with the concept), I have started another blog. I keep a journal at home of all the books I read, the date I finished them, and I attempt to give them some sort of rating. I'd like to be able to put that online, but this particular blog isn't really an appropriate place for that. So, I've started a different blog called "Frittering and Wasting." To the extent anyone cares, they can see what I do to kill time until I die. For example, the books I read. The music I listen to. The concerts I go to. The movies I watch. You'll notice there are no comments allowed there; it's really just an online place that I'm going to put stuff for myself that I'm interested in remembering (because I have a crappy memory), but that others can read if they choose. I thought about starting a MySpace thing for it, but I don't really like their format, so I chose an open-source project called "Live Journal" instead.
I think it'll make an interesting experiment. Over time, it could make an interesting self-referential guide to my own private culture. I mean, it'll be interesting to see if the music and movies I hear and see are influenced by the books I read, or vice versa. Anyway. You can find it here.
I think it'll make an interesting experiment. Over time, it could make an interesting self-referential guide to my own private culture. I mean, it'll be interesting to see if the music and movies I hear and see are influenced by the books I read, or vice versa. Anyway. You can find it here.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Math
Some interesting (relatively) new technology advances in recent months (or years) have re-defined how people watch, listen to, and want content. It's an a la carte world, baby. The long-play record is dead (that's an 'LP' for you young whippersnappers who never knew what "LP" stood for), as are (so say the pundits) cds, tapes, broadcast television, hell even cable television. The new world is going to be "content on demad" for those of us who want our content the way and when we like it. I don't want to wait until Tuesday nights at 8pm to watch Scrubs, goddammit; it's 2pm on holiday Monday afternoon and I have 4 hours to kill. I want to catch up on all the episodes from this season that I haven't been able to watch because Scrubs runs while my yoga class is going on, and I want to do it all at once right now. Please. Here are my options (more or less): I can wait for a year or so and wait for the shows to come out on DVD; I can wait until my Tuesday night schedule clears up and try to catch them in re-runs; I can pay $37,000 per month for cable so I have access to NBC On-Demand (does this truly exist yet??); or I can head on over to iTunes (though it isn't a "tune" so that really makes about as much sense as shutting down my computer through the "start" button, eh? The Apple apologists will let that one slide though because "everyone knows" what's at iTunes, so a silly misnomer isn't going to kill anyone) and buy each of the videos for $1.99 and watch them on my computer that I've rigged through my TV.
Here's some realistic numbers assuming I've missed 8 shows this year. At iTunes, the math is easy (we'll round up to $2 for ease of computation, those of you who demand accuracy can subtract $.08 at the end in your head); the 8 shows cost me $16. Let's pretend an entire season runs 16 shows, I can purchase the entire season for $32. Or, if I wait a year I can purchase the entire season on 6 DVDs for $45. Or, if I want NBC on-demand (assuming such a beast exists), I can subscribe to basic cable ($11), plus extended digital cable ($50), plus the movie channels ($75, in case you haven't figured it out this is a running total, not the amount added to the prior number), plus the on-demand package ($100) - per month - or $1200 per year. Let's say I really only care about 10 shows (that's being very generous by the way); at a going rate of $2 per show, and $32 for a season, I should be willing to spend $320 per year to watch all of the shows I truly care about. That leaves about $900 more for miscellaneous shows. At $2 per show, that's 450 individual shows, or about 28 other shows that I can pay for for an entire season.
If I have a DVD burner I can burn my downloads to DVD and watch them on my DVD player. More likely I'll save some of the extra $900 because it now seems silly to subscribe to cable at all and buy some extra hard-drive space and just keep the computer attached to the TV.
Now, what I presume will happen is this: in the next few years the media companies (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, etc.) will release shows to iTunes (or whatever) about 1 week after they air on TV. They will only keep them up for a limited time; access to the archives will cost more. We'll also start to see shows that only run on download. But we'll also see PBS get into this game; why? because right now PBS offers their shows for free - if they can get people to pay for them why wouldn't they?? But PBS will likely set their price point at $1 per show (it's a tax-deductible donation, by the way!). Eventually, advertisers will get pissed because no one will watch regular tv any more, so advertisers will start paying the channels to put commercials into the downloads. Someone will invent a technology to skip the commercials (or strip them out).
Anyway, as usual this has gotten afield from what I started as the point of this post: the math isn't nearly as bad as I expected. In fact, $2 per download seems pretty reasonable given current pricing mechanisms. What will ruin iVideo is not the price-point. What will ruin iVideo is the insistence by the content providers of 'locking' the shows with pointless DRM (it will only be hacked within a week of releasing it anyway) so that people can't watch it on whatever display device they choose. Apple will sell video that can only be watched on a video iPod. Sony will only sell video that can be watched on a PSP. Microsoft will only sell video that can be watched using a Windows based device. Etc. Etc. Etc. And content will be exclusive. So, if you want to download both MLB and NFL games you will need both an iPod and a PSP. And who wants to do that?? I want one device that will play everything; pick a format, I don't really care which one, and everyone use that. Or, use your own format, I don't care; but make sure everything available for one is available for all - or at least have conversion software that works "on the fly." But the exclusivity crap is what will kill this technology before it ever gets started.
Why the hell can't I ever seem to stay on topic??
Here's some realistic numbers assuming I've missed 8 shows this year. At iTunes, the math is easy (we'll round up to $2 for ease of computation, those of you who demand accuracy can subtract $.08 at the end in your head); the 8 shows cost me $16. Let's pretend an entire season runs 16 shows, I can purchase the entire season for $32. Or, if I wait a year I can purchase the entire season on 6 DVDs for $45. Or, if I want NBC on-demand (assuming such a beast exists), I can subscribe to basic cable ($11), plus extended digital cable ($50), plus the movie channels ($75, in case you haven't figured it out this is a running total, not the amount added to the prior number), plus the on-demand package ($100) - per month - or $1200 per year. Let's say I really only care about 10 shows (that's being very generous by the way); at a going rate of $2 per show, and $32 for a season, I should be willing to spend $320 per year to watch all of the shows I truly care about. That leaves about $900 more for miscellaneous shows. At $2 per show, that's 450 individual shows, or about 28 other shows that I can pay for for an entire season.
If I have a DVD burner I can burn my downloads to DVD and watch them on my DVD player. More likely I'll save some of the extra $900 because it now seems silly to subscribe to cable at all and buy some extra hard-drive space and just keep the computer attached to the TV.
Now, what I presume will happen is this: in the next few years the media companies (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, etc.) will release shows to iTunes (or whatever) about 1 week after they air on TV. They will only keep them up for a limited time; access to the archives will cost more. We'll also start to see shows that only run on download. But we'll also see PBS get into this game; why? because right now PBS offers their shows for free - if they can get people to pay for them why wouldn't they?? But PBS will likely set their price point at $1 per show (it's a tax-deductible donation, by the way!). Eventually, advertisers will get pissed because no one will watch regular tv any more, so advertisers will start paying the channels to put commercials into the downloads. Someone will invent a technology to skip the commercials (or strip them out).
Anyway, as usual this has gotten afield from what I started as the point of this post: the math isn't nearly as bad as I expected. In fact, $2 per download seems pretty reasonable given current pricing mechanisms. What will ruin iVideo is not the price-point. What will ruin iVideo is the insistence by the content providers of 'locking' the shows with pointless DRM (it will only be hacked within a week of releasing it anyway) so that people can't watch it on whatever display device they choose. Apple will sell video that can only be watched on a video iPod. Sony will only sell video that can be watched on a PSP. Microsoft will only sell video that can be watched using a Windows based device. Etc. Etc. Etc. And content will be exclusive. So, if you want to download both MLB and NFL games you will need both an iPod and a PSP. And who wants to do that?? I want one device that will play everything; pick a format, I don't really care which one, and everyone use that. Or, use your own format, I don't care; but make sure everything available for one is available for all - or at least have conversion software that works "on the fly." But the exclusivity crap is what will kill this technology before it ever gets started.
Why the hell can't I ever seem to stay on topic??
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Miscellaneous Stuff Found Around The Intertron
A conspiracy theory on Chappelle's Show.
One of the most bizarre cartoons ever made.
A fifteen year-old with "impeccable" taste in music.
A lot of games to play on-line.
A(n) hilarious op-ed piece in the NYTimes about a million little lies.
Cingular doesn't have very good customer service.
Blockbuster is waiting to die.
I'm sure there's others. I'll add to this post as I see them.
Edited to add: The funniest blonde joke ever.
One of the most bizarre cartoons ever made.
A fifteen year-old with "impeccable" taste in music.
A lot of games to play on-line.
A(n) hilarious op-ed piece in the NYTimes about a million little lies.
Cingular doesn't have very good customer service.
Blockbuster is waiting to die.
I'm sure there's others. I'll add to this post as I see them.
Edited to add: The funniest blonde joke ever.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Nothing on the tele
It's really interesting not having extended cable. I get about 25 channels. Of those 25 channels, 1 is a tv guide, 3 are shopping, 2 are public access, 2 are C-Span, 1 is TeleMundo, 1 is some weird christian religious channel. That leaves me with 15 channels of progamming to choose from. Of those fifteen channels, there are 2 of each of the major broadcast channels - one from Madison, one from Rockford; so those 8 are really only 4 channels. That leaves me with ABC, CBS, NBC, WB, UPN, WGN, and PBS. And I can tell you, after about 3 months of this great experiment, that broadcast television is some of the worst progamming in the universe. In fact, we watch only a few things: football, CSI (only CSI: Miami because there is really nothing better on - David Caruso is an idiot and the show is poorly written and directed - but more on that later), Charmed (Erin's "guilty pleasure"), Gilmore Girls (yeah, I said it, you gotta problem with it?), Law and Order (only the original), and PBS. That's what 5 shows?
To be honest, there are few other shows that we'll watch if there is absolutely nothing else on and we just don't feel like reading: Commander-in-Chief (Geena Davis is pretty decent, the husband character is a whiny bitch, the kids aren't really that believable, but Donald Sutherland is one of those evil characters you just love to root for), the new Criminal Minds (that show has gotten considerably better since its first episode; thankfully the cast is excellent which more than makes up for the crappy writing and dialogue and the over-use of special effects), Without A Trace (it's getting a little tiresome though), and Ghost Whisperer (sometimes on a Friday night you just get desperate; it is a ridiculous show, but desperate times call for desperate measures). Oh and Everyone Hates Chris - a good goddamn show. Anyway.
So, of those shows, most are on CBS, football is on Fox, a few from the WB, one is ABC, and one is NBC. And I can tell you that without a doubt we (I) have watched more PBS than any of those shows. Newshour is the best news on tv; bar none. Our local PBS station, during their pledge drive, ran a show about this dude out in the middle of freaking Alaska; utterly captivating to watch this guy make a log cabin with his bare hands and tools that he made himself. Nova's had some good stuff lately. They ran some show about some dude who has way too much money and free time who goes on these weird adventures to the middle of nowhere to hunt for orchids; his goal was to find a brand new orchid species he could name after his grandmother - he succeeded but the species he found was pretty weak. They've also show Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder and last weekend was a new Sherlock Holmes.
That's not to mention Austin City Limits, which is probably the best show featuring music found on TV. Check out their upcoming broadcast schedule for 2006: Ryan Adams in January, then in March starts an ubelievable run of Polyphonic Spree/Ozomatli, Wilco/Bright Eyes, Modest Mouse/Guided By Voices, Flaming Lips/The Shins, Trey Anastasio, Jack Johnson, Allison Krause, Etta Freaking James, Ben Folds, The Killers/Spoon, and Franz Ferdinand. I mean come on. Makes me wish I had TiVo with DVD-R functionality.
Anyway. I can say without a doubt in my mind that PBS has the best programming on TV.
In any event, the whole point of the post (I'll bet you wondering when I'd get to it!) - Last night we watched this show hosted by Alan Alda called Scientific American Frontiers. They ran a program on hydrogen as an alternative fuel. Now, it was my pre-conceived notion about this subject that we, as a society, were far from this being a viable option. The conventional wisdom is that hydrogen is dangerous (not true, or at least no more dangerous than conventional gas), that it is expensive (while probably true in true volume measures, not as an efficiency measure; in other words 2 gal of hydrogen is more expensive than 2 gal of petrol, but it is considerably more efficient, so less is needed to do the same amount of work), and that it was hard to get it moved around to stations (turns out you can manufacture it on site, so there is no need to move it!).
There is this ridiculously talented dude in Michigan who appears to have shit figured out. He's an inventor. He makes materials that do really cool things like soak up hydrogen so it can be used in solid, rather than gas form. He also made solar cells that are light and extra-ordinarily efficient; they can be physically damaged and still work, in fact they work even while it is raining. Anyway, watching this show made me mad. I can hear the chorus now: "Why did it make you mad?" Well, it made me mad, because it seems that this dude has it figured out. And if he can figure it out, why can't anyone else figure it out and, more importantly, why aren't we using his shit!?!?! They didn't go into how much his stuff costs to manufacture. But that seems like quibbling to me. If we know how to make it, and this dude can make it with a relatively meager staff of a few people and some elbow-grease, it would seem that the manufacturing minds over at, hmmm, Ford or Chevy, or Dodge, or Toyota, or Honda, or BP, or Exxon, or Phillips, or Sony, or any of the other companies that have figured out how to reduce manufacturing costs of a cd player to under $20/unit, could all put some thought into how to manufacture these things and distribute them so that we don't have to rely on the oil cartel to feed our cars.
In the over 100 years that automobiles have been in existence, they still rely on essentially the same technology that they used when they were first invented: the internal combustion engine. They still use gasoline. They still are horribly inefficient. They are still spewing hundreds, and thousands, and millions of pounds of carbon dioxide into the air. They make cities like Los Angeles, Tokyo, and Seoul unlivable in the summer months.
It seems to me that it would be a relatively simple process to just start putting hydrogen engines into cars. The biggest problem, and I really don't think it would be that big of a problem, is getting hydrogen to gas stations. Will it take some work? Sure. Will it take some money? Sure. Is it sustainable? yep. Is it better for the environment? Yeah. And we introduce products all the time that can't afforded by the lower class (hell, even the upper-middle class). But eventually those products come down in price. Take the DVD player for example: when they first came out they were thousands of dollars; a little over a year ago I bought one for under $90. My point is, there is a demand and a need for the technology. OK, it's too expensive to manufacture in mass quantities sufficient for someone like me to buy it. I can understand that, but make them and sell them to people who can afford them. I guarantee you that if you put a hydrogen engine in a Hummer, someone will buy the damn thing. You want to know why? Because someone will always buy one.
The bigger problems is hydrogen stations. I'll admit, that's a problem way beyond the scope of this blog; I am not smart enough to figure it out. But there are people who are.
I think is the biggest reason to do it is to reduce reliance on Middle East oil. As a country we don't produce anywhere near the amount the amount of oil we use. The simple fact is that if we wish to keep cheap supplies of oil for our country, we can't rely on the whims and bargaining table with OPEC. We have to have the wells for ourselves. So, we have to do things like invade countries that pose a threat to our oil supply and install governments that are more sympathetic so that we can continue to get the oil. Is it a tragedy? Sure, but wars have been started for less. Even more disturbingly it's an endless cycle. Because once Iraq is stabilized and oil prices start to normalize again, OPEC will get greedy and start restricting output to increase prices. Then we'll have to have invade someone else in order to get more oil. Uzbekistan, US calling Uzbekistan. They're a corrupt country that no one knows anything about - and they produce oil. We can invade them for cheap oil. Bonus points because they are next to Afghanistan and have a history of violence against Muslims, so we can invade them and show that we care about religious tolerance in the region. Anyway, my point is that we always need more oil and we'll always have to get it from someone else. And as long as we need to rely on someone else, the someone else can always bend us over; and we can either bend over and take it, or we can do what we always do - kick their ass.
Perhaps I'm overstating the case for hydrogen. Maybe there's something better. The fact is, someone needs to come up with a solution. The pity is that politics will keep it from ever being implemented. But that's another story for another day.
To be honest, there are few other shows that we'll watch if there is absolutely nothing else on and we just don't feel like reading: Commander-in-Chief (Geena Davis is pretty decent, the husband character is a whiny bitch, the kids aren't really that believable, but Donald Sutherland is one of those evil characters you just love to root for), the new Criminal Minds (that show has gotten considerably better since its first episode; thankfully the cast is excellent which more than makes up for the crappy writing and dialogue and the over-use of special effects), Without A Trace (it's getting a little tiresome though), and Ghost Whisperer (sometimes on a Friday night you just get desperate; it is a ridiculous show, but desperate times call for desperate measures). Oh and Everyone Hates Chris - a good goddamn show. Anyway.
So, of those shows, most are on CBS, football is on Fox, a few from the WB, one is ABC, and one is NBC. And I can tell you that without a doubt we (I) have watched more PBS than any of those shows. Newshour is the best news on tv; bar none. Our local PBS station, during their pledge drive, ran a show about this dude out in the middle of freaking Alaska; utterly captivating to watch this guy make a log cabin with his bare hands and tools that he made himself. Nova's had some good stuff lately. They ran some show about some dude who has way too much money and free time who goes on these weird adventures to the middle of nowhere to hunt for orchids; his goal was to find a brand new orchid species he could name after his grandmother - he succeeded but the species he found was pretty weak. They've also show Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder and last weekend was a new Sherlock Holmes.
That's not to mention Austin City Limits, which is probably the best show featuring music found on TV. Check out their upcoming broadcast schedule for 2006: Ryan Adams in January, then in March starts an ubelievable run of Polyphonic Spree/Ozomatli, Wilco/Bright Eyes, Modest Mouse/Guided By Voices, Flaming Lips/The Shins, Trey Anastasio, Jack Johnson, Allison Krause, Etta Freaking James, Ben Folds, The Killers/Spoon, and Franz Ferdinand. I mean come on. Makes me wish I had TiVo with DVD-R functionality.
Anyway. I can say without a doubt in my mind that PBS has the best programming on TV.
In any event, the whole point of the post (I'll bet you wondering when I'd get to it!) - Last night we watched this show hosted by Alan Alda called Scientific American Frontiers. They ran a program on hydrogen as an alternative fuel. Now, it was my pre-conceived notion about this subject that we, as a society, were far from this being a viable option. The conventional wisdom is that hydrogen is dangerous (not true, or at least no more dangerous than conventional gas), that it is expensive (while probably true in true volume measures, not as an efficiency measure; in other words 2 gal of hydrogen is more expensive than 2 gal of petrol, but it is considerably more efficient, so less is needed to do the same amount of work), and that it was hard to get it moved around to stations (turns out you can manufacture it on site, so there is no need to move it!).
There is this ridiculously talented dude in Michigan who appears to have shit figured out. He's an inventor. He makes materials that do really cool things like soak up hydrogen so it can be used in solid, rather than gas form. He also made solar cells that are light and extra-ordinarily efficient; they can be physically damaged and still work, in fact they work even while it is raining. Anyway, watching this show made me mad. I can hear the chorus now: "Why did it make you mad?" Well, it made me mad, because it seems that this dude has it figured out. And if he can figure it out, why can't anyone else figure it out and, more importantly, why aren't we using his shit!?!?! They didn't go into how much his stuff costs to manufacture. But that seems like quibbling to me. If we know how to make it, and this dude can make it with a relatively meager staff of a few people and some elbow-grease, it would seem that the manufacturing minds over at, hmmm, Ford or Chevy, or Dodge, or Toyota, or Honda, or BP, or Exxon, or Phillips, or Sony, or any of the other companies that have figured out how to reduce manufacturing costs of a cd player to under $20/unit, could all put some thought into how to manufacture these things and distribute them so that we don't have to rely on the oil cartel to feed our cars.
In the over 100 years that automobiles have been in existence, they still rely on essentially the same technology that they used when they were first invented: the internal combustion engine. They still use gasoline. They still are horribly inefficient. They are still spewing hundreds, and thousands, and millions of pounds of carbon dioxide into the air. They make cities like Los Angeles, Tokyo, and Seoul unlivable in the summer months.
It seems to me that it would be a relatively simple process to just start putting hydrogen engines into cars. The biggest problem, and I really don't think it would be that big of a problem, is getting hydrogen to gas stations. Will it take some work? Sure. Will it take some money? Sure. Is it sustainable? yep. Is it better for the environment? Yeah. And we introduce products all the time that can't afforded by the lower class (hell, even the upper-middle class). But eventually those products come down in price. Take the DVD player for example: when they first came out they were thousands of dollars; a little over a year ago I bought one for under $90. My point is, there is a demand and a need for the technology. OK, it's too expensive to manufacture in mass quantities sufficient for someone like me to buy it. I can understand that, but make them and sell them to people who can afford them. I guarantee you that if you put a hydrogen engine in a Hummer, someone will buy the damn thing. You want to know why? Because someone will always buy one.
The bigger problems is hydrogen stations. I'll admit, that's a problem way beyond the scope of this blog; I am not smart enough to figure it out. But there are people who are.
I think is the biggest reason to do it is to reduce reliance on Middle East oil. As a country we don't produce anywhere near the amount the amount of oil we use. The simple fact is that if we wish to keep cheap supplies of oil for our country, we can't rely on the whims and bargaining table with OPEC. We have to have the wells for ourselves. So, we have to do things like invade countries that pose a threat to our oil supply and install governments that are more sympathetic so that we can continue to get the oil. Is it a tragedy? Sure, but wars have been started for less. Even more disturbingly it's an endless cycle. Because once Iraq is stabilized and oil prices start to normalize again, OPEC will get greedy and start restricting output to increase prices. Then we'll have to have invade someone else in order to get more oil. Uzbekistan, US calling Uzbekistan. They're a corrupt country that no one knows anything about - and they produce oil. We can invade them for cheap oil. Bonus points because they are next to Afghanistan and have a history of violence against Muslims, so we can invade them and show that we care about religious tolerance in the region. Anyway, my point is that we always need more oil and we'll always have to get it from someone else. And as long as we need to rely on someone else, the someone else can always bend us over; and we can either bend over and take it, or we can do what we always do - kick their ass.
Perhaps I'm overstating the case for hydrogen. Maybe there's something better. The fact is, someone needs to come up with a solution. The pity is that politics will keep it from ever being implemented. But that's another story for another day.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Kicking (and being laughed at)
ESPN article about Mike Vanderjagt with commentary by Mark Schlereth
Maybe it's because I used to play soccer that I feel a bit sad when kickers are denigrated. I don't get it. Really, I don't. They seem to be everyone's favorite whipping-boy until someone needs one to win a game for them. Sort of like lawyers. Everyone wants to laugh and make jokes until they need one. Then they want the one that's just like the one they joke about.
What I find particularly amusing about Schlereth's commentary is his complete recidivism into the comfortable clothing of the football stereotype. And without any shame. "Mike shouldn't walk around pretending that he plays football. Don't intimate to me that you can get out there and bash heads with an opponent like we can." Doesn't play football? Last I checked he wears a uniform. Puts on pads. Puts on a helmet. Gets a check from the Indianapolis Colts every week. In fact, he probably plays football better than Schlereth ever did. And maybe that's why Mark's mad. Vanderjagt is a good kicker. Possibly a great kicker. His salary is probably twice what Schlereth ever made as a guard. And what does that make the offensive lineman who snaps the ball to the kicker? Go ahead Mark, call your compatriot a pussy, I dare you.
And you know what? He may not be able to go out and "bash heads with an opponent" like Mark can, but neither can Peyton Manning and I don't see Schlereth calling Manning a pussy. In fact, every year kickers lead the league and their teams in scoring. Go ahead and tell the Buffalo Bills that the kicker is useless; they lost a Super Bowl because they didn't have one. It's guys like Mark that go out every week and "bash heads" in the trenches. But when the game's on the line with 3 seconds left and the team down by one, who is the focus of attention? Not Mark Schlereth.
Look at a team like the Bears. They've scored, what? 9 touchdowns all season? They've had games (see the Packers game) where they had 4 field goals and won. The kicker's not a "real" football player, eh? So, that's not a "real win" because it wasn't won by a "real" football player?
Football, perhaps more than any other sport is truly a team sport. Look at a team like the Patriots, few standouts, but everyone contributes, including the backups. Including the kicker. They're all out there trying to add one more to the "W" column. The fact is that Vanderjagt wants to win just as badly as Mark Schlereth, or anyone else on his team. There's no reason the kicker can't be a team leader - hell he probably already is the team leader in points scored.
While we're on the subject of football:
The Bears are 9 and 4. All of their losses have come to AFC North teams. They have lost no games in the NFC this year. Weird. Not sure if Kyle Orton will play on Sunday or not. My guess is that he will, but what do I know? If the Bears are going to kick the Rex Grossman tires this year, Atlanta's as good a time as any to do it. It's indoors, so it won't be cold and miserable. A pristine field on which to take the Rex-mobile out for a ride. Of course it's also fake grass. So Grossman will probably be injured with career-threatening turf toe or something and Orton will be back in by half-time anyway. The Bears finally got some decent play out of their Wide Receivers, but the running game seems to have gone to shit. Either than or Ron Turner has gone to shit. It's too early to tell at this point, but I'm not really sure why when it was 10 degrees and snowing the Bears were throwing like they had Joe Montana and Jerry Rice on the field.
Meanwhile, the Vikings, inexplicably, are at 8-5. How the hell did that happen?
The Browns played Cinci surprisingly close! In fact, CBS out in my neck of the woods switched from the Colts trashing to the Browns/Bengals game in the 4th Quarter. It looks like Charlie Frye is the real deal. With a healthy Braylon Edwards and Kellon Winslow, Jr. next year, and with Ruben Droughns in the backfield, the Browns are just one or two players away from being a wild card team.
Maybe it's because I used to play soccer that I feel a bit sad when kickers are denigrated. I don't get it. Really, I don't. They seem to be everyone's favorite whipping-boy until someone needs one to win a game for them. Sort of like lawyers. Everyone wants to laugh and make jokes until they need one. Then they want the one that's just like the one they joke about.
What I find particularly amusing about Schlereth's commentary is his complete recidivism into the comfortable clothing of the football stereotype. And without any shame. "Mike shouldn't walk around pretending that he plays football. Don't intimate to me that you can get out there and bash heads with an opponent like we can." Doesn't play football? Last I checked he wears a uniform. Puts on pads. Puts on a helmet. Gets a check from the Indianapolis Colts every week. In fact, he probably plays football better than Schlereth ever did. And maybe that's why Mark's mad. Vanderjagt is a good kicker. Possibly a great kicker. His salary is probably twice what Schlereth ever made as a guard. And what does that make the offensive lineman who snaps the ball to the kicker? Go ahead Mark, call your compatriot a pussy, I dare you.
And you know what? He may not be able to go out and "bash heads with an opponent" like Mark can, but neither can Peyton Manning and I don't see Schlereth calling Manning a pussy. In fact, every year kickers lead the league and their teams in scoring. Go ahead and tell the Buffalo Bills that the kicker is useless; they lost a Super Bowl because they didn't have one. It's guys like Mark that go out every week and "bash heads" in the trenches. But when the game's on the line with 3 seconds left and the team down by one, who is the focus of attention? Not Mark Schlereth.
Look at a team like the Bears. They've scored, what? 9 touchdowns all season? They've had games (see the Packers game) where they had 4 field goals and won. The kicker's not a "real" football player, eh? So, that's not a "real win" because it wasn't won by a "real" football player?
Football, perhaps more than any other sport is truly a team sport. Look at a team like the Patriots, few standouts, but everyone contributes, including the backups. Including the kicker. They're all out there trying to add one more to the "W" column. The fact is that Vanderjagt wants to win just as badly as Mark Schlereth, or anyone else on his team. There's no reason the kicker can't be a team leader - hell he probably already is the team leader in points scored.
While we're on the subject of football:
The Bears are 9 and 4. All of their losses have come to AFC North teams. They have lost no games in the NFC this year. Weird. Not sure if Kyle Orton will play on Sunday or not. My guess is that he will, but what do I know? If the Bears are going to kick the Rex Grossman tires this year, Atlanta's as good a time as any to do it. It's indoors, so it won't be cold and miserable. A pristine field on which to take the Rex-mobile out for a ride. Of course it's also fake grass. So Grossman will probably be injured with career-threatening turf toe or something and Orton will be back in by half-time anyway. The Bears finally got some decent play out of their Wide Receivers, but the running game seems to have gone to shit. Either than or Ron Turner has gone to shit. It's too early to tell at this point, but I'm not really sure why when it was 10 degrees and snowing the Bears were throwing like they had Joe Montana and Jerry Rice on the field.
Meanwhile, the Vikings, inexplicably, are at 8-5. How the hell did that happen?
The Browns played Cinci surprisingly close! In fact, CBS out in my neck of the woods switched from the Colts trashing to the Browns/Bengals game in the 4th Quarter. It looks like Charlie Frye is the real deal. With a healthy Braylon Edwards and Kellon Winslow, Jr. next year, and with Ruben Droughns in the backfield, the Browns are just one or two players away from being a wild card team.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Movie Magic
I've seen quite a few (for me anyways) movies lately. Here's a quick run-down:
Walk the Line - Simply good. It was a good way to kill an afternoon. Is it the greatest movie of all time? No. Is it the worst? Not by a long shot. Surprisingly, I though Reese Witherspoon was excellent as June Carter Cash; I'm not generally a Reese Witherspoon fan. Joaquin Phoenix was acceptable as JR Cash. I believed him. No, my problems with the movie, such that they were, were primarily with the formulaicness of the whole thing. I had the feeling while watching the movie that I'd seen this whole thing before. I had. It was called Ray (another movie that I thought was over-hyped). I didn't get the feeling at the end of the movie that I really knew Johnny Cash any better than I did before the movie. Another review I had read suggested that after watching the movie, they wondered why they hadn't made the film about June instead, she seemed much more interesting. I would agree with that. It's not that I don't think Johnny Cash is interesting. He is. But you wouldn't know it from this movie. I guess my beef is this: the movie was about Johnny Cash falling in love with June Carter Cash. A fine premise I suppose. But I wanted to see some insight behind his music and there wasn't very much of that. In fact, I would have loved to have seen much more about June writing "Ring of Fire." But we are just treated to a few snippets of her putting it together. Anyway. I make it sound worse than it is. I liked it. It could have been much, much more interesting.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - I'm obsessed. I've seen every installment on opening weekend (a few of them on opening night - although it now occurs to me that I didn't see it on opening weekend this time around - we were going to go see it right after Walk the Line, but when we went into the theater it was CRAMMED so we waited until the next weekend) and I applaud Erin for humoring me (she hasn't read any of the books). It was a good movie. It was my favorite of the books. The only nit to pick is that I remember the Quiddich World Cup being a much bigger part of the first part of the story and there was surprisingly little time devoted to it. I understand why it was cut - the movie is already 2.5 hours long, and the WC didn't really add much to the story; but it was a really fun part of the story nonetheless.
Kinsey - finally got around to seeing it. In fact, I subscribed to NetFlix ($9.99/mo that I can actually afford since I got rid of cable and internet at home) just so I could finally rent it. Anyway. I liked it. His study was interesting and I thought the director/writers did a good job of showing how such an endeavor will inevitably be corrupted by those who can't/don't desire to keep their hands to themselves or their own spouses. My biggest gripe is that the director couldn't seem to figure out a style that he liked and wanted to stick with. At times it looked like a modern movie (which it is), but at others it adopted a faux-50s-newsreel type feel, and other times it adopted the style and language of a play. The director should have stuck with one, any one of them would have been an interesting way to portray this movie; but to jump around just left me shaking my head.
Hotel Rwanda - sort of like Requium For A Dream - I really liked the movie, but I'm not sure I could sit through it again. I felt beaten down afterwards.
Finding Neverland - after Hotel Rwanda we were like "let's watch something fun and uplifting." Ummm...this movie, not really the direction to go for that. While it was most definitely fun in parts, the end of the movie is a bit of a downer. Johnny Depp was fantastic (as usual) but I was left wondering how, after a brief glimpse of JM Barrie's childhood and the ongoing story of his marriage, how exactly he managed to maintain this child-like outlook on life. Of course, there's nothing like precocious, intelligent, essentially good eight-year-olds to bring out the child in even the hardest of hearts; but I'm not sure that's really the answer here because the effect almost seemed the opposite - that Barrie brought out the child in them rather than vice versa. Anyway, again I really liked it.
So, the next few movies on the list are: Motorcycle Diaries, Love Actually, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Good Girl, The Fearless Freaks, Some Like It Hot, Lolita (Kubrik's version), and Frida.
CDs of interest lately:
Camper Van Beethoven: Camper Van Beethoven, New Roman Times
Spoon: Gimme Fiction
Modest Moust - New Lonesome Crowded West
Sigur Ros - ( ), Takk
Walk the Line - Simply good. It was a good way to kill an afternoon. Is it the greatest movie of all time? No. Is it the worst? Not by a long shot. Surprisingly, I though Reese Witherspoon was excellent as June Carter Cash; I'm not generally a Reese Witherspoon fan. Joaquin Phoenix was acceptable as JR Cash. I believed him. No, my problems with the movie, such that they were, were primarily with the formulaicness of the whole thing. I had the feeling while watching the movie that I'd seen this whole thing before. I had. It was called Ray (another movie that I thought was over-hyped). I didn't get the feeling at the end of the movie that I really knew Johnny Cash any better than I did before the movie. Another review I had read suggested that after watching the movie, they wondered why they hadn't made the film about June instead, she seemed much more interesting. I would agree with that. It's not that I don't think Johnny Cash is interesting. He is. But you wouldn't know it from this movie. I guess my beef is this: the movie was about Johnny Cash falling in love with June Carter Cash. A fine premise I suppose. But I wanted to see some insight behind his music and there wasn't very much of that. In fact, I would have loved to have seen much more about June writing "Ring of Fire." But we are just treated to a few snippets of her putting it together. Anyway. I make it sound worse than it is. I liked it. It could have been much, much more interesting.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - I'm obsessed. I've seen every installment on opening weekend (a few of them on opening night - although it now occurs to me that I didn't see it on opening weekend this time around - we were going to go see it right after Walk the Line, but when we went into the theater it was CRAMMED so we waited until the next weekend) and I applaud Erin for humoring me (she hasn't read any of the books). It was a good movie. It was my favorite of the books. The only nit to pick is that I remember the Quiddich World Cup being a much bigger part of the first part of the story and there was surprisingly little time devoted to it. I understand why it was cut - the movie is already 2.5 hours long, and the WC didn't really add much to the story; but it was a really fun part of the story nonetheless.
Kinsey - finally got around to seeing it. In fact, I subscribed to NetFlix ($9.99/mo that I can actually afford since I got rid of cable and internet at home) just so I could finally rent it. Anyway. I liked it. His study was interesting and I thought the director/writers did a good job of showing how such an endeavor will inevitably be corrupted by those who can't/don't desire to keep their hands to themselves or their own spouses. My biggest gripe is that the director couldn't seem to figure out a style that he liked and wanted to stick with. At times it looked like a modern movie (which it is), but at others it adopted a faux-50s-newsreel type feel, and other times it adopted the style and language of a play. The director should have stuck with one, any one of them would have been an interesting way to portray this movie; but to jump around just left me shaking my head.
Hotel Rwanda - sort of like Requium For A Dream - I really liked the movie, but I'm not sure I could sit through it again. I felt beaten down afterwards.
Finding Neverland - after Hotel Rwanda we were like "let's watch something fun and uplifting." Ummm...this movie, not really the direction to go for that. While it was most definitely fun in parts, the end of the movie is a bit of a downer. Johnny Depp was fantastic (as usual) but I was left wondering how, after a brief glimpse of JM Barrie's childhood and the ongoing story of his marriage, how exactly he managed to maintain this child-like outlook on life. Of course, there's nothing like precocious, intelligent, essentially good eight-year-olds to bring out the child in even the hardest of hearts; but I'm not sure that's really the answer here because the effect almost seemed the opposite - that Barrie brought out the child in them rather than vice versa. Anyway, again I really liked it.
So, the next few movies on the list are: Motorcycle Diaries, Love Actually, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Good Girl, The Fearless Freaks, Some Like It Hot, Lolita (Kubrik's version), and Frida.
CDs of interest lately:
Camper Van Beethoven: Camper Van Beethoven, New Roman Times
Spoon: Gimme Fiction
Modest Moust - New Lonesome Crowded West
Sigur Ros - ( ), Takk
Friday, November 18, 2005
It's Copyright Law Week Apparantly
On Wednesday the House Committee on Energy and Commerce held hearings on "Fair Use: Its Effect on Consumers and Industry."
Here's some particularly lovely snippets from this hearing:
Paul Aiken, of the Author's Guild: "The public domain's a fine thing, but it is, and always has been, merely a nice by-product of the copyright system."
James DeLong, IPCentral.info Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF is a non-profit 'think tank' funded by these fine IP Rights holders; to think that their 'research' would be unbiased seems highly dubious at best): "In sum, fair use is a doctrine that has outlived much of its usefulness."
---- (note: Google is one of their supporters, I can't fathom that Google would approve of this statement!!)
Both of these statements show flagrant disregard for the public policy underlying the grants of intellectual property rights in the United States. In the US intellectual property is, as I said, granted, it is not a right inherent to mere creation (if you want that, move to Europe). We, our Founding Fathers, created the grant of intellectual property as an incentive for people to create. We want to encourage people to write novels, so we grant them a copyright in the work they created as an incentive for the creation. The terms and limits of the grant are, in theory, a bargain; for your creation and the betterment and advancement of science we will allow you to control the copying and distribution of your work for x number of years.
Right there we run into the problem with Mr. Aiken's astonishingly ignorant statement that the public domain is a byproduct of the copyright system. First of all, the public domain existed long before the copyright system did. Second, our very principles of copyright are to encourage the creation of works to enhance the public domain. Without the public domain, in the US, there would be no copyright system. We want to encourage people to invent things and disclose the inventions to others so that they can be used for the advancement of technology, so well tolerate temporary monopolies as a sacrifice and incentive for the creation. The argument being that without the granted rights monopoly, there will be no financial reward for creation because as soon as the thing is created, it can be duplicated and leveraged by others for their financial gain, and thus I would have no incentive to invest my own time and effort and intellectual captial into a project that someone else is going to financially benefit from. So, to encourage the expenditure of time, effort and intellectual capital we (the people of the US) grant to the inventor (or the author) a temporary monopoly on distribution, copying (and some other rights granted by the patent laws) so that the author/inventor can have time to reap the benefit of his work. After that temporary monopoly is over, the work falls into the public domain and is free for everyone's use, which is the very reason were incentivizing the creation in the first place!
This is actually one place where I depart from the 'economic theory' school of law (to which I am normally a staunch believer, and which you will notice is 100% entrenched over at the PFF). Economic theory says, the rights should be granted to whomever is able to most use them efficiently; if someone else can use them more efficiently, they can purchase the rights. Therefore, we should not have any limits on the rights (temporal or otherwise). If someone wants to utilize the technology or work, they can license it from the rights-holder; basic principles of supply and demand will dictate the price-point for that license - if there is little demand for the work, the price to license will be low, but if the demand for the work is high, the right-holder should benefit from that work's sustained popularity (this is the argument Disney uses).
But here's the catch. Under our theory of intellectual property - if we hadn't "tolerated" the grant of the monopoly in the first place, the work would have never been created. Now, of course, you can argue that "of course it would have been created, authors don't write because it is economically efficient, they write because they need a creative outlet for their ideas." But that's not really the point; the point is the Constitution provides that "The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." It's very text mandates the existence of the public domain and limitations on the works, all in the name of generating more Writings and Discoveries for the greater good of our society to be available for use by all. In fact, the original "limited Times" were quite limited - Authors got 20 years (renewable for another 20 years) and patent holders got 10 years (I think). A far cry from the life+70 and 20 years, respectively, they get now.
The Times are limited because we want works to fall into the public domain. We want works to be available for use by others to build upon. We want the technology in patents disclosed so that others may analyze and improve upon the inventions. Soon, our country's long line of technological superiority will be over-taken by those with less restrictive rights regimes - by countries where "everything" is in the public domain. We call those countries "pirate nations" now, but in a few years we will be paying the price for our greedy ways.
I haven't even addressed the "fair use" quote; but this is getting long, so I will cut it short like this: it seems to me that if we place temporal limitations on the monopoly in the name of "progress" that if the granted rights get in the way of "progress" or impose into areas protected by copyright or patent laws (for example, neither grants the rights-holder the right to control use) that we should sacrifice the right to the monopoly before we sacrifice the (fair) use of the Writings or Discoveries. So, when we talk about "fair use" we talk about those uses for Writings and Discoveries that, while technically infringements, we allow because either: 1) it is too difficult to monitor (e.g., private, at-home copying); 2) it is so minimal that we, as a society, don't think the rights holder should complain (e.g., book reviews, etc.); 3) it would infringe our other, more important rights (e.g., first amendment right to parody, or commentary, etc.; right to freedom of religion, etc.). These are things that "fair use" protects and I would argue that all of these are still pretty "useful."
Here's some particularly lovely snippets from this hearing:
Paul Aiken, of the Author's Guild: "The public domain's a fine thing, but it is, and always has been, merely a nice by-product of the copyright system."
James DeLong, IPCentral.info Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF is a non-profit 'think tank' funded by these fine IP Rights holders; to think that their 'research' would be unbiased seems highly dubious at best): "In sum, fair use is a doctrine that has outlived much of its usefulness."
---- (note: Google is one of their supporters, I can't fathom that Google would approve of this statement!!)
Both of these statements show flagrant disregard for the public policy underlying the grants of intellectual property rights in the United States. In the US intellectual property is, as I said, granted, it is not a right inherent to mere creation (if you want that, move to Europe). We, our Founding Fathers, created the grant of intellectual property as an incentive for people to create. We want to encourage people to write novels, so we grant them a copyright in the work they created as an incentive for the creation. The terms and limits of the grant are, in theory, a bargain; for your creation and the betterment and advancement of science we will allow you to control the copying and distribution of your work for x number of years.
Right there we run into the problem with Mr. Aiken's astonishingly ignorant statement that the public domain is a byproduct of the copyright system. First of all, the public domain existed long before the copyright system did. Second, our very principles of copyright are to encourage the creation of works to enhance the public domain. Without the public domain, in the US, there would be no copyright system. We want to encourage people to invent things and disclose the inventions to others so that they can be used for the advancement of technology, so well tolerate temporary monopolies as a sacrifice and incentive for the creation. The argument being that without the granted rights monopoly, there will be no financial reward for creation because as soon as the thing is created, it can be duplicated and leveraged by others for their financial gain, and thus I would have no incentive to invest my own time and effort and intellectual captial into a project that someone else is going to financially benefit from. So, to encourage the expenditure of time, effort and intellectual capital we (the people of the US) grant to the inventor (or the author) a temporary monopoly on distribution, copying (and some other rights granted by the patent laws) so that the author/inventor can have time to reap the benefit of his work. After that temporary monopoly is over, the work falls into the public domain and is free for everyone's use, which is the very reason were incentivizing the creation in the first place!
This is actually one place where I depart from the 'economic theory' school of law (to which I am normally a staunch believer, and which you will notice is 100% entrenched over at the PFF). Economic theory says, the rights should be granted to whomever is able to most use them efficiently; if someone else can use them more efficiently, they can purchase the rights. Therefore, we should not have any limits on the rights (temporal or otherwise). If someone wants to utilize the technology or work, they can license it from the rights-holder; basic principles of supply and demand will dictate the price-point for that license - if there is little demand for the work, the price to license will be low, but if the demand for the work is high, the right-holder should benefit from that work's sustained popularity (this is the argument Disney uses).
But here's the catch. Under our theory of intellectual property - if we hadn't "tolerated" the grant of the monopoly in the first place, the work would have never been created. Now, of course, you can argue that "of course it would have been created, authors don't write because it is economically efficient, they write because they need a creative outlet for their ideas." But that's not really the point; the point is the Constitution provides that "The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." It's very text mandates the existence of the public domain and limitations on the works, all in the name of generating more Writings and Discoveries for the greater good of our society to be available for use by all. In fact, the original "limited Times" were quite limited - Authors got 20 years (renewable for another 20 years) and patent holders got 10 years (I think). A far cry from the life+70 and 20 years, respectively, they get now.
The Times are limited because we want works to fall into the public domain. We want works to be available for use by others to build upon. We want the technology in patents disclosed so that others may analyze and improve upon the inventions. Soon, our country's long line of technological superiority will be over-taken by those with less restrictive rights regimes - by countries where "everything" is in the public domain. We call those countries "pirate nations" now, but in a few years we will be paying the price for our greedy ways.
I haven't even addressed the "fair use" quote; but this is getting long, so I will cut it short like this: it seems to me that if we place temporal limitations on the monopoly in the name of "progress" that if the granted rights get in the way of "progress" or impose into areas protected by copyright or patent laws (for example, neither grants the rights-holder the right to control use) that we should sacrifice the right to the monopoly before we sacrifice the (fair) use of the Writings or Discoveries. So, when we talk about "fair use" we talk about those uses for Writings and Discoveries that, while technically infringements, we allow because either: 1) it is too difficult to monitor (e.g., private, at-home copying); 2) it is so minimal that we, as a society, don't think the rights holder should complain (e.g., book reviews, etc.); 3) it would infringe our other, more important rights (e.g., first amendment right to parody, or commentary, etc.; right to freedom of religion, etc.). These are things that "fair use" protects and I would argue that all of these are still pretty "useful."
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Something New and Exciting In The World Of Music
I like it when people think "out of the box" so to speak (thanks to the most excellent TechDirt for calling this to my attention - even though I disagree with Carlo's analysis). What's funny is that it really isn't all that "out of the box." It's more like thinking about music in terms of science or, more specifically, chemistry, or physics (or even I suppose, biology, or genetics) - hmmmm...I guess that pretty much covers all of science - so yeah, think about music in terms of analyzing science. Break down the product into its component parts.
When you buy a CD, you are buying a copyrighted work. Actually you are buying a number of copyrighted works (songs - each of which has multiple copyrighted elements, the music and the lyrics) bundled together into a copyrighted work (a compilation that is a separate copyright) and packaged with some copyrighted artwork on front (and probably on the back and inside the booklet, too). The law traditionally thinks of copyright in terms of "bundles of rights." A "copyright" gives the author the exclusive right to do a number of things for a number of years (life of the author plus 70 years, or 120 years if an anonymous work - or something very similar to that, in any event). The author is given the right to control among other things, copying and distributing. (note: copyright does not cover the right to control "use" that's a right you freely give up when you buy a file from iTunes or some other place that sells DRM'd files; just one way that industry practice and norms are changing substantive laws without all the hassles of actually legislating the changes and putting it up for public opinion. But I digress.)
The proposal linked separates out these component parts and lets you purchase the rights you want. Instead of purchasing a .aac file of Gwen Stefani's "Hollaback Girl" you can just purchase various component parts for "Hollaback Girl" and you can get them in any file type you want. Want the right to distribute, you can buy that; want the right to make copies, you can buy that; want the right to play on your internet radio station, you can buy that; just want the karaoke (non lyrics) version, you can just buy the rights to the music and not buy the rights to the lyrics; want to buy the album art, they're yours for the paying, what type and how big do you want them. If you lose the file, no problem, you own the rights, just go download the filetype you want. In theory it's fantastic idea - pricing at its best - you can buy what you want and only what you want - the more rights you want, the more you pay, but you can get them.
Business-to-business transactions work like this all the time; a business will pay more or less for more or less contractual protection. Presumably consumer transactions don't work like this because of the high transaction costs involved. However, if there is a central rights aggregation and retail center, the transaction costs can be spread out over the entirety of the offerings making the per-piece transaction costs pretty low.
The devil is in the detail, so to speak, and the biggest problems aren't theoretical, but rather practical implementation problems with keeping each component part distinct and preventing tampering such that the consumer can pay for the lowest cost right and still reap the higher reward. The first practical problem I can think of is actually more concerned with the rights that the consumer purchases, what do you do when the copyright term expires?? Contrary to the music industry's (or movie industry's, or Disney's) wishes, copyright is not infinite - it does end. Of course, this is fairly easy to account for because the copyright duration calculation is fairly heuristic and just entering the 'date of authorship' and the type of author (work-for-hire, individual, anonymous, etc.) would make the calculation simple.
More importantly though, how do you discern regular copying (me making a copy for Brian) from backups that are legally protected by the Copyright Act? Of course, the initial argument is: what do you need the backup for? If you lose the file, you own the rights in perpetuity, just go download it again. But there you run into another problem. How do tell if a person has 'lost' the file, or just transferred it to someone else against the terms of the agreement? One answer is hardware authentication - every piece of electronics you own can be 'registered' with your own personal id (perhaps a swipe of your driver's license, or other state or [enter diabolical laugh here] national id) and when you buy the file, you enter your personal id and it will only play on devices that are authenticated with your own personal id; if you buy "copying" or "distribution" rights, you would swipe your own id and the id of the person to whom you are transferring and it will only play on devices registered to that person.
Actually, not a bad idea now that I think of it, except for the obvious "privacy" issues that may be implicated. The hardware registration process would have to be fairly rigorous - though maybe not, because the hardware will only work with files that are registered to you anyway. Hardware registration could work in a whole slew of areas - computer security, home security, cell phone (or even "regular" phone) usage. In some instances the hardware would be 'locked' so that someone who steals the device can't just swipe their own id - maybe a two step process that requires two swipes (one for each person's card in the transaction) to transfer title to physical item.
Well, this got kind of far afield. But, the point I suppose is that I'm not sure we, as a society, are quite there yet in terms of implementing micro-rights-management that would be truly useful instead of just crippling. And, unfortunately, I don't really trust the record companies with it. In fact I'm not really sure who I would trust to implement it properly. I, honestly, think it would be good idea. But, as with anything that involves firmware/software, it would be easily hacked and thus would be rendered impotent anyway.
When you buy a CD, you are buying a copyrighted work. Actually you are buying a number of copyrighted works (songs - each of which has multiple copyrighted elements, the music and the lyrics) bundled together into a copyrighted work (a compilation that is a separate copyright) and packaged with some copyrighted artwork on front (and probably on the back and inside the booklet, too). The law traditionally thinks of copyright in terms of "bundles of rights." A "copyright" gives the author the exclusive right to do a number of things for a number of years (life of the author plus 70 years, or 120 years if an anonymous work - or something very similar to that, in any event). The author is given the right to control among other things, copying and distributing. (note: copyright does not cover the right to control "use" that's a right you freely give up when you buy a file from iTunes or some other place that sells DRM'd files; just one way that industry practice and norms are changing substantive laws without all the hassles of actually legislating the changes and putting it up for public opinion. But I digress.)
The proposal linked separates out these component parts and lets you purchase the rights you want. Instead of purchasing a .aac file of Gwen Stefani's "Hollaback Girl" you can just purchase various component parts for "Hollaback Girl" and you can get them in any file type you want. Want the right to distribute, you can buy that; want the right to make copies, you can buy that; want the right to play on your internet radio station, you can buy that; just want the karaoke (non lyrics) version, you can just buy the rights to the music and not buy the rights to the lyrics; want to buy the album art, they're yours for the paying, what type and how big do you want them. If you lose the file, no problem, you own the rights, just go download the filetype you want. In theory it's fantastic idea - pricing at its best - you can buy what you want and only what you want - the more rights you want, the more you pay, but you can get them.
Business-to-business transactions work like this all the time; a business will pay more or less for more or less contractual protection. Presumably consumer transactions don't work like this because of the high transaction costs involved. However, if there is a central rights aggregation and retail center, the transaction costs can be spread out over the entirety of the offerings making the per-piece transaction costs pretty low.
The devil is in the detail, so to speak, and the biggest problems aren't theoretical, but rather practical implementation problems with keeping each component part distinct and preventing tampering such that the consumer can pay for the lowest cost right and still reap the higher reward. The first practical problem I can think of is actually more concerned with the rights that the consumer purchases, what do you do when the copyright term expires?? Contrary to the music industry's (or movie industry's, or Disney's) wishes, copyright is not infinite - it does end. Of course, this is fairly easy to account for because the copyright duration calculation is fairly heuristic and just entering the 'date of authorship' and the type of author (work-for-hire, individual, anonymous, etc.) would make the calculation simple.
More importantly though, how do you discern regular copying (me making a copy for Brian) from backups that are legally protected by the Copyright Act? Of course, the initial argument is: what do you need the backup for? If you lose the file, you own the rights in perpetuity, just go download it again. But there you run into another problem. How do tell if a person has 'lost' the file, or just transferred it to someone else against the terms of the agreement? One answer is hardware authentication - every piece of electronics you own can be 'registered' with your own personal id (perhaps a swipe of your driver's license, or other state or [enter diabolical laugh here] national id) and when you buy the file, you enter your personal id and it will only play on devices that are authenticated with your own personal id; if you buy "copying" or "distribution" rights, you would swipe your own id and the id of the person to whom you are transferring and it will only play on devices registered to that person.
Actually, not a bad idea now that I think of it, except for the obvious "privacy" issues that may be implicated. The hardware registration process would have to be fairly rigorous - though maybe not, because the hardware will only work with files that are registered to you anyway. Hardware registration could work in a whole slew of areas - computer security, home security, cell phone (or even "regular" phone) usage. In some instances the hardware would be 'locked' so that someone who steals the device can't just swipe their own id - maybe a two step process that requires two swipes (one for each person's card in the transaction) to transfer title to physical item.
Well, this got kind of far afield. But, the point I suppose is that I'm not sure we, as a society, are quite there yet in terms of implementing micro-rights-management that would be truly useful instead of just crippling. And, unfortunately, I don't really trust the record companies with it. In fact I'm not really sure who I would trust to implement it properly. I, honestly, think it would be good idea. But, as with anything that involves firmware/software, it would be easily hacked and thus would be rendered impotent anyway.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Yeah, Yeah, I know ...
... you shouldn't make fun of cancer victims. But goddamn this is one of the funniest/coolest things I've seen in a while. Unfortunately it will make trademarking my iTits a little more difficult; especially if she starts a whole line of "tits" wear. First its TitBits, then TitHolster, then TitBits Plus (new and improved and more comfortable). The next thing you know, she's put two and two together, and come up with iTits and TitTunes. My mindshare for the tit race is slipping.
Maybe we could form a joint venture; I can supply the intellectual property and know how and she can provide the manufacturing labor. I mean, if you're already putting a fake one there anyway, you might as well have one that's functional as well as looks good. Women like to store things in their tits, we could manufacture a TitFolio with a pouch to store cash and keys. Women store kerchiefs in their tits, we could make TitShew, a disposable tissue holder (and renewable - haha, we could lock in our customers with 'specially designed tissue holders' that would only hold the tissues we manufacture!). The iTits would be a natural extension of these developments. In fact, you could have a whole line of Tit electronics - iTits, TitCell, TitBerry, and WiTitFi (a personal wifi receiver with bluetooth that connects to Verizon's nationwide broadband network).
Back to the lab...
Maybe we could form a joint venture; I can supply the intellectual property and know how and she can provide the manufacturing labor. I mean, if you're already putting a fake one there anyway, you might as well have one that's functional as well as looks good. Women like to store things in their tits, we could manufacture a TitFolio with a pouch to store cash and keys. Women store kerchiefs in their tits, we could make TitShew, a disposable tissue holder (and renewable - haha, we could lock in our customers with 'specially designed tissue holders' that would only hold the tissues we manufacture!). The iTits would be a natural extension of these developments. In fact, you could have a whole line of Tit electronics - iTits, TitCell, TitBerry, and WiTitFi (a personal wifi receiver with bluetooth that connects to Verizon's nationwide broadband network).
Back to the lab...
Monday, October 17, 2005
I should patent this idea or something ...
I linked to this as website of the day.
Erin and I were having a bit of spirited discussion about this with all of the requisite "Tune in Tokyo" jokes. But it occurred to me that such devices could revolutionize the strip club as we know it. Just follow with me and save comments until the end.
Imagine this: You enter a strip club in New York or Chicago. Because of the smoking ban, the air is clear and highly oxygenated. The lights are dim, the place is packed with 'gentlemen' crowded around two or three stages each with 3 or 4 girls, all in various stages of de-robement. And, except for the sound of the men's cat-calls and general conversation, the only music to be heard is the soft sounds of a jazz and blues playing over the speakers. You wander to the bar, eyeing the 'wares' and order a drink (a scotch naturally - hey, do I know my readers, or what?) You spot a fine young woman dancing on a stage in the back. You see on her arm the following markings: 103.3. You pull out your Creative Zen, put in your ear bud headphones and tune the FM Radio to that station. The sound of drum and bass comes thumping through your headset and you realize that this girl is dancing to the music coming through your headset. In fact, every girl has a different number on her, and you can tune each of them in and they are all dancing to whatever music they have programmed in to their iTits. One is drum and bass, another gangsta rap, another j-pop, another break-beat, another metal; each one has a customized playlist. After the second song of her three song set you hear a brief pause in the music, then you hear: "Hi, this is Desire. If you like what you see, you may also like Amber, she's on after the next song on stage 2. For an extra $30 I can get her for you and we can make your wildest dreams come true together." Then the music comes back on and she resumes dancing.
It would be a whole new way of looking at strip clubs. And, there would be a whole new revenue within the strip club for advertising through various girls. Just think: you spot a fine blonde swede and between songs you get ads for "Heineken." Or, girls could advertise on other girls. The possibilities are endless, and the audience is guaranteed. Of course the club would get their take. The girls would make more money, the advertisers can target their ads to specific types of guys (come on, we all know the dude who likes the skanky white trash chick, and we all know he drinks PBR and we can probably assume that he would be interested in an ad for handcuffs from "Joe's Pleasure Palace.")
The girls can play whatever music they like; the guys can listen to whatever music they like, and the club can maintain a relaxing atmosphere. No more shouting over music to be heard by the person next to you. The possibilities are endless ...
Erin and I were having a bit of spirited discussion about this with all of the requisite "Tune in Tokyo" jokes. But it occurred to me that such devices could revolutionize the strip club as we know it. Just follow with me and save comments until the end.
Imagine this: You enter a strip club in New York or Chicago. Because of the smoking ban, the air is clear and highly oxygenated. The lights are dim, the place is packed with 'gentlemen' crowded around two or three stages each with 3 or 4 girls, all in various stages of de-robement. And, except for the sound of the men's cat-calls and general conversation, the only music to be heard is the soft sounds of a jazz and blues playing over the speakers. You wander to the bar, eyeing the 'wares' and order a drink (a scotch naturally - hey, do I know my readers, or what?) You spot a fine young woman dancing on a stage in the back. You see on her arm the following markings: 103.3. You pull out your Creative Zen, put in your ear bud headphones and tune the FM Radio to that station. The sound of drum and bass comes thumping through your headset and you realize that this girl is dancing to the music coming through your headset. In fact, every girl has a different number on her, and you can tune each of them in and they are all dancing to whatever music they have programmed in to their iTits. One is drum and bass, another gangsta rap, another j-pop, another break-beat, another metal; each one has a customized playlist. After the second song of her three song set you hear a brief pause in the music, then you hear: "Hi, this is Desire. If you like what you see, you may also like Amber, she's on after the next song on stage 2. For an extra $30 I can get her for you and we can make your wildest dreams come true together." Then the music comes back on and she resumes dancing.
It would be a whole new way of looking at strip clubs. And, there would be a whole new revenue within the strip club for advertising through various girls. Just think: you spot a fine blonde swede and between songs you get ads for "Heineken." Or, girls could advertise on other girls. The possibilities are endless, and the audience is guaranteed. Of course the club would get their take. The girls would make more money, the advertisers can target their ads to specific types of guys (come on, we all know the dude who likes the skanky white trash chick, and we all know he drinks PBR and we can probably assume that he would be interested in an ad for handcuffs from "Joe's Pleasure Palace.")
The girls can play whatever music they like; the guys can listen to whatever music they like, and the club can maintain a relaxing atmosphere. No more shouting over music to be heard by the person next to you. The possibilities are endless ...
Monday, October 10, 2005
Death of a Chicago Institution
I found out today that my favorite show on NPR is no longer broadcasting. The show "Odyssey" hosted by Gretchen Helfrich (intelligence is damn sexy) went off the air on September 30, 2005. Which is rather unfortunate. The format of the show was a round-table discussion of just about anything you can imagine. The show would usually feature 2 or 3 experts (usually college professors because they have nothing better to do anyway) and Ms. Helfrich. The first 30 - 45 minutes was a panel discussion on the topic. The last 15-30 minutes was a call-in period.
What I loved about the show was its topics and its discussion leader. Ms. Helfrich always asked really insightful questions that gave the speaker plenty of opportunity to talk. But she was also a good moderator, keeping the discussion centered on the topic and preventing the speakers from talking over each other. The topics were fascinating. For example, consider the last month they broadcast, hell just look at the last WEEK they broadcast: important movies, internal migration, curiosity, identity and the human face, "the social geography of death." Really, really interesting topics that take the subjects and put them within global, national, and local context. While the show is based out of Chicago, Ms. Helfrich keeps the show from being Chicago-centric.
Anyway. Congratulations on a fantastic 8 year run. Here's a link to their entire archives available online to listen for free. Enjoy!
What I loved about the show was its topics and its discussion leader. Ms. Helfrich always asked really insightful questions that gave the speaker plenty of opportunity to talk. But she was also a good moderator, keeping the discussion centered on the topic and preventing the speakers from talking over each other. The topics were fascinating. For example, consider the last month they broadcast, hell just look at the last WEEK they broadcast: important movies, internal migration, curiosity, identity and the human face, "the social geography of death." Really, really interesting topics that take the subjects and put them within global, national, and local context. While the show is based out of Chicago, Ms. Helfrich keeps the show from being Chicago-centric.
Anyway. Congratulations on a fantastic 8 year run. Here's a link to their entire archives available online to listen for free. Enjoy!
Friday, October 07, 2005
Two Interesting Stories About The First Amendment
First up, Walmart turns a kid in for a picture he took that shows a magazine picture of George Bush with a red pin through its head. Next to the photo the kid's hand is a thumbs down. Walmart called the Secret Service on him. OK, arguably Wal-Mart has a point here - they don't know who took the picture - and it is a federal crime to threaten death on the President. While their reaction seems a little outrageous, it is, arguably, justifiable. Still, makes you think for a second.
However, this one, is not as forgivable. Woman wears a t-shirt with the pictures of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleeza Rice, with the caption "Meet the Fuckers." Fellow passengers complain. Southwest asks her to cover it up. On the trip over she puts hubbie's sweater over it while she sleeps. While sleeping the sweater falls off. Passengers complain again. She was told by Southwest if she gets off the flight they will refund her ticket. She gets off the flight (at a connecting airport). Southwest refuses to refund her money.
Make up your own minds. Obviously there is no "First Amendment" violations. Though as a "common carrier" Southwest may have some First Amendment obligations (common carriers - transportation providers, hotels, etc. - are held to higher standards than regular private corporations). But generally the Bill of Rights only apply to governmental entities. So, private corporations are free to kick you out and do what they like for any reason, so long as: a) it doesn't violate the terms of your contract with them, and b) it's not racially discriminatory. While my usual reaction to something like this would be to boycott Southwest for being bastards (I already boycott Wal-Mart for a whole slew of reasons), I can't really afford to not fly Southwest. However, I will say, that this action on their part will make a significant contribution towards any decision I make regarding flying them in the future. So, what should Southwest have done? Nothing. Told the other passengers to deal with it. I find Ashlee Simpson offensive; so, can I have a 12 year old girl kicked off the flight for having a t-shirt with Ashlee Simpson on it?
However, this one, is not as forgivable. Woman wears a t-shirt with the pictures of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleeza Rice, with the caption "Meet the Fuckers." Fellow passengers complain. Southwest asks her to cover it up. On the trip over she puts hubbie's sweater over it while she sleeps. While sleeping the sweater falls off. Passengers complain again. She was told by Southwest if she gets off the flight they will refund her ticket. She gets off the flight (at a connecting airport). Southwest refuses to refund her money.
Make up your own minds. Obviously there is no "First Amendment" violations. Though as a "common carrier" Southwest may have some First Amendment obligations (common carriers - transportation providers, hotels, etc. - are held to higher standards than regular private corporations). But generally the Bill of Rights only apply to governmental entities. So, private corporations are free to kick you out and do what they like for any reason, so long as: a) it doesn't violate the terms of your contract with them, and b) it's not racially discriminatory. While my usual reaction to something like this would be to boycott Southwest for being bastards (I already boycott Wal-Mart for a whole slew of reasons), I can't really afford to not fly Southwest. However, I will say, that this action on their part will make a significant contribution towards any decision I make regarding flying them in the future. So, what should Southwest have done? Nothing. Told the other passengers to deal with it. I find Ashlee Simpson offensive; so, can I have a 12 year old girl kicked off the flight for having a t-shirt with Ashlee Simpson on it?
More on the Lost Trailers
Let's take a trip in the way back machine. Link to Original Lost Trailers Website. On the right you will find a link to one MP3, a little bit down on the left you will see a link that says : The Lost Trailers believe in providing free music downloads for our songs. You can click that for more MP3s. Of course, this statement has proven to be full of shit. They believe in providing free music downloads until their record label tells them that they aren't allowed to believe in such things anymore.
You can also go here for more MP3s.
This is their Journal from the first show that Brian and I witnessed. A phenomenal opening set for Virginia Coalition. They played maybe 5 or 6 songs and just tore the House of Blues up. VACO was a huge disappointment after that.
This is the Journal for the second show of theirs I saw at the Park West. It was a co-headlining deal with Llama (who??). The set was "blazin" though the fans were a little lackadaisical. Nonetheless, it was a reminder of how great this band can be.
And then, after seeing them open for Pat "Fucking" Green (TEXAS!!! WOO!!), they signed with Universal. After that they played a set at Schuba's which was far better than the crowd deserved. And then a set at the Abbey Pub was the last we in Chicago have seen of them. After that show we were talking to the band and they wondered why we, meaning the fans in the Chicago, didn't do more for them and get them on the radio. But I think they've answered their own question: or at least have always known the answer. If they want to be supported in Chicago you need to do one of two things (for a band like the Trailers): 1) basically set up shop in the city and live there for about 6 months, playing every place in the town that will have you - if you do that, the people will love you for the rest of your life (see Uncle Tupelo); 2) sign with Bloodshot Records. This is a city of loyalty. If you are loyal to the city, it will be loyal right back; if you treat the city as another stop on your way to Texas, or New York, or Boston, they may hold the door open for you on your way out (but only if you're any good).
They've gone from this to this. Congrats guys. It's interesting to watch a band grow up. I saw these guys shortly after they formed and they were eager to get out and play their music and experiment and try new things with their music and mix genres and styles and have fun. The last time I saw them, they were contentious with the crowd (flipping off a patron who had the nerve not to stand up for their show in front of a 1/4 full bar), their album, while good, was poorly mixed (see prior posts), and they have ignored the United States North of the Mason Dixon line. Now, their next album is going to be on the same record label as Kenny F-ing Chesney. They have been consumed by the Nashville Music Industry. I don't know if that's what they've wanted from day one, but I will say, that I expected more from them. I wish them all the luck in the world, and should they ever deign to grace the windy city (or, God Forbid, Madison, WI or Rockford, IL) with their presence I'll be the first to buy tickets.
You can also go here for more MP3s.
This is their Journal from the first show that Brian and I witnessed. A phenomenal opening set for Virginia Coalition. They played maybe 5 or 6 songs and just tore the House of Blues up. VACO was a huge disappointment after that.
This is the Journal for the second show of theirs I saw at the Park West. It was a co-headlining deal with Llama (who??). The set was "blazin" though the fans were a little lackadaisical. Nonetheless, it was a reminder of how great this band can be.
And then, after seeing them open for Pat "Fucking" Green (TEXAS!!! WOO!!), they signed with Universal. After that they played a set at Schuba's which was far better than the crowd deserved. And then a set at the Abbey Pub was the last we in Chicago have seen of them. After that show we were talking to the band and they wondered why we, meaning the fans in the Chicago, didn't do more for them and get them on the radio. But I think they've answered their own question: or at least have always known the answer. If they want to be supported in Chicago you need to do one of two things (for a band like the Trailers): 1) basically set up shop in the city and live there for about 6 months, playing every place in the town that will have you - if you do that, the people will love you for the rest of your life (see Uncle Tupelo); 2) sign with Bloodshot Records. This is a city of loyalty. If you are loyal to the city, it will be loyal right back; if you treat the city as another stop on your way to Texas, or New York, or Boston, they may hold the door open for you on your way out (but only if you're any good).
They've gone from this to this. Congrats guys. It's interesting to watch a band grow up. I saw these guys shortly after they formed and they were eager to get out and play their music and experiment and try new things with their music and mix genres and styles and have fun. The last time I saw them, they were contentious with the crowd (flipping off a patron who had the nerve not to stand up for their show in front of a 1/4 full bar), their album, while good, was poorly mixed (see prior posts), and they have ignored the United States North of the Mason Dixon line. Now, their next album is going to be on the same record label as Kenny F-ing Chesney. They have been consumed by the Nashville Music Industry. I don't know if that's what they've wanted from day one, but I will say, that I expected more from them. I wish them all the luck in the world, and should they ever deign to grace the windy city (or, God Forbid, Madison, WI or Rockford, IL) with their presence I'll be the first to buy tickets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)