Wednesday, June 06, 2012

Retarded Advertising/Advertisers

"Becoming Fearless About Money", according to Toyota... Start by being born to a well to do family, then go to Cambridge. Graduate, hook up with a guy twice your age (with money- let's not be absurd). Then ditch him after a while and marry another wealthy man who is a Congressman. You can join that cult that the Bagwan Sree Rashneesh runs, but don't give that nutter all the money. Then divorce the Congressman and start a sensationalist blog- since at this point you're not going to be missing any meals. Have other people grow the blog for you, then sell the whole thing. That's how I was going to define "fearless"... How about "become fearless about using our cruise control", Toyota?

Monday, June 20, 2011

Smart and Dumb

Well, it was inevitable I suppose, that in light of Kindle/Nook/iPad/Whatever adoption actual paper books are going to disappear (see: this hysteria). This is ridiculous of course, in the same way that radio never actually went away. I'd yield more ground if the death knoll had been for newspapers, but not books. Here are some reasons why-

* Books don't require anything (with the possible exceptions of literacy and ambient light)

Okay, so the end of the world comes around (next year- right?) and any of us that survive it will be in a new stone age or something. Presuming the survivors aren't dumb ass Philistines or bibliophobes and don't use books as kindling or toilet paper, surviving books will still function. Hell, if kids "learn to read" books survive, they can even teach people how to read. What other technology does as well with autonomous self-instruction? We sent that record on Voyager with Chuck Berry and Louis Armstrong on it, as well as instructions on how to play it, but that's a long shot.

* Books do not derive their value from currency (as in "recentness")

Yes, some do (is anyone interested in "Balloon Boy's autobiography?) but most books are not meant to be an up to the minute source for whatever they cover. Technical publications are probably the worst for this, but on balance books are meant to reflect the spirit of the time in which they were written, and in this way, have a legacy that will be difficult for any electronic resource to match. The fuzzy area here is what to think of Google digitizing old newspapers and books. While I approve of this work, I also regard it as "e-ersatz".

* Books are barely affected by changes in technology.

No, you can't read that. It was written in WordPerfect 1.0 for DOS 3.3 (or whatever) and is on an 8" diskette (yes, I mean 8"- not the johnny-come-lately 5.25" or 3.5" varieties). Maybe it was only ever on Betamax or LaserDisk. We have a problem with other storage media types that are less pronounced with books. Hell, how old are those Dead Sea Scrolls? Fast forward that far again into the future and present them with a book or a ZIP disk. Can you still even buy ZIP disks? Oh, perhaps relatedly, had you heard that the last maker of typewriters was calling it quits? Well, it turns out that there is another company still in the game, but no one makes a manual (not powered) model anymore. I think I might want to grab an old Underwood, come to think of it...

* Books are remarkably permanent.

Short of fire or flood, a book does a great job of enduring time. Pages will yellow (depending on a number of factors including the acidity of the paper and environmental details) but they still can be read. Do I care if it's a first edition, signed copy? Not really. I collect books on and from World War I, and these are close to 100 years old now, and they can be anywhere from pristine to pieces, but they are all readable.

* Books offer better non-repudiation.

That is to say, that if I publish a book in which I say Margaret Thatcher's feet smell like liver and onions, then I can't as easily distance myself from that later, as I could if it were an online entry. I have seen things disappear online. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. It is harder to make things vanish when they are tangible. This is not the same as accuracy or factuality- I can be fully off the mark with respect to Mrs. Thatcher's podiatric aroma, even willfully lie- but that's a problem that transcends the medium.

So, okay- some loose loony is hoarding books in shipping containers. That's as good a hobby as most. Of course, if instead of shrink wrapping them and storing them away, they were circulated and people were encourage to read them, it might lead to, oh- I don't know... Enlightenment? Knowledge? Critical thinking?

No- I'm just bullshitting. There's no chance of that. I say seal them up and leave them in a cave for the next dominant species on this rock. I bet they'd really get a laugh out of Glenn Beck's book.

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Troll Badges?

This is an interesting trend.

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Today's Adventure...

Thursday, May 13, 2010

iPad Considerations

So I've recently re-subscribe to Wired magazine (seriously? $10/year?) and the cover story from a recent issue was this article about the impact of the iPad. I have had some time to observe this hype and get hands on with the device and can say that in one area I am in total agreement with the Wired article. The iPad, for better or for worse, has started a long overdue conversation about the basic relationship we have with computers.

For far too long, the "meatspace" has been dealing with a keyboard, a display, and a mouse-like input device. Even the evolution of portable systems was 25 years ago or more. Since then, what has happened? Refinement, but not re-thinking. As much as I adore my spiffy aluminum/aluminium MacBook Pro, it's the same song and dance as my old Digital Hi-Note Ultra. This willingness to accept the same old crap is also why flying in an airplane today is like a crowded Greyhound bus. No matter what you make of the iPad, kudos to Jobs and company for making waves.

And, on the subject of credit due, let's be sure to point out the blunders that have let Apple walk away with the market lead with out even a challenge (save one, which I'll get to in a moment). Microsoft has been navel gazing with a product code named/called Courier. This could have made it to market possibly before the iPad if Microsoft had any will or direction about what to do with it. No, instead they killed it off after the iPad had sold a swift million units.

Shortly before the iPad popped up, Microsoft showed off Windows 7 based tablets, including a real slick iPad-looking affair made by HP called the Slate. This was supposed to be ready by the end of 2010. Okay, well, that's something I guess. By then the iPad would have probably passed 10 million units, but whatever- at least it'd be an option. Then, as a bit of a surprise, HP bought Palm and killed the Windows 7 based Slate. They now intend to run the Palm OS on the same or similar tablet device and hopefully by the years end. *sigh*

Google, now the subject of considerable Apple bitterness, has announced that they are working with Verizon (and presumably the phone hardware maker HTC) to make a tablet device that will run the Google-spawned, open source phone operating system Android. Humph. By the time this gets to market I'll be trimming my bountiful thatch of ear hair, common to old men. Plus, Verizon is only a few ticks better than AT&T, so this isn't great news from a cost expectation or service perspective.

So with all these "johnny-come-latelies" clamoring to get their "me too!" products to market, what the hell does exist as an option? That's an area with room for debate. For example, would you consider the iPod Touch or the iPhone a competitor to the iPad? I don't, but I can see validity in the idea that these devices are alternatives. Really, only the eBook readers and netbooks cover any of this ground.

Netbooks are certainly not as elegant or polished as the iPad, but then they are capable of more, and are often half or less the price of the iPad. I have a netbook that runs the Mac OS (an MSI Wind) and with that I can do a full 95% of what the iPad can do, and several things it can't. The netbook is limited by battery life (usually 2-3 hours, versus the iPad ~10 hours) and are bulkier with an archaic interface. eBook readers like the Kindle, Nook, and Sony devices cover a different area, and I suspect will remain popular with dedicated book readers. They eschew color screens in favor of a paper-white display that (unlike the iPad) can be read in any lighting including direct sunlight, and they hold a charge for two weeks or so.

These two devices in my view represent the competition for the iPad, and when costs are taken into account, I can see why Apple has been so successful. There is no reason for an eBook reader to cost more than $100, and I expect that price point will happen in short order, and certainly by the holiday season. Hell, these should be loss-leaders for the booksellers who make ~$10 per eBook. Regardless of a serious upheaval in the pricing models used, I think eReaders will survive. Netbooks on the other hand, are in for real trouble. There are some devoted geeks like me that will buy a netbook and tinker with it, but I don't think this is representative of the overall sales that have happened to date. I would be interested in seeing metrics of sales numbers for both of these categories (eBook readers and netbooks) for this year, and my expectation is that the numbers would show that netbooks are the item most hurt by the iPad.

Interestingly, I think the iPad is being purchased by people who are less technically inclined, versus the avid geek types. Look around at the buyers and you'll see what I mean. My mother and wife are way more inclined to use one than I am, and I'm the prototypical "early adopter". To me, this says that the iPad is not finished, or not adequately filling a need. Whatever the reasons that make the die hard techies less enthusiastic about this will probably be addressed in the next revision, and that will be the game changer. Meanwhile the window of time is closing for any would-be iPad killers.


What Next? Windows 7 Tentacle Porn?

Tuesday, March 09, 2010


We haven't had cable TV for over two years now and are getting along nicely without it. Periodically, I'm asked about our home TV setup, because to the casual observer it looks like we're getting something for nothing, and in many respects that's true. It's not all that complicated to wean yourself from the teat of Cable or Satellite providers, but getting it all bits together can seem daunting. See if this helps.

Point One- Metrics and Variables

How much do you pay for TV service? What is that number annually? Is it bigger than $500? How many (non broadcast) channels do you watch? Can you count on your fingers all the shows that you really care about? Jot these answers down, and we'll come back to them. For me, these were the numbers-

Former Monthy Dish Bill: ~$75.00 (basic and HD package on one TV, with no DVR)
Annual cost: ~$900
Channels watched: 4 (Discovery, Comedy Central, History, and ESPN- during football season)
Counting on fingers? Yes

Point Two - Opportunity and Options

Do you live in a metropolitan area big enough to have local network affiliates like ABC, CBS, CW, Fox, NBC, and PBS?

Sorry Havana, North Dakota. Do you know since the digital television cutover, most of these stations are now able to broadcast multiple channels in the same frequency as they used to use for just the one channel? You now see decimal channel numbers, like 4.1 and 4.2, etc. in that all live in the spectrum that used to just be channel 4. Did you also know that these channels are broadcast in HD that is in every way better than what you get from Satellite providers? Huh? Yup. Crazy but true. Satellite providers send you the same shows in the same resolutions (more on this in a sec), but they compress the image to save bandwidth (more on this in two seconds), and loose image quality in the process.

* Explanation one- When you hear the pimply headed salestard at Best Buy say "blah blah blah ten-eighty-pee!" do you know what he's on about?

Well, odds are, he doesn't either, but here goes. Resolution. Huh? "Like megapixels?" you say. More or less, yes. The images are made up of dots of light (okay, don't bust my balls- strictly speaking there are three dots of primary colors that work together to act as one dot of any particular color you need, but that's really looking up the telly's dress). So, you have these "dots" and when bunched up with a gazillion of their friends make up the picture you see. How many dots matters to the picture, and is influenced by the overall dimensions. For example, if I have 10,000 dots, I could arrange them in a grid of 100x100. If that grid is on my phone and is two inches or so, I'm probably looking at a decent screen. Suppose I spread those dots over a one foot square. Bleh. It's a fucking Lite-Brite. With me so far? Great. Now, scale stuff up to the gajillion dot size and say we're looking at a couple of 30" tellys. One has 1,920 dots of light by width, and 1,080 dots by height (being a rectangle and all) and the other has 1,280 across and 720 high- both being 30" screens. The first one will look sharper than the second, because there are more dots of light relative to the overall dimensions. That one is the 1080p and the other one is the 720p. Oh, and the "p" stands for "progressive", and that means that when it draw the image, it starts with row one, then draws row two, and so on. This is as opposed to interlacing (like 1080i and 720i) where these displays draw rows 1, 3, 5, 7 and so on, then come back and draw rows 2, 4, 6, and 8. I don't think you can find interlaced screens anymore, so that's not going to be on the test.

** Explanation two- Bandwidth. It's a nerd term for sure, but it's a big deal. I'll try to keep this simple. Go to McDonalds and grab a straw. Now go to Niagara Falls and try to funnel all that falling water through your McDonalds straw. Frustrating, right? That's not enough bandwidth for the job. It's the same for the satellite folks. They have a limited number of McDonalds straws, and they want to get as much corn-syrupy goodness through it as they can, so they start squeezing things to the extent that they start removing ingredients. Maybe you'll still get tooth decay and empty calories, but you'll know you aren't getting the "good stuff". To a lesser degree this also applies to the wired Cable companies. They have bigger straws, but they still compress. The only uncompressed (or nearly uncompressed) signals you are likely to see are local HD broadcasts, and Blu-ray high definition DVD's.

Point two stroke "i"- The Internet

It's not just for porn, you know? Odds are, you can get most of the things you watch online, and many of those for free. There are occasions (football season) where without Cable or Satellite television you won't see out-of-market games. The NFL is apparently now offering online packages that will stream these too online, but I've not tried the service, and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay them.

(Take a breath)
I'll be shifting gears in a moment to talk about hardware and fancy stuff, so before I do, let me recap- keep in mind how much you are spending, where you live, and what shows you really care about. In all likelihood, you will be able to get everything you are after in an a la carte manner for less money, but to know for sure we have to survey some hardware needs.

Assumptions About Your Telly:

I'm expecting that your telly is at least capable of 720p, but hope that you could support 1080p. I'd also expect that you have at least one free HDMI or DVI input on the telly.



These two are basically the same thing (shape notwithstanding) but the HDMI has audio and video, where DVI just has video.

Optionally, you may have a stereo receiver or home theatre audio system in the same place as the telly, and you may want to run sound through it, in which case you'll need some available input to the receiver. I'm not going to go to deeply here. If you are that much of an audiophile, you'll already know analog from digital inputs.

I'm also expecting that you'll have somewhere you can put an antenna. In fact, let me start from here. Most of the time, the $10 "rabbit ear" antennas are all you need to tune in local off-air digital television, but if you are a bit farther out of town, you may want to invest in one of these outdoor varieties.

I picked up one online for ~$50 because at the time I needed it for my local Fox affiliate. Since then however, they (Fox) have added "repeaters" (other station numbers that broadcast the same thing) that I can tune in with any old bit of foil or wire, so don't rush out and spend on an antenna until you know that you need to. There was a window of time when televisions were being sold without tuners- you couldn't just hook an antenna into them and see something. This practice appeared to end about two years ago, so if your set is of that age have a look first (or ask an 11 year old). If in fact you need an antenna, have a look here first at Antennaweb to see what type you'll need given your area and distances from the transmitters.

Okay, so at this juncture you could hook an antenna to your telly and see what you have locally off-air. That's a good start, but there is still much to do.

In order to have something that compares to Cable or Satellite, you're going to need to [begin the "Poindexter" voice] ENHANCE IT WITH TECHNOLOGY!!!

That means a computer. You could use anything really, but in this capacity, I am endorsing a Mac Mini.

If you are a Windows-only-friend-of-Bill, that's cool. I'm merely saying I think the Mini is the best tool for the job, but you can adjust this general advice to your Windows system of preference if that makes you feel better. Before I get started on the Mini, let me mention a category that has potential but is not quite there:

Close, But No Cigar Department-

XBox 360's, PLayStations, Netflix-enabled Blu-Ray players, and the like. These get pretty close to the mark, but without the ability to access the Internet natively (in a conventional browser), I'm going to disqualify them. Also, the inability to access iTunes is a disqualifier.

The "Media PC" (or Mac, as it were)

I'm using and advocating the bottom-of-the-barrel Mac Mini, which is still a spendy $599 (unless on sale/refurbished). Why? For a variety of reasons, which should become clear as I describe the ways I use this system. For starters, it is very quiet and power efficient. Apple claims it's the most power efficient desktop around, and I expect that's true. 110Watts max, 1.5Watts sleeping, and 20Watts idle- those are very low numbers for a computer. Why does it matter? I leave it on 24/7. That means leaving it on and idle all month (figuring the nation average $0.11/kWh) it costs me $1.58 on the electric bill. I assure you that 99.9% of the Windows machines around will cost you plenty more. Now obviously it's not idle all month, and I plug in an external drive to it as well, but you get my point. Additionally, it's VERY quiet. I don't know why Windows users aren't more demanding about noise, but that is the hallmark of a Microsoft system. Enough fans to get liftoff. Listen to an XBox 360 some time. You can hear mine outside the room. For watching telly, this background noise issue is significant. Also, depending on the version of Mini, it has a digital output that is easily adapted to HDMI or DVI.

Other than a keyboard and mouse (which thanks to remote access seldom get touched), the only things plugged into the Mini are an external 1TB disk drive and an Elgato EyeTV Hybrid:

That is a digital TV tuner for the computer. One end is a coaxial cable jack (where you'd plug in your antenna) and the other is a USB plug. At a little over $100, it turns the Mini into a DVR and supports full 1080p HD resolutions. That means I can record off-air stuff at a quality that is akin to Blu-Ray. I'll admit that I'm not wild about the software that is the "TV Guide" role- it's pretty awful, but the TV tuning software is solid. I can rewind live broadcasts and all that fancy stuff too. Now, you may be wondering why I need this, and in the strictest sense, I don't. My telly has a tuner built in, and I could watch off-air broadcasts that way, but by having this little guy, I can record, rewind, schedule, etc. Plus, I don't have to change interfaces when I want to watch the off-air instead of all the other things I might watch.

The Mini also is an "upsampling" DVD player. This means that it tries to make the images of all my existing regular DVD's look better on the larger screen by adding data to the image. There are mathematical algorithms for this that take the known signal and stretch it out a bit and work to fill in the gaps. Yes, that's an oversimplification, but the idea is that the DVD player included with the Mini is as good as you are likely to find short of some HD standard like HD-DVD (which was abandoned like Betamax) and Blu-Ray.

I put the Mini on my home Internet connection, an that allows me to use iTunes to buy shows. A lot of shows. Only the ones I'm interested in, and I get to own them. I keep them on that external hard drive (which is backed up elsewhere) and can watch whatever I like whenever I want. The HD downloads from iTunes are not Blu-Ray quality, but they are better than DVD. The pricing for shows still seems high for shows that I want to see but not keep, but it's still a fair value when compared to what a box set of DVD's would cost.

"But hey- wait a minute- what if I want to burn these shows to DVD and/or share them? Isn't there copy-protection DRM crap on those?"

Why yes, Redbeard, there are measures designed to keep you from piracy, and while I won't for a moment pretend that the copyright laws are defendable, I also won't tell you how to get past this. I will only say that it is possible and pretty easy to do.

Next up is If you don't know this one already, it's a site that streams a lot of television programming over the web with considerably fewer commercials than what you see on Cable, Satellite, or off-air. The video quality is not as good as iTunes, but it is watchable, and unlike iTunes, you need not download something before you watch it. There are some networks that also stream shows online in a similar manner, like Comedy Central and Fox. These resources are free and cover much of what you pay for with Cable/Satellite.

In the legally grey area, there are ways in which you can download television shows that are of a good resolution and commercial free online. These appear to be from other people with computer attached tellys that have recorded these shows and shared them online. I don't know the likelihood of my getting sued for downloading some off-air show that I forgot to record or missed from some other person online (like Fringe on Fox- one my only passions), but this again is where the ugly specter of copyright law rushes in to screw everything up. Let's just leave it at this- there are ways to download shows (maybe every show you care about) for free. Is that scrupulous? Doubtful. But then, NO ONE in the television industry has scruples. When in Rome, bugger the mangy bastards.

I reconcile my inclination toward a life of crime by paying for Netflix, which also has a very good and commercial free streaming service. I have the three DVD plan and that's >$20/month. The library of shows is big enough that I'm never at a loss for something of interest, and getting disks in the mail is a nice thing too.

So let me recap the viewing options-

Off-air programming- ABC (x2), CBS (x2), CW, Fox (x2), NBC (x2), PBS (x3, but one is EspaƱol), and like 5 more independent networks that never seem to have anything I want to see, though the Asian one is a trip when I've been drinking.

DVD's- I have hundreds, and Netflix sends more.

iTunes- Lots of shows to buy from a long list of cable networks. - Lots of shows to watch free online from a list of networks

(optional for an added cost) Netflix- Tons of DVD's delivered and a good number of streaming commercial free choices

Piracy- enough said.

The Numbers-

Monthly recurring cost- >$20 (for the Netflix- and other plans cost less)
* I don't include the negligible iTunes spending, since it would otherwise go to DVD sets.

One time hardware costs- $725 (the Mini and the EyeTV)

Two year total under this model- >$1205

Two year total previously- ~$1800.

Savings (in the first two years) >$595

And the real benefit is that even two years old, the Mini is still serviceable and going strong. December 2010 will be three years and that will only help my overall savings. The real barrier of entry financially was the cost of the Mac Mini, and if you can reduce that (or already have one) than the number become even more advantageous. Plus, I don't have to give a penny to goddamn Comcast- a company so shitty they had to change their name. Plus, being able to have a computer in the house with a nice 46" screen is a blast.


Clearly, one size cannot fit all, but I think most people would benefit from this topology. When I speak of this to others, they so far have been unable to name one thing that they care about (save for out of market live sports) that this doesn't deliver. If I've missed anything, please let me know.

And no- I won't come over and hook it up for you. Well... Not without a bribe of Scotch.

Friday, March 05, 2010

Spanking Wisdom

I like to jerk off to American Apparel ads as much as any man, but here's a tip to their pornographers ad agency:

The boobies are supposed to stick out more than the lower ribs. Somebody get that crazy bitch a sammich, STAT!