- Bilbo and Frodo Baggins had "adventures;" Richard and Kahlan led epic lives.
- The Seeker does not need a compass to guide him.
- Tava bread tastes better than lembas bread.
- Zeddicus Zul Zorander puts Gandalf to shame.
- Gratch could shred Aslan apart before so much as a growl escaped the lion's throat.
- Riding a feisty, independent, red dragon that threatens to eat you all the time is far more thrilling than riding a luck dragon.
- Polgara would never win a beauty contest; Shota would never lose one.
- Harry Potter needs a wand to cast spells; Richard needs only his instinct and anger.
- Who needs Yoda when you have the Wizard's Rules? (Yoda's advice is far less practical.)
- Voldemort is just a wizard gone bad; Emperor Jagang and the Imperial Order is truly evil incarnate.
- Oompa Loompas? Really?
- The Yellow Brick Road is a boring and predetermined path. The Sword of Truth series demonstrates a value of free will and choosing your own path--a far more exciting life to live.
- Sisters of the Dark could incinerate a wicked witch of any cardinal direction before the witch knew what was happening.
- The Force is not immune to being captured by a Mord-Sith.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Why Terry Goodkind Is the Best Author for All Eternity
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
But It's An Error Page!
In truth, I cannot deny that Flash has a place on the internet as a web technology. Lots of cool and useful things can be done with Flash. What bothers me most is (1) it's often abused (think ads), and (2) it's everywhere, even where it doesn't need to be. Take this screen cap that I saved a few minutes ago.
It's an error page. The web server is telling me that something is wrong. WHY THE <expletive> DOES IT NEED FLASH?!? Granted, I didn't thoroughly scour the web page's source to see if it's trying to serve an ad, but regardless of the content trying to be served via Flash it doesn't belong on an error page. In fact, ads don't belong on an error page, either. It's an error page for crying out loud! Don't complicate it!
While I'm griping, I might as well gripe about myself, too. It seems far too often these days I'm finding something about which to gripe. There are so many things that I could let get on my nerves, and I've unfortunately fallen victim to focusing on those things instead of more encouraging or enlightening things. It's my own fault and I take full responsibility for this. What do you do to combat negative thinking and remind yourself about the good things in life?
Monday, April 19, 2010
YouTube Gripes
What's one of the most annoying things about television? Advertising. Radio? Advertising. Hulu.com? Advertising. And now YouTube? That's right... Advertising. It's everywhere, and it makes me want to /wrists.
SOME advertising on the Internet (although very little) is actually done tastefully. In fact, I'm not sure I have a problem with unintrusive advertising. Take GMail, for example, or the Google search engine. Small text ads that don't interfere with the content I'm trying to view. Admittedly, I think they have little effect on me, as I mostly ignore them and hardly ever remember seeing them. But they're there, so the advertisers are happy and the websites posting them are happy.
But YouTube has for some time put ads at the bottom of videos. DIE YOUTUBE!! It's really dumb, because they cover the bottom portion of the video, and to get rid of it I have to click something. I hate it enough to consider not using YouTube, but so far it hasn't gotten to that point (yet). I'm wondering when we'll get to the point where the bandwidth consumed by ads exceeds the bandwidth consumed by spam e-mail. I know we have a long way to go for that, but it wouldn't surprise me if spam actually had a rival in the future...
SOME advertising on the Internet (although very little) is actually done tastefully. In fact, I'm not sure I have a problem with unintrusive advertising. Take GMail, for example, or the Google search engine. Small text ads that don't interfere with the content I'm trying to view. Admittedly, I think they have little effect on me, as I mostly ignore them and hardly ever remember seeing them. But they're there, so the advertisers are happy and the websites posting them are happy.
But YouTube has for some time put ads at the bottom of videos. DIE YOUTUBE!! It's really dumb, because they cover the bottom portion of the video, and to get rid of it I have to click something. I hate it enough to consider not using YouTube, but so far it hasn't gotten to that point (yet). I'm wondering when we'll get to the point where the bandwidth consumed by ads exceeds the bandwidth consumed by spam e-mail. I know we have a long way to go for that, but it wouldn't surprise me if spam actually had a rival in the future...
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Comcast vs Net Neutrality
So apparently Comcast won a court case whereby it was determined that Comcast has the right to restrict internet traffic that traverses their network. There are at least several viewpoints on this, but I'm focusing on two in particular: (1) Comcast is offering the service, owns the equipment providing the service, and has every right to set forth the terms of use for that service. If customers don't like the terms of that service then they can get internet service from another company (if available) or do without. (2) Comcast restricting traffic that traverses their network is censorship. Everyone except the Chinese government knows that censorship is evil.
I can honestly say that I see and understand both viewpoints. Comcast wants to protect their investment and offer adequate levels of service to all their customers. In particular, BitTorrent traffic apparently places an undue stress on their network and hampers the adequacy of service to other customers on their network. The move to block BitTorrent traffic is a protective mechanism. But customers want free reign over what they can do on the public internet. The internet is public and (supposedly) largely unregulated. Paying for access to this public medium entitles people to use it as they wish within the laws of the land set forth by the government. This free reign is unrestrictive and the most desireable scenario. (Like I said, censorship is evil.)
It's a battle between what customers want and what service providers offer. Customers aren't going to do without the service, and if providers are few there isn't much choice for the customer. I see two possible conclusions that I can draw about Comcast. First, Comcast is being a dick to its customer base. It either has a god complex or some underlying motive to extort money from customers through all of this. But I'm usually the type of person to give the benefit of the doubt in most scenarios, and I will do so here. I defer to my second possible conclusion, and that is that Comcast has an inadequate infrastructure to handle the traffic generated by their customers. They've provided more offerings than they can support, and are now restricting their offerings so they can provide service to their too-large customer base.
According to Comcast's SEC filing on February 23, 2010, Comcast had a net income of $3.638 billion in 2009, an increase of 42.8% from 2008. Now with a debt of $29.1 billion I can understand that Comcast might want to spend money paying that off. In fact, they apparently reduced their debt by $3.4 billion in 2009 according to the filing. At the same time I'd like to think an investment of even part of that $3.638 billion net income in infrastructure upgrades would allow for happier, unrestricted customers more willing to give their money to Comcast for internet service. But that's just me.
What do you think?
I can honestly say that I see and understand both viewpoints. Comcast wants to protect their investment and offer adequate levels of service to all their customers. In particular, BitTorrent traffic apparently places an undue stress on their network and hampers the adequacy of service to other customers on their network. The move to block BitTorrent traffic is a protective mechanism. But customers want free reign over what they can do on the public internet. The internet is public and (supposedly) largely unregulated. Paying for access to this public medium entitles people to use it as they wish within the laws of the land set forth by the government. This free reign is unrestrictive and the most desireable scenario. (Like I said, censorship is evil.)
It's a battle between what customers want and what service providers offer. Customers aren't going to do without the service, and if providers are few there isn't much choice for the customer. I see two possible conclusions that I can draw about Comcast. First, Comcast is being a dick to its customer base. It either has a god complex or some underlying motive to extort money from customers through all of this. But I'm usually the type of person to give the benefit of the doubt in most scenarios, and I will do so here. I defer to my second possible conclusion, and that is that Comcast has an inadequate infrastructure to handle the traffic generated by their customers. They've provided more offerings than they can support, and are now restricting their offerings so they can provide service to their too-large customer base.
According to Comcast's SEC filing on February 23, 2010, Comcast had a net income of $3.638 billion in 2009, an increase of 42.8% from 2008. Now with a debt of $29.1 billion I can understand that Comcast might want to spend money paying that off. In fact, they apparently reduced their debt by $3.4 billion in 2009 according to the filing. At the same time I'd like to think an investment of even part of that $3.638 billion net income in infrastructure upgrades would allow for happier, unrestricted customers more willing to give their money to Comcast for internet service. But that's just me.
What do you think?
Friday, March 19, 2010
Search Engines: Evil Business Practices
I saw an article on MSN's web page that interested me, so I started reading it. It's four pages long, but all of the juicy details were links. (i.e. "How does she make that much money? Doing this, she's said." "Doing this" is a link.)
And to what does it link? Bing. It's a link to a Bing search. It appears as though Microsoft is submitting searches to their own search engine with the exact details of what you wanted to know. To get the details of the article one must only look at the URL of the link without clicking it. But what's the point?
I can only imagine it's a numbers and popularity game. If Bing jumped into the number one spot of search engines, it's because everyone who reads MSN articles are reading fluff and clicking links to get the real details. This increases Bing's usage counts artificially which allows Microsoft to claim they're rising in popularity.
If you ask me it's a cheap way to fudge your numbers and shows a lack of integrity when it comes to your business practices. If your search technology doesn't stand up to the competition, let it die. Do well what you CAN do, and leave the rest to someone who can do the other stuff better.
And to what does it link? Bing. It's a link to a Bing search. It appears as though Microsoft is submitting searches to their own search engine with the exact details of what you wanted to know. To get the details of the article one must only look at the URL of the link without clicking it. But what's the point?
I can only imagine it's a numbers and popularity game. If Bing jumped into the number one spot of search engines, it's because everyone who reads MSN articles are reading fluff and clicking links to get the real details. This increases Bing's usage counts artificially which allows Microsoft to claim they're rising in popularity.
If you ask me it's a cheap way to fudge your numbers and shows a lack of integrity when it comes to your business practices. If your search technology doesn't stand up to the competition, let it die. Do well what you CAN do, and leave the rest to someone who can do the other stuff better.
Monday, March 8, 2010
What Would You Do with 48 Cores Contest
AMD has asked, "what would you do with 48 cores?"
http://blogs.amd.com/work/2010/03/03/48-cores-contest/
This is my entry submission. Yes, it is a real submission. Yes, I would be surprised if I won (and probably the recipient of an excessive amount of hate mail).
My entry...
In short I would underutilize them.
Let's be honest: relatively few people or organizations can or would actually use eight or 16 cores to a somewhat full potential, much less 48 of them. Even if I had an idea that might change the world, neither I nor my organization have the capital to realize the technology necessary to use the cores to accomplish my idea. I'd need more than just the computer. Verily, I'd probably just virtualize what I have and do my part to save energy and costs as best as I can. The best way to change the world is to start in my own back yard.
I would certainly show off my new toy and boast to everyone who will hear from where it came and how I got it, though...
http://blogs.amd.com/work/2010/03/03/48-cores-contest/
This is my entry submission. Yes, it is a real submission. Yes, I would be surprised if I won (and probably the recipient of an excessive amount of hate mail).
My entry...
In short I would underutilize them.
Let's be honest: relatively few people or organizations can or would actually use eight or 16 cores to a somewhat full potential, much less 48 of them. Even if I had an idea that might change the world, neither I nor my organization have the capital to realize the technology necessary to use the cores to accomplish my idea. I'd need more than just the computer. Verily, I'd probably just virtualize what I have and do my part to save energy and costs as best as I can. The best way to change the world is to start in my own back yard.
I would certainly show off my new toy and boast to everyone who will hear from where it came and how I got it, though...
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Credit Card Payments
I've always wondered about something. Let's say I open a credit card account with Big Bank of the United States. Then I go and open up a credit card account with Little Bank of Virginia. As it is with my real credit card, if I pay any new balance on the first statement since a charge or cash advance is made I won't get any finance charges.
So I buy a computer or a bunch of clothes or something and charge it to Big Bank's card. Now I have a $1,276 balance. When the first statement comes in I go to Little Bank and get a $1,276 cash advance, deposit it into my checking account, and pay Big Bank. I get no finance charge on my Big Bank card, because I paid the balance within the first billing cycle that the charge was made. I have a $1,276 balance on my Little Bank credit card.
Next month I get my Little Bank credit card statement. I go to Big Bank, get a $1,276 cash advance, deposit it into my checking account, and use it to pay my Little Bank credit card balance. Since it was paid on the first billing cycle after making the charge to that card (in this case a cash advance), there is no finance charge. I now have a $1,276 balance on my Big Bank credit card.
The third month (and every odd month thereafter) I get my cash advance from Little Bank and pay Big Bank, and the fourth month (and every even month thereafter) I get my cash advance from Big Bank and pay Little Bank. Paying each new cash advance every month yields me no finance charges, because each payment is being made every billing cycle, the first billing cycle after each new charge. In effect, I can carry the balance indefinitely as long as I'm diligent enough to keep up with it every month. The "finance charges" I pay would be time and fuel to maintain this routine, and I could conceivably pay off the balance as quickly or slowly as I wish.
Would this work, and what protects financial institutions from someone doing this very type of thing?
So I buy a computer or a bunch of clothes or something and charge it to Big Bank's card. Now I have a $1,276 balance. When the first statement comes in I go to Little Bank and get a $1,276 cash advance, deposit it into my checking account, and pay Big Bank. I get no finance charge on my Big Bank card, because I paid the balance within the first billing cycle that the charge was made. I have a $1,276 balance on my Little Bank credit card.
Next month I get my Little Bank credit card statement. I go to Big Bank, get a $1,276 cash advance, deposit it into my checking account, and use it to pay my Little Bank credit card balance. Since it was paid on the first billing cycle after making the charge to that card (in this case a cash advance), there is no finance charge. I now have a $1,276 balance on my Big Bank credit card.
The third month (and every odd month thereafter) I get my cash advance from Little Bank and pay Big Bank, and the fourth month (and every even month thereafter) I get my cash advance from Big Bank and pay Little Bank. Paying each new cash advance every month yields me no finance charges, because each payment is being made every billing cycle, the first billing cycle after each new charge. In effect, I can carry the balance indefinitely as long as I'm diligent enough to keep up with it every month. The "finance charges" I pay would be time and fuel to maintain this routine, and I could conceivably pay off the balance as quickly or slowly as I wish.
Would this work, and what protects financial institutions from someone doing this very type of thing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)