My Android 2.2 update came through for my Nexus One finally last Thursday, and all I can say is OMG WOW! It was good before, but now it is absolutely awesome. There is now almost no reason for me to carry my netbook or ever use my desktop. Along with the real and significant speed and stability improvements, I now have Flash and a host of other added features. After years of nothing but frustration with all things electronic that never lived up to their hype or potential, I finally have a gadget that not only meets all my expectations, but goes way beyond them in a host of different ways.
There are but two remaining issues that would make this thing perfect: There needs to be an option to store maps and navigation data offline for use where there is no Internet connection (or even phone service), and there needs to be a setting in the browser that reports to sites that it is a full desktop browser rather than a mobile one. Mobile versions of sites are fine for puny machines and browsers that can't handle the real thing, but trust me, the Nexus One has no such limitations, and I am occasionally frustrated by sites that won't allow me to access the desktop version. I tried SkyFire, and even though I removed it because its main feature - flash video viewing - is now obsolete and never worked very well, its other great feature of letting you select desktop or mobile with a single tap was a real plus. I may reinstall it just for that, now that I can install some apps to the SD card and more are making that possible every day.
06 July 2010
05 July 2010
Entitlement Frenzy
I have never heard of this guy, nor of any of his works, but he has an ego that just won't quit. He also is a master of straw man fallacy. The irony is that it his complete lack of a grip on reality, not his talent, that is currently contributing to a boost in public awareness of him, thanks to a tweet by Adam Savage of Mythbusters fame.
While I have nothing but respect for Adam Savage, I have to strongly disagree with him on this one point. Not only is Jason Robert Brown not articulate on this matter, he is neither reasonable nor cogent on the matter. He is only parroting the RIAA's party line. Here's an explanation of why his "analogies" don't work:
First Story: Where did the screwdriver come from in the first place? In this "analogy", Mr. Brown did not create the screwdriver, which dooms his straw man from the start. The problems don't stop there, though. In his example, in order for it to be accurate he would still have to have his screwdriver after giving his friend a copy, at which point his argument loses all possible weight. But other problems include the fact that the duplicate screwdriver would have to be totally free, with no time, effort or materials having been contributed by Mr. Brown, and the further issue that in order to be an accurate analogue the duplicate screwdriver would have to both be missing certain significant qualities and that it would generate further revenue to the original creator of the screwdriver in the form of actual sales of officially manufactured screwdrivers to friends and acquaintances of the recipient of the copy who observed the copy and decided they wanted the real thing for themselves. There is also a very pointed omission of the fact that in the real life case, proper attribution would be given, which amounts to free advertising for the arrogant Mr. Brown.
Second Story: Once again, his position in the example is completely different than the real life case, and the scenario he posits is analogous to neither his nor the student's in the real life case. Basically you can just plug the arguments above into this slot, changing only the specific nouns. It really is exactly the same invalid and baseless "analogue" as the "First Story".
Third Story: Once again utterly invalid. The biggest problem with this scenario is that the DMCA invalidates the doctrine of fair use, and DRM in many cases makes fair use impossible. The problem with the DMCA is that in many cases it is impossible to obtain most types of fair use without removing copy protection, and the DMCA prohibits the removal of copy protection whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. (General copyright info, look for "Fair use and fair dealing" a little more than halfway down.)
It never ceases to amaze me how little the greedy, small-minded people who are in any way connected with the art and entertainment industries understand about human nature and economics. They continually insist on self-defeating policies and waste prodigious amounts of resources on technology that has no hope of anything but abject failure in its professed aims but costs honest consumers billions in not only pointless hardware but in wasted time and frustration when they can't properly enjoy what they have legally bought and for which they have followed all the rules.
There are several points that these people deliberately ignore.
1. It is not possible to deter pirates by preventing copying or reproducing media of any sort. If it can in any way be viewed, displayed or used, then it can be (usually quite easily) copied and redistributed. Period. End of Discussion.
2. The only way to eliminate piracy is to eliminate the profit the pirates make. The only way to do that is to reduce the cost of your product to consumers to a reasonable price, meaning to the point that everyone has no aversion to paying you for your product rather than the pirates. And if the pirates can make a profit at their prices, then so can you, in spite of the prevaricating propaganda that you are so fond of disseminating.
3. No one who goes to the effort necessary to obtain your product for free (or from a pirate) would ever pay you for it anyway, so you have lost nothing. You have not lost profit, nor have you lost goods or materials of any sort, since what they have obtained is a copy and not original media.
4. Contrary to the overbearing propaganda, the distribution of free media not only does not cut into profit, it generates profit. Remember the days when the only significant distribution media was vinyl and the radio? What happened? People heard songs - repeatedly - for free, and yet they still went out and bought albums. How about later, when high-quality cassettes and recorders were commonly and cheaply available and high-quality FM stereo radio was the rule? Even though people did record songs off the radio, they still continued to buy the official recordings on cassette and vinyl. The reasons are obvious. Even though the technology has changed, the exact same principles still apply and always will. When a person finds something they like, they want their own copy, but they want the official version, with the original packaging, notes, storage media, etc. The one and only scenario where they don't eventually replace their "unofficial" copy with the official version is when they never would have bought the official version anyway, and probably don't even use the copy they have.
The other issue that disturbs me is the amazingly overblown sense of entitlement that Mr. Brown exhibits, which is shared by all too many people in all too many different walks of life. If you believe him, "making a living" consists of a steady income of ungodly sums of money, not to mention all kinds of celebrity perks and benefits of which most of us can only dream. Bear in mind this is for doing something that he truly loves, as opposed to the overwhelming majority of humanity who simply do whatevery they have to survive, frequently doing things to which Mr. Brown wouldn't get within miles, never mind consider doing for a "living". If you are free, know where you're going to sleep tonight, have enough food to eat and enjoy what you're doing, you should consider yourself lucky and not worry about what anybody else is doing.
Unfortunately, this attitude is rampant in many people in the world today, who somehow believe that all their success and money is solely due to their own personal hard work and has nothing whatsoever to do with all the other people who have been involved. They somehow believe that their outlandish income is because they are smarter, have worked harder, and have contributed more to society than all the people who have an infinitesimal fraction of their income. This is of course the ultimate hubris, and the actual fact is that most corporations and organizations would get along just fine without CEOs, COOs and other figureheads and that there would be no chair or head positions without the many people who make up the bottom positions in the organization. It is the people who actually produce the organization's primary output who are indispensable, not the figureheads, and everyone is capable of ideas, not just an elite few. As for the attitude that "they should be grateful I gave them their jobs", the truth is that they could as easily be working for someone else. You are not giving them anything that they couldn't get elsewhere. On the other hand, your organization cannot function without their positions being filled.
This is all to say that there should be no variation in salaries whatsoever. The "level" of the work is irrelevant, because each and every one of the functions done by every position in an organization is just as critical as any other (with the notable exception of the figurehead), and if any of those functions were permanently stopped, the organization could not function and would grind to a halt. You can eliminate a position and redistribute the functions, but you cannot eliminate the functions.
Bottom Line: If it were possible to have absolute iron control over who, when, where and how your "intellectual property" is used, you would have a very nasty surprise in store in that your celebrity and income would drop drastically.
The Real Dope: No artistic "intellectual property" is so unique or important that it or you are irreplaceable, and in fact there are thousands ready to take your place the instant you falter. Get over yourself and do what you love because you love it, not because you want to get rich.
Update It's neither piracy nor theft that is cutting into profits. What is cutting into profits is boycott. Not the organized variety, but the individual kind. Many people are so pissed off and/or frustrated about all the new copy protection schemes that make it difficult or impossible to obtain fair and reasonable use of legally bought media that they've stopped buying. I myself have not bought a CD in over 5 years, and probably will never again buy any new music. Nor do I download or "share" anything. The few new files I have are offered free directly from the artist (which makes me want to buy their stuff and give them money). But I have an extensive and eclectic CD collection that I amassed before the RIAA got into the rip-off game, and am perfectly happy listening to my old tunes.
While I have nothing but respect for Adam Savage, I have to strongly disagree with him on this one point. Not only is Jason Robert Brown not articulate on this matter, he is neither reasonable nor cogent on the matter. He is only parroting the RIAA's party line. Here's an explanation of why his "analogies" don't work:
First Story: Where did the screwdriver come from in the first place? In this "analogy", Mr. Brown did not create the screwdriver, which dooms his straw man from the start. The problems don't stop there, though. In his example, in order for it to be accurate he would still have to have his screwdriver after giving his friend a copy, at which point his argument loses all possible weight. But other problems include the fact that the duplicate screwdriver would have to be totally free, with no time, effort or materials having been contributed by Mr. Brown, and the further issue that in order to be an accurate analogue the duplicate screwdriver would have to both be missing certain significant qualities and that it would generate further revenue to the original creator of the screwdriver in the form of actual sales of officially manufactured screwdrivers to friends and acquaintances of the recipient of the copy who observed the copy and decided they wanted the real thing for themselves. There is also a very pointed omission of the fact that in the real life case, proper attribution would be given, which amounts to free advertising for the arrogant Mr. Brown.
Second Story: Once again, his position in the example is completely different than the real life case, and the scenario he posits is analogous to neither his nor the student's in the real life case. Basically you can just plug the arguments above into this slot, changing only the specific nouns. It really is exactly the same invalid and baseless "analogue" as the "First Story".
Third Story: Once again utterly invalid. The biggest problem with this scenario is that the DMCA invalidates the doctrine of fair use, and DRM in many cases makes fair use impossible. The problem with the DMCA is that in many cases it is impossible to obtain most types of fair use without removing copy protection, and the DMCA prohibits the removal of copy protection whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. (General copyright info, look for "Fair use and fair dealing" a little more than halfway down.)
It never ceases to amaze me how little the greedy, small-minded people who are in any way connected with the art and entertainment industries understand about human nature and economics. They continually insist on self-defeating policies and waste prodigious amounts of resources on technology that has no hope of anything but abject failure in its professed aims but costs honest consumers billions in not only pointless hardware but in wasted time and frustration when they can't properly enjoy what they have legally bought and for which they have followed all the rules.
There are several points that these people deliberately ignore.
1. It is not possible to deter pirates by preventing copying or reproducing media of any sort. If it can in any way be viewed, displayed or used, then it can be (usually quite easily) copied and redistributed. Period. End of Discussion.
2. The only way to eliminate piracy is to eliminate the profit the pirates make. The only way to do that is to reduce the cost of your product to consumers to a reasonable price, meaning to the point that everyone has no aversion to paying you for your product rather than the pirates. And if the pirates can make a profit at their prices, then so can you, in spite of the prevaricating propaganda that you are so fond of disseminating.
3. No one who goes to the effort necessary to obtain your product for free (or from a pirate) would ever pay you for it anyway, so you have lost nothing. You have not lost profit, nor have you lost goods or materials of any sort, since what they have obtained is a copy and not original media.
4. Contrary to the overbearing propaganda, the distribution of free media not only does not cut into profit, it generates profit. Remember the days when the only significant distribution media was vinyl and the radio? What happened? People heard songs - repeatedly - for free, and yet they still went out and bought albums. How about later, when high-quality cassettes and recorders were commonly and cheaply available and high-quality FM stereo radio was the rule? Even though people did record songs off the radio, they still continued to buy the official recordings on cassette and vinyl. The reasons are obvious. Even though the technology has changed, the exact same principles still apply and always will. When a person finds something they like, they want their own copy, but they want the official version, with the original packaging, notes, storage media, etc. The one and only scenario where they don't eventually replace their "unofficial" copy with the official version is when they never would have bought the official version anyway, and probably don't even use the copy they have.
The other issue that disturbs me is the amazingly overblown sense of entitlement that Mr. Brown exhibits, which is shared by all too many people in all too many different walks of life. If you believe him, "making a living" consists of a steady income of ungodly sums of money, not to mention all kinds of celebrity perks and benefits of which most of us can only dream. Bear in mind this is for doing something that he truly loves, as opposed to the overwhelming majority of humanity who simply do whatevery they have to survive, frequently doing things to which Mr. Brown wouldn't get within miles, never mind consider doing for a "living". If you are free, know where you're going to sleep tonight, have enough food to eat and enjoy what you're doing, you should consider yourself lucky and not worry about what anybody else is doing.
Unfortunately, this attitude is rampant in many people in the world today, who somehow believe that all their success and money is solely due to their own personal hard work and has nothing whatsoever to do with all the other people who have been involved. They somehow believe that their outlandish income is because they are smarter, have worked harder, and have contributed more to society than all the people who have an infinitesimal fraction of their income. This is of course the ultimate hubris, and the actual fact is that most corporations and organizations would get along just fine without CEOs, COOs and other figureheads and that there would be no chair or head positions without the many people who make up the bottom positions in the organization. It is the people who actually produce the organization's primary output who are indispensable, not the figureheads, and everyone is capable of ideas, not just an elite few. As for the attitude that "they should be grateful I gave them their jobs", the truth is that they could as easily be working for someone else. You are not giving them anything that they couldn't get elsewhere. On the other hand, your organization cannot function without their positions being filled.
This is all to say that there should be no variation in salaries whatsoever. The "level" of the work is irrelevant, because each and every one of the functions done by every position in an organization is just as critical as any other (with the notable exception of the figurehead), and if any of those functions were permanently stopped, the organization could not function and would grind to a halt. You can eliminate a position and redistribute the functions, but you cannot eliminate the functions.
Bottom Line: If it were possible to have absolute iron control over who, when, where and how your "intellectual property" is used, you would have a very nasty surprise in store in that your celebrity and income would drop drastically.
The Real Dope: No artistic "intellectual property" is so unique or important that it or you are irreplaceable, and in fact there are thousands ready to take your place the instant you falter. Get over yourself and do what you love because you love it, not because you want to get rich.
Update It's neither piracy nor theft that is cutting into profits. What is cutting into profits is boycott. Not the organized variety, but the individual kind. Many people are so pissed off and/or frustrated about all the new copy protection schemes that make it difficult or impossible to obtain fair and reasonable use of legally bought media that they've stopped buying. I myself have not bought a CD in over 5 years, and probably will never again buy any new music. Nor do I download or "share" anything. The few new files I have are offered free directly from the artist (which makes me want to buy their stuff and give them money). But I have an extensive and eclectic CD collection that I amassed before the RIAA got into the rip-off game, and am perfectly happy listening to my old tunes.
18 May 2010
InstaMapper
Today I've been playing with InstaMapper. It's a cool app for Android, BlackBerry, Motorola iDEN, and iPhone that enables live GPS tracking from your phone to a Web map. That allows your friends and/or family to see what you're up to and the progress you've made on a journey. I've been watching Darren Kitchen in his Hack Across America on his Honda CB750 Nighthawk (named Jozette) with his Motorola Droid. I'm thinking this can be useful and/or fun in a lot of ways. Best of all, it's totally free, although you can (and should) donate if you use and like it.
Unfortunately, this blog setup has a rigid layout that chops off the edge of even the small map, so here's my map in small, medium, and large versions.
Update 2011/11/04:
I've been using this app for quite a while now, and my enthusiasm has cooled somewhat. I still find it useful and cool, but there are some issues that make it more of a fun toy than a useful tool.
1) A data connection is critical to functionality. Supposedly the newer versions of the app log points while you are out of range and upload them when you reconnect, which is fine for later retrieval but doesn't help anyone who is trying to follow your trip. It can cause unnecessary worries if your updates stop for an extended period at a location with no apparent reason.
2) The app goes out of its way to not allow usage as a covert tracking device. What that means is that if your device is lost or stolen, you have zero chance of using this app to track and retrieve it. My phone was stolen recently, and although I fortunately did get it back it was totally through other, old-school means.
3) Related to #2, even though there is provision for remote activation of the app, there is no provision for enabling gps if it is turned off, which makes remote activation utterly useless. Maybe if the app was capable of getting location through the network (as many other apps can) it would still be useful. As it is, it's just a frustratingly useless feature. It also means that if you want to activate the app, you have to first activate gps outside of the app, then start the app separately. That's several clicks/steps too many.
Unfortunately, this blog setup has a rigid layout that chops off the edge of even the small map, so here's my map in small, medium, and large versions.
Update 2011/11/04:
I've been using this app for quite a while now, and my enthusiasm has cooled somewhat. I still find it useful and cool, but there are some issues that make it more of a fun toy than a useful tool.
1) A data connection is critical to functionality. Supposedly the newer versions of the app log points while you are out of range and upload them when you reconnect, which is fine for later retrieval but doesn't help anyone who is trying to follow your trip. It can cause unnecessary worries if your updates stop for an extended period at a location with no apparent reason.
2) The app goes out of its way to not allow usage as a covert tracking device. What that means is that if your device is lost or stolen, you have zero chance of using this app to track and retrieve it. My phone was stolen recently, and although I fortunately did get it back it was totally through other, old-school means.
3) Related to #2, even though there is provision for remote activation of the app, there is no provision for enabling gps if it is turned off, which makes remote activation utterly useless. Maybe if the app was capable of getting location through the network (as many other apps can) it would still be useful. As it is, it's just a frustratingly useless feature. It also means that if you want to activate the app, you have to first activate gps outside of the app, then start the app separately. That's several clicks/steps too many.
27 April 2010
Persnickity Prevaricating Elitists
Let's start today's post with one of my favorite comics http://xkcd.com/732/ :
I think Randall Munroe is brilliant. One of the things he does that I've seen nowhere else is that he puts text in the graphic titles that pops up when you mouse over the comic, and you'll be missing a lot if you never see it. The subtext of this particular comic is: "We're also stuck with blurry, juddery, slow-panning 24fps movies forever because (thanks to 60fps home video) people associate high framerates with camcorders and cheap sitcoms, and thus think good framerates look 'fake'."
This brings to mind many situations in which I am annoyed by people who claim that they are the only ones perceptive and/or skilled enough to appreciate the nuances of various things. Such as morons who claim that some hunk of incredibly expensive audio equipment is "better" than another cheap unit when the actual measurements are either no better or sometimes actually not even as good. Or that a bitter, woody expensive wine is "better" than a cheap, sweet wine. Or that leather and wood in a car are better than fabric and plastic, even though plastic is much more durable and fabric is much more comfortable and both perform their functions better; wood and leather dry out and crack and require much more maintenance, and the aesthetics are debatable.
The truth is that such things are entirely subjective, and the reason there's so much variety in the world is because people are individuals and have different preferences, not because one thing is fundamentally and incontrovertibly "better" than another. One thing is not better than another simply because of price or any of the myriad of subjective values. It is simply different. The one and only criteria that makes one thing better than another is the quantifiable fact of whether it actually performs its primary function better. Frequently the cost is inversely proportional to the reliability, and that old saying "you get what you pay for" is usually not just wrong, it's exactly backward. I've seen far more luxury cars with serious dependability issues than econoboxes...
Getting back to the subject of the comic that inspired this post, one of the things that has always put me off of movies in the theatre was exactly that juddery, seizure-inducing effect of the slow frame rate, not to mention the grain that may be "artsy" according to some people but is simply distracting and annoying to me. I'll take smooth, grainless HD video over jerky, grainy film any day, thank you very much. (Not that HD video is perfect; there are compression artifacts and bogus, clunky and unreliable DRM to deal with.)
Bottom Line: Yours is not better than mine just because you say it is. And you are not better than me just because you wish it were so and make up artificial elitist criteria to support your claims.
The Real Dope: The overwhelming majority of life is purely subjective, and it is much more accurate and reasonable to say "I like this more than that because..." than to say "this is better than that because..."
I think Randall Munroe is brilliant. One of the things he does that I've seen nowhere else is that he puts text in the graphic titles that pops up when you mouse over the comic, and you'll be missing a lot if you never see it. The subtext of this particular comic is: "We're also stuck with blurry, juddery, slow-panning 24fps movies forever because (thanks to 60fps home video) people associate high framerates with camcorders and cheap sitcoms, and thus think good framerates look 'fake'."
This brings to mind many situations in which I am annoyed by people who claim that they are the only ones perceptive and/or skilled enough to appreciate the nuances of various things. Such as morons who claim that some hunk of incredibly expensive audio equipment is "better" than another cheap unit when the actual measurements are either no better or sometimes actually not even as good. Or that a bitter, woody expensive wine is "better" than a cheap, sweet wine. Or that leather and wood in a car are better than fabric and plastic, even though plastic is much more durable and fabric is much more comfortable and both perform their functions better; wood and leather dry out and crack and require much more maintenance, and the aesthetics are debatable.
The truth is that such things are entirely subjective, and the reason there's so much variety in the world is because people are individuals and have different preferences, not because one thing is fundamentally and incontrovertibly "better" than another. One thing is not better than another simply because of price or any of the myriad of subjective values. It is simply different. The one and only criteria that makes one thing better than another is the quantifiable fact of whether it actually performs its primary function better. Frequently the cost is inversely proportional to the reliability, and that old saying "you get what you pay for" is usually not just wrong, it's exactly backward. I've seen far more luxury cars with serious dependability issues than econoboxes...
Getting back to the subject of the comic that inspired this post, one of the things that has always put me off of movies in the theatre was exactly that juddery, seizure-inducing effect of the slow frame rate, not to mention the grain that may be "artsy" according to some people but is simply distracting and annoying to me. I'll take smooth, grainless HD video over jerky, grainy film any day, thank you very much. (Not that HD video is perfect; there are compression artifacts and bogus, clunky and unreliable DRM to deal with.)
Bottom Line: Yours is not better than mine just because you say it is. And you are not better than me just because you wish it were so and make up artificial elitist criteria to support your claims.
The Real Dope: The overwhelming majority of life is purely subjective, and it is much more accurate and reasonable to say "I like this more than that because..." than to say "this is better than that because..."
13 April 2010
Let's Crucify Toyota
Once again, the media is jumping on the Crucify Toyota bandwagon. This time, they have OMG shockingly discovered that a tall, heavy SUV (the Lexus GX 460) can actually be induced to oversteer and possibly roll over when driver stupidity/incompetence is engaged.
First, let's get one thing out of the way: I have never owned a Toyota, and it's been quite a few years since they've produced anything in which I would be even remotely interested. I am not by any stretch of the imagination a Toyota fanboy. However, the state of pseudoscience and deliberately biased "research" in the world today has me wondering where the human race is headed. It can't be any place good.
I have a friend who has always owned at least one Mercedes in the time I have known him. He currently owns two. One or two vehicles ago, he had an E500 that experienced the sudden unintended acceleration issue. It happened while he was running errands around town. He managed to get it home, even with the consistent problem, without crashing or so much as causing a scratch on either his vehicle or anything else. That's because he's not a complete incompetent moron. He certainly was scared, and after the car was repaired he sold it in short order, but that was that. Have you heard about that issue regarding Mercedes? I haven't. Gee, I guess that means it doesn't exist in anything other than Toyotas, and it's all the car's fault when something malfunctions and the driver is too incompetent to deal with it.
Back to the current issue: Do you really think that electronic stability controls are capable of saving your derriere in every possible situation? Do you think that trucks and SUVs handle just like cars? Do you often make stupid errors in judgment while driving? Then perhaps you deserve to roll your vehicle, and hopefully take yourself out of the gene pool!
Bottom Line: All SUVs and trucks are prone to handling issues and rollovers. Even if they passed Consumer Report's tests, those are under controlled conditions with professional drivers. In the real world, it's unlikely that any of the vehicles that passed their test would be much if any better if they were put into a similar situation with uncontrolled variables, such as other traffic and inconsistent surface conditions. If you disagree, it's because you are an incompetent driver who has never driven any vehicle at its limits, and should not.
The Real Dope: There's a very good reason why I have never subscribed to Consumer Reports. They are not nearly as unbiased, professional and scientific as they want you to believe. I have consulted them many times over the years, and every time I come away with a sense of incredulity that anyone would trust them to the extent that they apparently do. If you look carefully at the charts and tables and read the text critically, you'll see that their conclusions are often not supported by their own published data and more a result of subjective opinion than actual fact.
By the same token, the last bastion of mostly unbiased automotive journalism, Motor Trend, has fallen prey to the same egomaniacal and emotional (if not fiscal...) faults as the rest of the automotive magazines. Several years ago the old staff was phased out (retired? encouraged to retire?) and replaced by a younger and much less professional crew who have devised new tests with state-of-the-art gear that while sounding reasonable are actually proof that they don't really understand handling dynamics, much less what makes one vehicle worthwhile and another not. There are obvious agendas and propaganda. They constantly contradict themselves, and the motif running through the whole publication is: "the facts and numbers may lead you to believe that (insert incontrovertible test winner here) would win, but due to (insert list of totally subjective opinions here) we pick (insert 2nd to 5th place model here) as the winner." They've also changed their criteria, definitions and classifications regarding their vehicle Of The Year awards to the point that they are worthless. Meh, I wish my subscription would hurry up and run out. Unfortunately, due to their tactic of sending out renewal notices long before the subscription runs out (and relying on people not to know how to find their expiration date), I'm paid up for another 4 years, even though I can't remember when I last renewed. (That may have been exacerbated by gift subscriptions/renewals, I'm afraid.) I'm thinking about canceling, even if I don't get a refund.
First, let's get one thing out of the way: I have never owned a Toyota, and it's been quite a few years since they've produced anything in which I would be even remotely interested. I am not by any stretch of the imagination a Toyota fanboy. However, the state of pseudoscience and deliberately biased "research" in the world today has me wondering where the human race is headed. It can't be any place good.
I have a friend who has always owned at least one Mercedes in the time I have known him. He currently owns two. One or two vehicles ago, he had an E500 that experienced the sudden unintended acceleration issue. It happened while he was running errands around town. He managed to get it home, even with the consistent problem, without crashing or so much as causing a scratch on either his vehicle or anything else. That's because he's not a complete incompetent moron. He certainly was scared, and after the car was repaired he sold it in short order, but that was that. Have you heard about that issue regarding Mercedes? I haven't. Gee, I guess that means it doesn't exist in anything other than Toyotas, and it's all the car's fault when something malfunctions and the driver is too incompetent to deal with it.
Back to the current issue: Do you really think that electronic stability controls are capable of saving your derriere in every possible situation? Do you think that trucks and SUVs handle just like cars? Do you often make stupid errors in judgment while driving? Then perhaps you deserve to roll your vehicle, and hopefully take yourself out of the gene pool!
Bottom Line: All SUVs and trucks are prone to handling issues and rollovers. Even if they passed Consumer Report's tests, those are under controlled conditions with professional drivers. In the real world, it's unlikely that any of the vehicles that passed their test would be much if any better if they were put into a similar situation with uncontrolled variables, such as other traffic and inconsistent surface conditions. If you disagree, it's because you are an incompetent driver who has never driven any vehicle at its limits, and should not.
The Real Dope: There's a very good reason why I have never subscribed to Consumer Reports. They are not nearly as unbiased, professional and scientific as they want you to believe. I have consulted them many times over the years, and every time I come away with a sense of incredulity that anyone would trust them to the extent that they apparently do. If you look carefully at the charts and tables and read the text critically, you'll see that their conclusions are often not supported by their own published data and more a result of subjective opinion than actual fact.
By the same token, the last bastion of mostly unbiased automotive journalism, Motor Trend, has fallen prey to the same egomaniacal and emotional (if not fiscal...) faults as the rest of the automotive magazines. Several years ago the old staff was phased out (retired? encouraged to retire?) and replaced by a younger and much less professional crew who have devised new tests with state-of-the-art gear that while sounding reasonable are actually proof that they don't really understand handling dynamics, much less what makes one vehicle worthwhile and another not. There are obvious agendas and propaganda. They constantly contradict themselves, and the motif running through the whole publication is: "the facts and numbers may lead you to believe that (insert incontrovertible test winner here) would win, but due to (insert list of totally subjective opinions here) we pick (insert 2nd to 5th place model here) as the winner." They've also changed their criteria, definitions and classifications regarding their vehicle Of The Year awards to the point that they are worthless. Meh, I wish my subscription would hurry up and run out. Unfortunately, due to their tactic of sending out renewal notices long before the subscription runs out (and relying on people not to know how to find their expiration date), I'm paid up for another 4 years, even though I can't remember when I last renewed. (That may have been exacerbated by gift subscriptions/renewals, I'm afraid.) I'm thinking about canceling, even if I don't get a refund.
21 March 2010
Note to Google Nexus One buyers
I love my Nexus One, but there is one annoying issue with that cool Teflon coating. It feels great and probably is great protection, but it rapidly absorbs color from cases, including the silicone skins and leather. The first thing I did when I got mine was to put it in one of those cushy, grippy silicone skins. Aside from adding bulk to my otherwise svelte N1, it almost immediately starting transferring dark "smudges" to the phone, which of course I didn't notice until it was much too late. To the touch, the discolored areas feel identical to the rest, so I don't think the surface is damaged in any way other than cosmetically. I stopped using the skin, but now that I'm using a leather case with a fabric lining it still seems to be getting worse from the dyes. I've tried cleaning it with alcohol and soap & water to no avail, and I'm afraid to use anything stronger.
So, I'm going to try getting one of those really thin adhesive "skins" to cover the existing discoloration and prevent any further ugliness. Hopefully it will also protect while concurrently allowing stuff such as use of a dock, which wouldn't work with my original silicone skin or a traditional case. I'll update this post with photos and a review as things progress.
So, I'm going to try getting one of those really thin adhesive "skins" to cover the existing discoloration and prevent any further ugliness. Hopefully it will also protect while concurrently allowing stuff such as use of a dock, which wouldn't work with my original silicone skin or a traditional case. I'll update this post with photos and a review as things progress.
25 February 2010
Why you should boycott Blu-ray
Why you should boycott Blu-ray and HD-DVD
http://bluraysucks.com/
The above page was written in 2006 and a couple of the points are obsolete (HD-DVD is no longer with us and the prices for players/drives have come down considerably), but the majority of the points are absolutely correct. The bottom line, though, is that the concept of fair use no longer exists. If you have paid good money for a legal copy of a movie or music, the MPAA and RIAA want you to continue to pay each and every time you view or listen to it. DVD was just the start (and was easily circumvented), but Blu-Ray is a giant step toward that goal and a huge loss for every honest citizen.
Have you noticed all the warnings to keep Blu-Ray players updated with the latest firmware in order to be certain of playing the latest discs? Makes, sense, they're always adding new features, fixing bugs, etc., right? Wrong! The only reason you're having to update is to add new DRM (Digital Rights Management) decryption keys. No new features, no bug fixes, just more inconvenience for the hapless user who only wants to be able to play the discs he or she has bought. Some players aren't even capable of updating their firmware, which means at some point they will become useless, not because of any real issues, just because the MPAA doesn't want you to be able to play the content you have legally bought.
I have to add that the mandated discontinuance of analog broadcast TV was part and parcel with this process (it's now nearly impossible to record your favorite TV shows over the air unless you want to shell out some big bucks for new hardware, and even then it's a monstrous pain to view it anywhere other than on the single device that recorded it). The reasons presented to the public are outright lies: emergency services neither need nor will use the frequencies, especially since they are still occupied by digital TV. The only reasons that the switch to digital TV was mandated were to force consumers to buy thousands of dollars of new equipment (the "converter boxes" are easily capable of, but banned by law from, outputting full HD resolution on appropriate ports) and to further the agenda of eliminating all possibilities of fair use.
On a separate but related issue, most people are totally unaware of the fact that the technology has existed since the 1980s to not only skip, but actually prevent recording of, commercials. In other words, it is elementary to produce a recording device that can provide you with commercial-free recordings of any TV show, but such features have been outlawed. I know of at least one VCR and one accessory box that were capable of that, but they were quickly squelched and the manufacturers driven out of business or worse. I do own a VCR that has a quick-skip function that will fast-forward exactly one minute at a time on playback, but that is obviously not nearly as user-friendly and you still see the commercials whiz by. They were only able to include that feature because it doesn't refer specifically to skipping commercials and doesn't delete them entirely.
Bottom Line:
People who want to steal and pirate can always do so no matter what steps are taken to ensure that they don't. Any technology that can be invented can just as surely be circumvented. Any attempt to prevent theft or piracy on the front end only inconveniences and frustrates the honest users, which in turn makes theft more profitable for the pirates...
The Real Dope: But then, the MPAA and RIAA are fully aware of that, and it's not the pirates they are going after, it's you. You dirty rotten scumbag, you!
http://bluraysucks.com/
The above page was written in 2006 and a couple of the points are obsolete (HD-DVD is no longer with us and the prices for players/drives have come down considerably), but the majority of the points are absolutely correct. The bottom line, though, is that the concept of fair use no longer exists. If you have paid good money for a legal copy of a movie or music, the MPAA and RIAA want you to continue to pay each and every time you view or listen to it. DVD was just the start (and was easily circumvented), but Blu-Ray is a giant step toward that goal and a huge loss for every honest citizen.
Have you noticed all the warnings to keep Blu-Ray players updated with the latest firmware in order to be certain of playing the latest discs? Makes, sense, they're always adding new features, fixing bugs, etc., right? Wrong! The only reason you're having to update is to add new DRM (Digital Rights Management) decryption keys. No new features, no bug fixes, just more inconvenience for the hapless user who only wants to be able to play the discs he or she has bought. Some players aren't even capable of updating their firmware, which means at some point they will become useless, not because of any real issues, just because the MPAA doesn't want you to be able to play the content you have legally bought.
I have to add that the mandated discontinuance of analog broadcast TV was part and parcel with this process (it's now nearly impossible to record your favorite TV shows over the air unless you want to shell out some big bucks for new hardware, and even then it's a monstrous pain to view it anywhere other than on the single device that recorded it). The reasons presented to the public are outright lies: emergency services neither need nor will use the frequencies, especially since they are still occupied by digital TV. The only reasons that the switch to digital TV was mandated were to force consumers to buy thousands of dollars of new equipment (the "converter boxes" are easily capable of, but banned by law from, outputting full HD resolution on appropriate ports) and to further the agenda of eliminating all possibilities of fair use.
On a separate but related issue, most people are totally unaware of the fact that the technology has existed since the 1980s to not only skip, but actually prevent recording of, commercials. In other words, it is elementary to produce a recording device that can provide you with commercial-free recordings of any TV show, but such features have been outlawed. I know of at least one VCR and one accessory box that were capable of that, but they were quickly squelched and the manufacturers driven out of business or worse. I do own a VCR that has a quick-skip function that will fast-forward exactly one minute at a time on playback, but that is obviously not nearly as user-friendly and you still see the commercials whiz by. They were only able to include that feature because it doesn't refer specifically to skipping commercials and doesn't delete them entirely.
Bottom Line:
People who want to steal and pirate can always do so no matter what steps are taken to ensure that they don't. Any technology that can be invented can just as surely be circumvented. Any attempt to prevent theft or piracy on the front end only inconveniences and frustrates the honest users, which in turn makes theft more profitable for the pirates...
The Real Dope: But then, the MPAA and RIAA are fully aware of that, and it's not the pirates they are going after, it's you. You dirty rotten scumbag, you!
16 February 2010
Too Safe?
On an issue related to yesterday's, I believe that many of today's problems are a direct result of irresponsible legislation attempting to protect people from themselves. I believe that it is not in the interest of mankind to protect people from their own stupid, irresponsible mistakes.
Modern drivers are becoming less and less skilled and more and more irresponsible. Why? It's not due to any one thing, but a number of issues are at fault.
Drivers are not required to take formal driver's education classes, so they are taught the bad habits of their parents or older siblings, and regardless of the intent of their mentor there are always gaping omissions. Rather than making it more difficult to obtain a license, it gets easier every year. Unenforced and unenforceable restrictions aside, even though we are repeatedly told that "driving is a privilege, not at right", everyone believes it is their right and acts accordingly.
Vehicles are becoming so smooth and quiet and effective at insulating the operator from their real responsibility, which is guiding their vehicle down the road and staying out of everyone else's way, that they reinforce the human tendency to laziness and feed the feelings of entitlement and invulnerability. Even the poorest-handling modern vehicles handle better than the overwhelming majority of vehicles 30 years ago. Subcompacts today are more protective in a crash than the large cars of 30 years ago. With the increased handling limits and the much poorer driver education (even formal driver's ed, with its simulators and multimedia substituting for actual hands-on instruction, is seriously lacking), modern drivers suffer from massive overconfidence coupled with massive incompetence. Combined with the feeling of invulnerability they get with modern air-bags-everywhere, power-and auto-everything vehicles and the overblown sense of entitlement, it is a recipe for disaster. The most unfortunate aspect is that most people truly have no clue how thin the line is or that it is technology and luck, not their own skill, that enables them to keep tempting fate day after day with such rare consequences.
Laws are enacted that discourage personal responsibility rather than requiring it. Rather than requiring drivers to become more skilled and less emotional, they are encouraged to blame everyone else or even inanimate objects for their own failures. Rather than using 2-way stops, forcing drivers to take responsibility for interacting safely with traffic, we install more and more 4-way traffic lights, which use energy and other resources themselves, encourage drivers to disengage their brains and cause many more drivers to expend far more fuel and energy braking to a halt, idling at a stop and then accelerating back to speed.
Bottom Line:
I've only touched the tip of the iceberg, but the inescapable fact is that entitlement soars higher every year, while actual skill dips ever lower.
The Real Dope:
The fundamental issue - avoidance of responsibility - has effects that range far and wide.
Modern drivers are becoming less and less skilled and more and more irresponsible. Why? It's not due to any one thing, but a number of issues are at fault.
Drivers are not required to take formal driver's education classes, so they are taught the bad habits of their parents or older siblings, and regardless of the intent of their mentor there are always gaping omissions. Rather than making it more difficult to obtain a license, it gets easier every year. Unenforced and unenforceable restrictions aside, even though we are repeatedly told that "driving is a privilege, not at right", everyone believes it is their right and acts accordingly.
Vehicles are becoming so smooth and quiet and effective at insulating the operator from their real responsibility, which is guiding their vehicle down the road and staying out of everyone else's way, that they reinforce the human tendency to laziness and feed the feelings of entitlement and invulnerability. Even the poorest-handling modern vehicles handle better than the overwhelming majority of vehicles 30 years ago. Subcompacts today are more protective in a crash than the large cars of 30 years ago. With the increased handling limits and the much poorer driver education (even formal driver's ed, with its simulators and multimedia substituting for actual hands-on instruction, is seriously lacking), modern drivers suffer from massive overconfidence coupled with massive incompetence. Combined with the feeling of invulnerability they get with modern air-bags-everywhere, power-and auto-everything vehicles and the overblown sense of entitlement, it is a recipe for disaster. The most unfortunate aspect is that most people truly have no clue how thin the line is or that it is technology and luck, not their own skill, that enables them to keep tempting fate day after day with such rare consequences.
Laws are enacted that discourage personal responsibility rather than requiring it. Rather than requiring drivers to become more skilled and less emotional, they are encouraged to blame everyone else or even inanimate objects for their own failures. Rather than using 2-way stops, forcing drivers to take responsibility for interacting safely with traffic, we install more and more 4-way traffic lights, which use energy and other resources themselves, encourage drivers to disengage their brains and cause many more drivers to expend far more fuel and energy braking to a halt, idling at a stop and then accelerating back to speed.
Bottom Line:
I've only touched the tip of the iceberg, but the inescapable fact is that entitlement soars higher every year, while actual skill dips ever lower.
The Real Dope:
The fundamental issue - avoidance of responsibility - has effects that range far and wide.
15 February 2010
Sudden Unintended Stupidity
Many are crucifying Toyota for alleged design flaws that "cause" Sudden Unintended Acceleration. First, this phenomenon is not new and is not in any way limited to Toyota. Second, the #1 cause of SUA is the incompetent driver behind the wheel. Some schmuck stomps on the gas instead of the brakes, is too panicked to remove their foot from the accelerator, take the vehicle out of gear, turn off the ignition, attend to the steering or any other controls or any other effective solution for the problem and subsequently crashes, causing great property or bodily damage. The loose nut behind the wheel is then unable to come to terms with his or her responsibility in the incident and chooses to blame the inanimate object (which cannot defend itself, especially in the absence of unbiased witnesses).
Fact #1: All vehicles have much stronger brakes than motors. No matter what vehicle you choose, the braking distance from a certain speed is much shorter than the distance it takes to accelerate at full throttle to that speed. This is true even of all-wheel-drive and 4-wheel-drive vehicles as well as family cars, exotic supercars and subcompacts. This is always true. Period. What this means is that it is always possible to slow down or stop your vehicle, even if the vehicle is left in gear at full throttle.
Fact #2: It is more common than you might think (or want to admit) for people to inadvertently step on the wrong pedal, even when they are intimately familiar with the vehicle and have been driving it for years. I've even done it myself. The difference is that I immediately knew and understood what happened and removed my foot from the incorrect pedal and applied it to the correct one. This situation can be compounded with another uncomfortably common occurrence, which is having the vehicle in reverse when one thinks it is in drive, or vice versa.
Fact #3: Even if you aren't convinced that your vehicle's brakes are stronger than its engine, there is always the option to take it out of gear. Once the drivetrain has been disconnected from the engine, the throttle position becomes irrelevant. In neutral but with the engine running, you still have unlimited use of your power brakes and steering.
Fact #4: The final solution is that you can turn off the ignition, and once again the throttle position is irrelevant. This solution is not ideal if you have power steering and/or brakes, but it is guaranteed to slow the vehicle down. Power brakes have a vacuum reservoir, so as long as you don't pump your brakes or otherwise irrationally use up vacuum they will still bring you to a stop without drama. If you run out of assist, use both feet and the power of both legs if necessary. There's always the "emergency brake" (aka "hand brake" or "parking brake"), which only acts on the rear wheels but works the same regardless of whether the engine is running or not. The steering can be more of an issue if you're traveling down the road, but the faster you're going the easier it is to steer, so higher speeds are less of a problem, and the worst part will be the last few feet as you roll to a stop.
True, some poor design choices can exacerbate the situation, such as poorly placed pedals and wayward carpeting, but part of owning a vehicle is being completely familiar with all the controls and any possible problems, as well as responsibly taking care of preventive maintenance. All too many people drive their vehicles into the ground and do no maintenance to speak of until after a problem has already occurred. There is no excuse for that. If you have time to drive a vehicle and money to fuel it then you have the time and money to maintain it.
The thing is, this phenomenon has been occurring since long before the advent of "drive-by-wire" systems. People have been accusing vehicles with 100% mechanical systems (which were closely inspected and found to be operating completely normally), of suddenly jumping to Wide Open Throttle for decades. In those days it was truly impossible, not just extremely improbable, for such a situation to occur without human error being the one and only instigating factor. These days, with fuel efficiency (prompting drive-by-wire throttles and in some cases even brakes and electrically assisted steering) and gee-whiz gimmicks (such as keyless push-button starting/ignitions) taking precedence over safety and common sense, there is a very, very, very slim chance that multiple simultaneous malfunctions could cause spontaneous WOT, maybe even without the option of killing the ignition, but I have yet to be made aware of a vehicle that cannot be taken out of gear and the brakes employed regardless of every other circumstance.
Bottom Line:
A vehicle doesn't jump to full throttle all by itself. It can only stick there if the operator of the vehicle has pressed it there, which means that a) the full-throttle condition is 100% the fault of the operator and b) the ensuing consequences are 100% the fault of the operator. Even in that .000001% of the cases where numerous simultaneous malfunctions combine to create a spontaneous WOT condition, there are too many easy and obvious solutions to blame the vehicle for an incompetent driver's poor judgment and skills.
The Real Dope:
This is yet another of the myriad symptoms of a society that refuses to take responsibility for its actions, either on a group or individual level. It is so ingrained in our daily lives that even when our lives depend on owning up to the problem and taking appropriate action, we panic and blame someone (or something) else instead.
Fact #1: All vehicles have much stronger brakes than motors. No matter what vehicle you choose, the braking distance from a certain speed is much shorter than the distance it takes to accelerate at full throttle to that speed. This is true even of all-wheel-drive and 4-wheel-drive vehicles as well as family cars, exotic supercars and subcompacts. This is always true. Period. What this means is that it is always possible to slow down or stop your vehicle, even if the vehicle is left in gear at full throttle.
Fact #2: It is more common than you might think (or want to admit) for people to inadvertently step on the wrong pedal, even when they are intimately familiar with the vehicle and have been driving it for years. I've even done it myself. The difference is that I immediately knew and understood what happened and removed my foot from the incorrect pedal and applied it to the correct one. This situation can be compounded with another uncomfortably common occurrence, which is having the vehicle in reverse when one thinks it is in drive, or vice versa.
Fact #3: Even if you aren't convinced that your vehicle's brakes are stronger than its engine, there is always the option to take it out of gear. Once the drivetrain has been disconnected from the engine, the throttle position becomes irrelevant. In neutral but with the engine running, you still have unlimited use of your power brakes and steering.
Fact #4: The final solution is that you can turn off the ignition, and once again the throttle position is irrelevant. This solution is not ideal if you have power steering and/or brakes, but it is guaranteed to slow the vehicle down. Power brakes have a vacuum reservoir, so as long as you don't pump your brakes or otherwise irrationally use up vacuum they will still bring you to a stop without drama. If you run out of assist, use both feet and the power of both legs if necessary. There's always the "emergency brake" (aka "hand brake" or "parking brake"), which only acts on the rear wheels but works the same regardless of whether the engine is running or not. The steering can be more of an issue if you're traveling down the road, but the faster you're going the easier it is to steer, so higher speeds are less of a problem, and the worst part will be the last few feet as you roll to a stop.
True, some poor design choices can exacerbate the situation, such as poorly placed pedals and wayward carpeting, but part of owning a vehicle is being completely familiar with all the controls and any possible problems, as well as responsibly taking care of preventive maintenance. All too many people drive their vehicles into the ground and do no maintenance to speak of until after a problem has already occurred. There is no excuse for that. If you have time to drive a vehicle and money to fuel it then you have the time and money to maintain it.
The thing is, this phenomenon has been occurring since long before the advent of "drive-by-wire" systems. People have been accusing vehicles with 100% mechanical systems (which were closely inspected and found to be operating completely normally), of suddenly jumping to Wide Open Throttle for decades. In those days it was truly impossible, not just extremely improbable, for such a situation to occur without human error being the one and only instigating factor. These days, with fuel efficiency (prompting drive-by-wire throttles and in some cases even brakes and electrically assisted steering) and gee-whiz gimmicks (such as keyless push-button starting/ignitions) taking precedence over safety and common sense, there is a very, very, very slim chance that multiple simultaneous malfunctions could cause spontaneous WOT, maybe even without the option of killing the ignition, but I have yet to be made aware of a vehicle that cannot be taken out of gear and the brakes employed regardless of every other circumstance.
Bottom Line:
A vehicle doesn't jump to full throttle all by itself. It can only stick there if the operator of the vehicle has pressed it there, which means that a) the full-throttle condition is 100% the fault of the operator and b) the ensuing consequences are 100% the fault of the operator. Even in that .000001% of the cases where numerous simultaneous malfunctions combine to create a spontaneous WOT condition, there are too many easy and obvious solutions to blame the vehicle for an incompetent driver's poor judgment and skills.
The Real Dope:
This is yet another of the myriad symptoms of a society that refuses to take responsibility for its actions, either on a group or individual level. It is so ingrained in our daily lives that even when our lives depend on owning up to the problem and taking appropriate action, we panic and blame someone (or something) else instead.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
