All the hate being spewed at George Lucas for updating the original "Star Wars Trilogy" is both tiresome and puzzling. Tiresome because everybody and their dog loves to chime in, puzzling because some of it is from people who should know better.
For anybody who's not familiar with the subject, when they decided to remaster and re-release the Trilogy a number of years ago, Lucas seized the opportunity that new technology afforded to update and insert a few scenes. Some of the special effects were redone and a few critters were digitally inserted, and one scene in particular was re-edited to have Greedo shoot and miss Han Solo before being decimated. (See Han shot first and changes in Star Wars re-releases).
So the gist of the chorus goes something like this: "How dare George Lucas ruin my life by altering the subject of my favorite childhood memories!" A common refrain is "George Lucas stole my childhood!"
My response is: "Really?" George Lucas "stole your childhood"?
First, in order for that to be anything close to true, you would have had to not experience childhood. Not only is that obviously not the case, anybody who has this attitude is clearly still smack in the middle of their childhood, regardless of the fact that they may be middle aged....
Second, how pathetic do you have to be to be so immersed in a fantasy world that changes to a film blow your world apart?
Third, few ever get the chance to revise and re-release films in order to more closely match their own vision and imagination. The bottom line is that the Star Wars Universe belongs to George Lucas and no one else. Fanfic notwithstanding, it is George Lucas' imagination that spawned the idea and the original stories, and he has every right to do whatever he wishes with them. I for one am happy for him that he got a chance that few (if any) others have. After all, when classic films are remade, frequently they are no better than the original and all too often they are not as good. But the remakes are often very successful and sometimes even applauded. So what's wrong with an individual getting a rare chance for a "do-over" to overcome limitations of the original project and express his personal views more clearly?
And lastly, shame on those who are themselves artists or creative types and should understand that sometimes their work suffers because of limitations of many different kinds, including fiscal, technological, temporal, and sometimes even the political climate of the day. Haven't you ever wished that you had a chance to change something that you did in the past? Or are sour grapes keeping you from admitting that sometimes hindsight is better than foresight, and second chances shouldn't be wasted?
Bottom Line: If ever there were truth to the expression "Get a Life!", it's regarding this issue.
The Real Dope: Unless it is specifically designated as Nonfiction or Documentary, it's all about escape and fantasy, not realism. If you get lost in the contradictions, errors or craftmanship of a piece of art, you're not only missing the point entirely, you're really doing harm to your own experience of life.
12 September 2011
03 June 2011
Apple: Beauty Is Only Skin Deep
Let's face it: Apple products are for Luddites. Here's the typical Apple product user's comments:
1) It's slick, smooth and attractive. It's stylish.
2) I don't have to figure things out.
3) I don't have to make choices.
4) I don't care how the thing works. I just want it to work.
5) It's easy.
6) It's intuitive.
7) "The technology gets out of your way."
8) It doesn't crash.
9) It doesn't get viruses.
10) It's better for graphic/video editing.
And the truth:
1) Well, if you like staring at a blank sheet of paper or a blank wall, then Apple's your thing. Minimalism at its worst. Style over function. One (or few), button that forces you to go deep into submenus or scroll forever to get to what you want to do, or it's just not there at all. Personally, I prefer to be able to tell the top from the bottom, and to me style means form, not formlessness.
2) Because there's nothing to figure out. What you see is what you get, and since Apple tells you what, where, when and how to think, it's easy.
3) Apple forces you to do things one way: their way. If your mind doesn't work exactly the same way, that's tough. Forget about alternate ways of doing and getting at things.
4) Ultimate luddite attitude. It might take some modicum of effort to understand what's going on. And then other people might ask you the questions that you're asking everybody else. Instead of understanding so that you never have to ask a question... The fact is, if you understand just a little about how the thing works, not only will it no longer be this vague scary thing but you'll know much better how to make it work for you. You'll be able to do things that right now you can't even imagine.
5) It's easy because there's nothing to it. Literally. Want to change your wallpaper on your iPhone? Tough! Apple makes things easy by not allowing you to do anything different or useful with their products.
6) If by "intuitive" you mean totally illogical, backwards, disorganized, limiting and inefficient...
7) This one really makes me stabby. The only way for "technology to get out of your way" is for you to not use technology. Which in most cases means you'll take ten times as long, have a far less polished and professional result, and everyone will laugh at you. Yes, poorly written and buggy programs can be frustrating and take more time and energy than they should. That's the beauty of non-Apple products: they all give you lots of choices, so if one program or app doesn't work well, just ditch it and find something that does. With Apple products, your choices are quite limited. They have a much smaller market share, so they're not worth many developers spending lots of time and energy on. The iOS situation is only slightly different: they claim many more apps in their App store, except most of them are fluff or identical to most of the others only with a different "skin". Apple's requirements are such that doing something truly unique and different with an iOS device is pretty much impossible.
8) This one is just an out-and-out lie. I've watched Apple computers crash and burn in just as many ways and just as many times as the others. If yours hasn't crashed then it's probably because it's still pretty much the way it came out of the box, with nothing else ever having been installed. Windows machines are just as reliable if treated the same way. And Linux (which Apple stole for OS X) crashes too.
9) Because they are not a target because they are too few to spend the energy on. And there do happen to be a few, it's just hard for them to spread because... wait for it... there isn't a big enough presence on the Internet for them to consistently and effectively network with each other. If they were the dominant product, they would not be any less susceptible to malware than the current dominant product is.
10) This has almost never been true. Apple hardware has always been less powerful (and at a much higher price point) than PC hardware, and much less flexible. The limiting factor has been software, but even that is mostly a self-perpetuating myth. People who want to be "cool" and "elite" always have used Apple because they knew that most people didn't and therefore wouldn't know any better than to believe them when they made those claims. There was a time in the video and photo industries when Apple was where most of the companies were putting their efforts and money, primarily because of the myth, but that hasn't been true for a very long time. Apple tried very hard to keep things in their court with with nearly proprietary hardware (remember Firewire? and they're still trying with stuff like Display Port), but fortunately the horse has left the gate and with the speed of technological progress companies are gradually finding out (are you listening, Sony?) that striking off on their own is a waste of resources and finding common ground is a much better solution.
Now, what's the truth with Windows machines?
First, a little clarification: "crash" doesn't mean what it used to. Neither does "bug". Way back when, when a computer crashed you didn't just reboot and go right on working. When a computer crashed, you lost everything and had to start over from scratch. You had to buy new and very expensive components, crack open the case and swap them out, and when you finally got the hardware going again you had to load the OS, then your program, and then start over from scratch with entering data again. Nowadays hardware rarely fails catastrophically, and even if it does it's relatively cheap, simple and painless to replace. In the early days of hard drives, they failed often and completely. Now it's rare for a hard drive to fail (unless it's a Western Digital - I haven't had a WD drive that *didn't* fail since ~1999), and there are so many truly easy ways to back up your data that if you lose any data at all, you have no one (and no thing) to blame but yourself. Back in the early days, a computer bug was an actual bug that got into the machine and shorted it out. Now it's just an inconvenient hiccup in a program that doesn't cause harm to the hardware and usually has a workaround.
The very thing that luddites claim to be the downfall of Windows is actually its strength. There are a dozen different ways to do any one thing, so if your mind works a little different than your friend's you can both do things in the way that makes the most sense to you. And that often-overlooked right button on your mouse can speed up your work drastically if you investigate those "context-sensitive menus". Keyboard shortcuts abound, which are even faster and easier and can help alleviate stress on your wrists from all that mousing. And the choice of applications is virtually limitless, with some of the best being free. And unlike files created on Apples, you can work on a Windows PC comfortable with the fact that the result can be viewed pretty much on any device anywhere in the world. Windows runs on just about anything, and drivers for obscure hardware are easy to track down. If you so wish, you can drill down into the most minute details of the way your Windows looks and works and customize it to your heart's content. You have total control. But if you just want to check your email, they're fine for that too.
Here's a news story that resulted from a typical Apple fan mentality:
Chinese Boy Sells One of His Kidneys For iPad 2
Here's a timely comic:
How to fix any computer
And another:
What it's like to own an Apple product
Proof that Apple products are more about style than substance (emphasis mine):
White iPhone finally launching worldwide tomorrow and The white iPhone: Does size matter?
1) It's slick, smooth and attractive. It's stylish.
2) I don't have to figure things out.
3) I don't have to make choices.
4) I don't care how the thing works. I just want it to work.
5) It's easy.
6) It's intuitive.
7) "The technology gets out of your way."
8) It doesn't crash.
9) It doesn't get viruses.
10) It's better for graphic/video editing.
And the truth:
1) Well, if you like staring at a blank sheet of paper or a blank wall, then Apple's your thing. Minimalism at its worst. Style over function. One (or few), button that forces you to go deep into submenus or scroll forever to get to what you want to do, or it's just not there at all. Personally, I prefer to be able to tell the top from the bottom, and to me style means form, not formlessness.
2) Because there's nothing to figure out. What you see is what you get, and since Apple tells you what, where, when and how to think, it's easy.
3) Apple forces you to do things one way: their way. If your mind doesn't work exactly the same way, that's tough. Forget about alternate ways of doing and getting at things.
4) Ultimate luddite attitude. It might take some modicum of effort to understand what's going on. And then other people might ask you the questions that you're asking everybody else. Instead of understanding so that you never have to ask a question... The fact is, if you understand just a little about how the thing works, not only will it no longer be this vague scary thing but you'll know much better how to make it work for you. You'll be able to do things that right now you can't even imagine.
5) It's easy because there's nothing to it. Literally. Want to change your wallpaper on your iPhone? Tough! Apple makes things easy by not allowing you to do anything different or useful with their products.
6) If by "intuitive" you mean totally illogical, backwards, disorganized, limiting and inefficient...
7) This one really makes me stabby. The only way for "technology to get out of your way" is for you to not use technology. Which in most cases means you'll take ten times as long, have a far less polished and professional result, and everyone will laugh at you. Yes, poorly written and buggy programs can be frustrating and take more time and energy than they should. That's the beauty of non-Apple products: they all give you lots of choices, so if one program or app doesn't work well, just ditch it and find something that does. With Apple products, your choices are quite limited. They have a much smaller market share, so they're not worth many developers spending lots of time and energy on. The iOS situation is only slightly different: they claim many more apps in their App store, except most of them are fluff or identical to most of the others only with a different "skin". Apple's requirements are such that doing something truly unique and different with an iOS device is pretty much impossible.
8) This one is just an out-and-out lie. I've watched Apple computers crash and burn in just as many ways and just as many times as the others. If yours hasn't crashed then it's probably because it's still pretty much the way it came out of the box, with nothing else ever having been installed. Windows machines are just as reliable if treated the same way. And Linux (which Apple stole for OS X) crashes too.
9) Because they are not a target because they are too few to spend the energy on. And there do happen to be a few, it's just hard for them to spread because... wait for it... there isn't a big enough presence on the Internet for them to consistently and effectively network with each other. If they were the dominant product, they would not be any less susceptible to malware than the current dominant product is.
10) This has almost never been true. Apple hardware has always been less powerful (and at a much higher price point) than PC hardware, and much less flexible. The limiting factor has been software, but even that is mostly a self-perpetuating myth. People who want to be "cool" and "elite" always have used Apple because they knew that most people didn't and therefore wouldn't know any better than to believe them when they made those claims. There was a time in the video and photo industries when Apple was where most of the companies were putting their efforts and money, primarily because of the myth, but that hasn't been true for a very long time. Apple tried very hard to keep things in their court with with nearly proprietary hardware (remember Firewire? and they're still trying with stuff like Display Port), but fortunately the horse has left the gate and with the speed of technological progress companies are gradually finding out (are you listening, Sony?) that striking off on their own is a waste of resources and finding common ground is a much better solution.
Now, what's the truth with Windows machines?
First, a little clarification: "crash" doesn't mean what it used to. Neither does "bug". Way back when, when a computer crashed you didn't just reboot and go right on working. When a computer crashed, you lost everything and had to start over from scratch. You had to buy new and very expensive components, crack open the case and swap them out, and when you finally got the hardware going again you had to load the OS, then your program, and then start over from scratch with entering data again. Nowadays hardware rarely fails catastrophically, and even if it does it's relatively cheap, simple and painless to replace. In the early days of hard drives, they failed often and completely. Now it's rare for a hard drive to fail (unless it's a Western Digital - I haven't had a WD drive that *didn't* fail since ~1999), and there are so many truly easy ways to back up your data that if you lose any data at all, you have no one (and no thing) to blame but yourself. Back in the early days, a computer bug was an actual bug that got into the machine and shorted it out. Now it's just an inconvenient hiccup in a program that doesn't cause harm to the hardware and usually has a workaround.
The very thing that luddites claim to be the downfall of Windows is actually its strength. There are a dozen different ways to do any one thing, so if your mind works a little different than your friend's you can both do things in the way that makes the most sense to you. And that often-overlooked right button on your mouse can speed up your work drastically if you investigate those "context-sensitive menus". Keyboard shortcuts abound, which are even faster and easier and can help alleviate stress on your wrists from all that mousing. And the choice of applications is virtually limitless, with some of the best being free. And unlike files created on Apples, you can work on a Windows PC comfortable with the fact that the result can be viewed pretty much on any device anywhere in the world. Windows runs on just about anything, and drivers for obscure hardware are easy to track down. If you so wish, you can drill down into the most minute details of the way your Windows looks and works and customize it to your heart's content. You have total control. But if you just want to check your email, they're fine for that too.
Here's a news story that resulted from a typical Apple fan mentality:
Chinese Boy Sells One of His Kidneys For iPad 2
Here's a timely comic:
How to fix any computer
And another:
What it's like to own an Apple product
Proof that Apple products are more about style than substance (emphasis mine):
White iPhone finally launching worldwide tomorrow and The white iPhone: Does size matter?
04 May 2011
A Little Knowledge Is A Dangerous Thing
Okay, never mind that the title of this post is a common misquote. (See this page if you're curious who originally said it.)
There is a "contest" going on right now to win new Nexus S phones by figuring out puzzles posted on Twitter. Today's puzzle was extremely flawed, including not only a glaring contradiction and error in the given example, but errors in responses to people's answers.
Here's the original tweet:
-------------
@googlenexus
Sample: sbnnn340wd yes, sbnnn233wd no, chwshlkszm yes, chwshlksza no. Pattern=no repeating numerals, at least 1 repeating letter, no vowels
-------------
Clearly, there are no "repeating letters" in "chwshlkszm", so that has to be a "no", but they've indicated it as a "yes". I pointed that out, and this guy responded thusly:
-------------
@awolfman No, you are wrong. Just look into a mathematical formulary under "Permutations with Repetition" which includes things as 12315
-------------
Ignoring the dubious source of a "formulary" (I'm not going to get into what that is or why it's dangerous in this post), there's the fact that there is again clearly no repetition in "12315", so anybody with a little common sense (who didn't already know what the phrase "Permutations with Repetition" means) would look it up and find out what it really means before claiming it as "proof" of something. But no, this guy glanced at something he thought (wished) supported his argument, yanked it totally out of context, and proffered it as proof that I was wrong.
Here's the deal: the phrase "Permutations with Repetition" has nothing to do with and does not describe the form of the example number. Rather, it describes the method by which that number is generated, and in actual fact the resulting number not only has no repetition, it also is not even a permutation.
A true permutation is simply a rearrangement of the order of the digits of the source number, and cannot have any more or fewer instances of any given numeral. The first digit is generated by picking any of the digits of the source number, the second digit is generated by picking any of the digits of the source number except the one you used for the first digit, the third is generated by picking any of the digits of the source number except for the ones you used in the first and second digits, and so on. So 123456, 523416, 214365, 654123 and 654321 are permutations of 654321, but 654421 is not.
So what is a "permutation with repetition"? Simply this: for every digit of the target number, you can pick any of the digits from the source number. The term "repetition" means that (distinctly different from the generation of a real permutation) the method you use to generate each digit is identical to the method you use to generate the previous digit. But there is not necessarily any repetition in the generated number. So it's essentially just a random number constrained by the set of numerals contained in the source number. For example, 4634524, 3245423, and 6235463 are all "permutations with repetition" of 2323546, as are 2222222, 3333333, 43254464, 5555555 and 6666666, but none of those are actual permutations of it, and only the second set have any actual repetition with regard to the number itself.
Now, what is the definition of "repetition"? Answer: Repetition is when identical consecutive patterns exist. A "pattern" can be a single digit, so 22, 222, 2222222, and 22222 are all examples of repetition, as are 123123, 132132132 and 12349929481234992948. But 2032421324 is not, and neither is 1032576891.
Here's further proof: there are only 10 numerals in the "base 10" system that is used worldwide for all day-to-day calculations. But the famous "irrational" constant pi is both non-terminating and non-repeating. So any given numeral occurs an infinite number of times. So the mere existence of multiple instances of the same numerals does not constitute "repetition".
I guess I've beat that dead horse enough: I think that it's immediately and abundantly obvious to most people who look at the pattern "chwshlkszm" that there is in fact no repetition in it.
Bottom Line: Make sure you truly understand a concept before trying to use it in conversation.
The Real Dope: So back to the title of this post. This is the scariest thing about the world today. Information is so abundantly and easily available, but so many people are so disinclined to actually understand anything, because that takes a modicum of time and effort. All they want to do is copy and paste something somebody else has already done for them. The guy that sent that ignorant response is apparently the manager of a software project. And you wondered why your programs/computers were always misbehaving and crashing?
There is a "contest" going on right now to win new Nexus S phones by figuring out puzzles posted on Twitter. Today's puzzle was extremely flawed, including not only a glaring contradiction and error in the given example, but errors in responses to people's answers.
Here's the original tweet:
-------------
@googlenexus
Sample: sbnnn340wd yes, sbnnn233wd no, chwshlkszm yes, chwshlksza no. Pattern=no repeating numerals, at least 1 repeating letter, no vowels
-------------
Clearly, there are no "repeating letters" in "chwshlkszm", so that has to be a "no", but they've indicated it as a "yes". I pointed that out, and this guy responded thusly:
-------------
@awolfman No, you are wrong. Just look into a mathematical formulary under "Permutations with Repetition" which includes things as 12315
-------------
Ignoring the dubious source of a "formulary" (I'm not going to get into what that is or why it's dangerous in this post), there's the fact that there is again clearly no repetition in "12315", so anybody with a little common sense (who didn't already know what the phrase "Permutations with Repetition" means) would look it up and find out what it really means before claiming it as "proof" of something. But no, this guy glanced at something he thought (wished) supported his argument, yanked it totally out of context, and proffered it as proof that I was wrong.
Here's the deal: the phrase "Permutations with Repetition" has nothing to do with and does not describe the form of the example number. Rather, it describes the method by which that number is generated, and in actual fact the resulting number not only has no repetition, it also is not even a permutation.
A true permutation is simply a rearrangement of the order of the digits of the source number, and cannot have any more or fewer instances of any given numeral. The first digit is generated by picking any of the digits of the source number, the second digit is generated by picking any of the digits of the source number except the one you used for the first digit, the third is generated by picking any of the digits of the source number except for the ones you used in the first and second digits, and so on. So 123456, 523416, 214365, 654123 and 654321 are permutations of 654321, but 654421 is not.
So what is a "permutation with repetition"? Simply this: for every digit of the target number, you can pick any of the digits from the source number. The term "repetition" means that (distinctly different from the generation of a real permutation) the method you use to generate each digit is identical to the method you use to generate the previous digit. But there is not necessarily any repetition in the generated number. So it's essentially just a random number constrained by the set of numerals contained in the source number. For example, 4634524, 3245423, and 6235463 are all "permutations with repetition" of 2323546, as are 2222222, 3333333, 43254464, 5555555 and 6666666, but none of those are actual permutations of it, and only the second set have any actual repetition with regard to the number itself.
Now, what is the definition of "repetition"? Answer: Repetition is when identical consecutive patterns exist. A "pattern" can be a single digit, so 22, 222, 2222222, and 22222 are all examples of repetition, as are 123123, 132132132 and 12349929481234992948. But 2032421324 is not, and neither is 1032576891.
Here's further proof: there are only 10 numerals in the "base 10" system that is used worldwide for all day-to-day calculations. But the famous "irrational" constant pi is both non-terminating and non-repeating. So any given numeral occurs an infinite number of times. So the mere existence of multiple instances of the same numerals does not constitute "repetition".
I guess I've beat that dead horse enough: I think that it's immediately and abundantly obvious to most people who look at the pattern "chwshlkszm" that there is in fact no repetition in it.
Bottom Line: Make sure you truly understand a concept before trying to use it in conversation.
The Real Dope: So back to the title of this post. This is the scariest thing about the world today. Information is so abundantly and easily available, but so many people are so disinclined to actually understand anything, because that takes
18 April 2011
Nexus One Update 2: Froyo, Gingerbread, Honeycomb
It's been a long time since I've posted, due to many factors I don't want to express. Anyway, after waiting impatiently and for far too long for the Android 2.3 (Gingerbread) update, and now having used it for about six weeks, I am less than impressed. What little increase in functionality it brings is more than offset by the host of bugs, many of which were previously solved with 2.2 FroYo. Clearly, the "flagship" has incredibly quickly become a second-class citizen, and Google is putting too much effort into the UI and too little into killing bugs and increasing actual usability. If I could easily flash back to FroYo, I most certainly would. Since I also have a Tablet with FroYo, I can tell you conclusively that the phone UI scales up quite nicely and works quite will on a 10.1" tablet screen, and the hype over Honeycomb's UI is undeserved. The UI is done, folks, let's get to work on the real issues.
Which are:
1) Really? Still no calibration for touchscreen or g-sensors? I've never been able to use Sky Map or "augmented reality" apps because of this issue, and I am very, very far from being alone. The most basic gadgets of the past that had touchscreens had calibration utilities built into the OS, and it's incredibly stupid to have sensors of any type that can't be calibrated.
2) No HID profile? No mouse profile? Granted, phones don't need mice, but they very often do benefit greatly from bluetooth keyboards. And tablets are much more versatile if they support bluetooth mice as well as keyboards. This is actually a case of Google removing something that is already built into stock Linux, and would require almost zero effort to put back in.
3) The Gallery issue of it hanging and crashing is apparently much deeper, because some other apps are apparently affected by the same underlying bug. This was introduced a little while before Gingerbread came along, though. And again, other devices/apps let you specify what directories to search for different types of media. Having the default to be searching everything is incredibly inefficient and ignorant.
4) The official Android Market and GMS apps (Google Mobile Services, meaning the Gmail app, Maps, Navigation, Calendar, Contacts, YouTube and Flash) should be available on every device. Period. The fragmentation that is resulting from forcing other app collections to crop up is a very bad thing, not to mention creating tons of ill will when people buy a device expecting certain basic functionality and find out the hard way that Google has left them out in the cold. It's not as though there aren't workarounds, but in the long run all they do is add to the ill will by forcing inconvenient solutions to problems that are totally unnecessary and indefensible.
And finally, if Google really wants to make Android a success in the long term, they need to completely ban integrated UI "enhancements" by the various manufacturers and carriers, make stock Android the out-of-the box default regardless of the device or where you buy it, and make the various UI skins optional. They also need to remove all apps from the base install so that all apps can be fully upgraded without relying on patches or forcing a reflash of the entire OS (not that it's difficult or dangerous, but it does unnecessarily introduce the possibility of problems) and can be moved to SD as well as not allowing certain noncritical apps to take up space when users really, really don't want them.
Which are:
1) Really? Still no calibration for touchscreen or g-sensors? I've never been able to use Sky Map or "augmented reality" apps because of this issue, and I am very, very far from being alone. The most basic gadgets of the past that had touchscreens had calibration utilities built into the OS, and it's incredibly stupid to have sensors of any type that can't be calibrated.
2) No HID profile? No mouse profile? Granted, phones don't need mice, but they very often do benefit greatly from bluetooth keyboards. And tablets are much more versatile if they support bluetooth mice as well as keyboards. This is actually a case of Google removing something that is already built into stock Linux, and would require almost zero effort to put back in.
3) The Gallery issue of it hanging and crashing is apparently much deeper, because some other apps are apparently affected by the same underlying bug. This was introduced a little while before Gingerbread came along, though. And again, other devices/apps let you specify what directories to search for different types of media. Having the default to be searching everything is incredibly inefficient and ignorant.
4) The official Android Market and GMS apps (Google Mobile Services, meaning the Gmail app, Maps, Navigation, Calendar, Contacts, YouTube and Flash) should be available on every device. Period. The fragmentation that is resulting from forcing other app collections to crop up is a very bad thing, not to mention creating tons of ill will when people buy a device expecting certain basic functionality and find out the hard way that Google has left them out in the cold. It's not as though there aren't workarounds, but in the long run all they do is add to the ill will by forcing inconvenient solutions to problems that are totally unnecessary and indefensible.
And finally, if Google really wants to make Android a success in the long term, they need to completely ban integrated UI "enhancements" by the various manufacturers and carriers, make stock Android the out-of-the box default regardless of the device or where you buy it, and make the various UI skins optional. They also need to remove all apps from the base install so that all apps can be fully upgraded without relying on patches or forcing a reflash of the entire OS (not that it's difficult or dangerous, but it does unnecessarily introduce the possibility of problems) and can be moved to SD as well as not allowing certain noncritical apps to take up space when users really, really don't want them.
06 July 2010
Nexus One Update
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
