Friday, November 30, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
MY NANO IS FINISHED!
I typed the words "THE END" at precisely 12:00AM, earlier tonight.
I am celebrating with subs from a local sub shop here in Westwood and tomorrow night TheWife and I will likely be getting sushi. ^_^
What a relief...
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz. Replies.
Yep, if you're like me and ordered yourself and a 3rd World kid an XO laptop on November 12, 2007, it's now possible to obnoxiously brag about it to everyone who visits your blog!! That's right!
Read more about it here:
Also, you can put yourself on a Frapper map, too!
Not sure what the point is to either of these, aside from giving us FDDs a new way to be elitist. Still, I'll do both because it advertises the cause of putting computers in front of 3rd World kids. It's not like I put a "Mad on a Mac" badge on every web page I create.
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz. Replies.
Yep, for anyone following along, I wrote over 6000 words in the last 4.5 hours. NICE. I think I can only write like this in the middle of the night. But yeah, I've blown past the 50k minimum for NaNoWriMo, now I just need to finish the damn story. I had some stupid idea I could do it last night, but I don't know what I was thinking. It'll definitely be tonight, though. I've only got one chapter left in the story and probably about four or five scenes in it. Can't wait to get to it. The thing is, I'm so fired up on caffeine, I bet I could keep going. But I need a break.
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz. Replies.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Hey, check it out! It's a screencap of the email I just got from OLPC regarding my day-one purchase of an XO laptop! SWEET! They're saying my donated laptop is already on the way to a kid in a 3rd World country! Awesome. Seriously, that just feels cool to have paid for one of these for some kid someplace. I just wish we could be in touch with the kid to help him/her out and encourage them to learn and to help out when we can.
And the email does one worse--it gives me a window of when to expect my XO to be delivered. It's a TEN DAY WINDOW! I'm going to be driving my wife crazy between the 13th and the 24th as I bounce off the walls waiting for my XO to show up. Anyway, that's the update for now!
OH wait-- Laptopmag.org did do a comparison between the XO and the eee--which to me is way too much like comparing Windows machines to Macs. Ultimately, it's up to user preference. They both have strengths and weaknesses depending on what you're looking for in a low-power-consuming, portable PCish device. Feel free to have a read if it'll help you decide which you'd rather buy though for $400 you might as well go with the XO so a 3rd World kid can get one, too.
If the biggest bank in the US can falter once, it can falter again and who knows if it can do worse than falter? Our economy is tanking, even more so now thanks to the failing mortgage market. This is actually what brought on Citibank's troubles. However, before the AP reported about the Dubai investment, they reported that a "New Wave of Mortgage Failures Could Create a Nightmare Economic Scenario." Check out this cutting from a November 24, 2007 article from AP.org available at Biz.Yahoo.com:
Soaring mortgage default rates this year already have shaken major financial institutions and the fallout from more of them, some experts say, could spread from those already battered banks into the general economy.
The worst-case scenario is anyone's guess, but some believe it could become very bad.
"We haven't faced a downturn like this since the Depression," said Bill Gross, chief investment officer of PIMCO, the world's biggest bond fund. He's not suggesting anything like those terrible times -- but, as an expert on the global credit crisis, he speaks with authority.
"Its effect on consumption, its effect on future lending attitudes, could bring us close to the zero line in terms of economic growth," he said. "It does keep me up at night."
What's scary is that we already have data to confirm one bad thing that guy predicted. He said this sort of economic crisis could have a bad "effect on consumption." Now, I'm no economist, but I'm pretty sure that means "buying stuff." Turns out Black Friday sales are actually higher than expected, that according to a November 28, 2007 article at PublicBroadcasting.net. What does that mean? It means, on the surface, that people aren't letting this economic-downturn-stuff get to them and they're spending anyway.
It also means that people aren't preparing for the future. Sure, a record number of mortgages are defaulting, but does that mean you should stop racking up debt?
Uh, actually, YES.
It means you should stop spending and start planning for the long term. But no one wants to face reality these days. They just want to cling to their Xboxes and their false illusions about their SUVs and excessive lifestyles. After all, we're using up 140% of the Earth's resources just for food. But hey, that's not important. Hillary insulting Obama is way more exciting!
Or are you following Paris Hilton's exploits?
Either way we need to get greener fast.
The Environmentâ„¢, it's that thing you're living in--and we can't save it if our economy is a mess.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
A recent FCC report promoted by Kevin Martin, the agency's chairman, found that cable TV reaches a wide enough U.S. audience to trigger a rule within a 1984 law that would give the government significant new powers to ensure program diversity.
But a majority of the agency's five-member commission said the report endorsed flawed data and should have used other sources. Some said they weren't even aware of the agency's own numbers until Monday night.
"Our job of ascertaining the facts is made more difficult because the draft cherry picked the only data that justified the outcome apparently desired while suppressing other data," Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein said.
Right, right--so FCC dudes that are of the same ilk as the Bushites who suppressed data on Global Warming are now claiming that pro-big-business data is being suppressed? Likely story.
The math is simple here, folks. Power corrupts. Regulation curtails power. And since I have exactly two real choices for my TV service provider (one cable company and one mini-dish company serve my area) I'd say more regulation is required. I have no choices within the services, too. For Time-Warner Cable, I can either pay too much for too little, way too much for more, but still not enough decent programming, or--well, that's where I stopped paying attention.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Funny how when the Japanese designed an exo-suit back in 2005, it was designed to help people who needed medical attention. An American company does it and it's all about the
killing military applications. Let's hear it for innovation!
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Friday, November 23, 2007
Thursday, November 22, 2007
According to a press release, the G1G1 program has been extended to December 31!
For those of you not in XOniverse, you may recall the XO laptop and the program being run by OLPC (the non-profit behind the XO) where if you pay $400, they'll send you an XO laptop and they'll also send a 3rd World kid an XO, as well--it's called Give 1, Get 1. The period in which North Americans could Give an XO and Get an XO was originally only supposed to be fifteen days--from November 12 to 27, 2007. However, thanks to $2 million a day in sales, OLPC is extending the program to December 31, 2007.
So, if you're thinking about it, you've got a bit larger of a window--but don't expect Amazon.com service--it could take as long as four months to receive your XO and it runs $25 for shipping.
Read http://thepete.com/tag/olpc for more of my blogging on the XO and the G1G1 program.
You can also check out laptop.org or wiki.laptop.org to learn more about the XO from the source.
Follow XO-related news at OLPCnews.com.
Or if you're ready to make the jump, head to XOgiving.org and place your order.
I'll be blogging on the XO as I come across news or when I have new experiences to report with the XO. I still have yet to spend any more time with SugarOS, but I hope to do that once the first draft of my novel is done. So be sure to stop back and see what's new. Feel free to drop me a line if you've got XO news.
King George of America pats an American on the head.
Photo:Reuters, nicked from smh.com.au.
One of the big dangers I think religion brings to the table is the idea that there is a god with a plan and everything is cool because He is in charge and He knows what he's doing.
The things is, there is no god--upper case or lower case "G," there is no plan. Yes, this is all random--we exist because of a cosmic accident.
See? Now, didn't the universe, this planet, and your life just become way more amazing and valuable?
If you picked up a deck of cards and threw them across the room, they'd just fall to the floor, making a mess. Well, what if you threw them across the room and they all landed in such a way as to create a house of cards? Wouldn't you just about shit yourself with awe? I would.
But another thing I would do is protect that damn house of cards with my life. What an amazing thing to have a house of cards fall into place by pure accident!
Well, guess what, folks. Yep, our world, our existence is a house of cards. It wasn't built by someone--it just came into being. How do I know this? Because there is precisely NO evidence of a god, but there's is PLENTY of evidence that the universe is made up of swirling balls that can sometimes (at least once) provide the randomly right combination of crap to, quite accidentally, create life.
Enter human religion and it's urge to put all the responsibility on God and His Plan. This gives permission to millions of people throughout history to do unspeakably horrible things to other people. This also gives permission to humans in the twentieth century to just "trust" in "God" that everything will be cool. It'll all just work out. It's on our fucking money for Christ's sake! "In God We Trust."
Yeah, great idea, folks. Well, guess what, there is no God to trust. So if we trust God, we trust no one. If we trust God's plan we trust nothing at all.
Enter the industrial age and the age of fossil fuels. Oil gives us gasoline, chemicals, plastic and cheap EVERYTHING. Oil is so fricken' cool that the US government convinces the biggest oil-producing countries in the world to only trade oil in US dollars, thus locking the very life of the US economy into the oil machine. Oil gives America everything it has. Everything.
Oil also gives the air and water an absurd amount of toxins. The toxins in the air create a blanket for our planet, warming the Earth unevenly, causing a disruption in weather patterns that we are already seeing the results of. The toxins in the water are now poisoning nearly every fish on the planet. It turns out that the oceans have absorbed something like 500 billion tons of carbon dioxide since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, which actually helped thin out that blanket mentioned earlier for a time. Soon, the ocean will stop accepting the CO2, and as sea life (not just fish) dies thanks to all of these poisons, they will release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, thus creating a spike in that blanket making it worse than it's ever been.
Our planet is dying.
We've all been willingly ignorant. Why read up on this stuff when Paris Hilton is going to jail? Why read about how our economy is built on the trade of oil in the form of petrodollars when the Xbox 360 is so much fun to play? Why come up with solutions for the planet or even ways to get off of this planet when the latest episode of Lost is on TV?
I blame myself as much as I blame you and everyone else in our stupid, fat, lazy, scared, irresponsible culture. I can only imagine how many people died in Iraq so that I can have my Nintendo DS that is made of plastic made from oil. I don't want to think about the crap inside the laptop I'm using to type this incredibly heavy-handed post, because I know some of it fueled a horrible civil war in some African country.
We go about our lives in the United States (and other Western countries) with this feeling of entitlement. We have RIGHTS. We have things we DESERVE.
All we have is luck.
We were born and we were born where we were born.
We have so very much to be thankful for.
So, enjoy your turkey. Be thankful for it, your days off from work, your DVD recorder, your home, your significant other, your car (if you have one), your kids (if you have any), your job, your money, your supermarket, your Netflix account, your Best Buy, and, of course, be thankful for your very life.
Thank me for writing this post because you know god damn well that no one else is saying this shit and you know it's true. Why soft-pedal this reality?
Is it hopeless? Futile? Is there even any point, at this point?
The system was made to be virtually impossible to tear down.
For 200,000 years humans have existed in their current biological form. The Industrial Revolution has only occurred in the last hundred years.
Of course there's hope...but not for our way of life.
So, be thankful for that, too, while it lasts.
Oh and turkey skin. Be thankful for that, too. It's the best part of Thanksgiving, IMHO.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Something about that picture does it for me. She's still feminine, but has muscles and the (admittedly phallic) shotgun--between the three elements I only see positive. She's a woman in a tank-top and make-up, so she's powerful in her sexual attractiveness, but she's also got muscles (small as they are) and a shotgun, which both show she's able to get tough (male strength). To me this post embodies everything powerful about both genders, and the ultimate adaptability of the woman to exist in a man's world. I also get a sense that she's kind of nurturing, too--she's looking down, not in a submissive way, but in a contemplative way. As though she is considering what she has to do to save humanity--not just as a baby factory (aka John Connor's mom), but as a person taking responsibility for humanity. It's actually a very cool message in my mind.
Of course, it still doesn't make me want to watch the show because I hate the woman they got to play the good Terminator. She's playing the exact same character she played in Serenity. A frail-looking, vacant, young woman who can REALLY KICK ASS!!! YEAH! Wait, NO. That's lame and boring, cliche, sexist and a little pedophilic. I mean, let's be honest, she kinda looks like a little girl--like easily under 17, yet she's set up to be a sex object for the lead character. Just because she plays a robot, doesn't mean she doesn't press buttons that activate men's urge-to-screw-little-girls-mode.
I'd much rather stick with the MILF with the shotgun, thank you very much.
So, on November 14, 2007, Democracy Now did a story on the rise of hate crimes across the US. They talked about the Jena 6--the six black teens who were involved in a truly messed up case that started with them being threatened with a noose hanging from a schoolyard tree, all the way to having one of them facing ten years in jail for attempted murder. They also talked about the case of the seven minority lesbians who are in jail now because an instance that began with an asshole straight guy sexually harassing them ended with him getting touchy feely and them getting stabby-stabby. However, the most disturbing case they reported on was the case of Megan Williams who was kidnapped and, well, I'd rather not try to describe it when she did a perfect job of it herself for the AP, have a read (or don't, it's pretty god damned disturbing):
They were torturing me. They all passed a knife around that was -- and stabbing me. I was trying to get away as they were stabbing me, and they were holding me down and stuff. And they smothered me with a bag. That morning, I had a bag wrapped around my neck and everything. They choked me. They made me eat dog poop, rat poop and human. They made me drink their urine. And each time, they braided some switches together, and they were beating me across the back. They tore my clothes off me and everything.
And then they took me up to a lake. They said that was the place they were going to cut my throat and throw me in, and I was never going to come back and see my family again. They were just telling me that they were going to kill me.
And, you know, I was -- they made me take a bath in a trash can. They wouldnâ€™t let me use the bathroom. I had to use the bathroom outside. I had to sleep outside. And they told me if they even remotely heard me once, that they would go out there and kill me. They poured candle wax in my hair. They pulled my hair out when they were cutting it with scissors. And, you know, they were just scary.
They had me tied up. I couldnâ€™t go anywhere. Like the time when they left, they were going to go get some beer and stuff, and when they came back they said they were going to finish me off. And before they even got back, I had already got loose. I found a knife and cut myself loose.
I heard the police coming up to the driveway. When Iâ€™d seen the police, I just -- you know, I knew it was, you know, my chance to get out. And if I didnâ€™t, I was going to die anyway. And then, thatâ€™s when they see me coming out there, and they thought -- they said I was going to lose my leg, when they see about the stabs. And I was scared. I didnâ€™t know what to do. All I kept saying -- I was thinking about my momma, also wanting to come home. And every time I close my eyes, all I see is that knife, the one they kept stabbing me and stabbing me. Itâ€™s just -- you know, itâ€™s a nightmare.
Aren't we humans wonderful?
Now, here's where it gets interesting for you, the reader.
I truly believe acts like the ones described above are truly, truly horrible. These people who commit crimes like this should be thrown in jail for life. However, I don't like the idea of calling what they do a "hate crime." This punishes people for what they think and not what they do.
As a rational society, we should act when wrongs are committed, but should not act more when really bad wrongs are committed. The punishment should fit the crime, not the thought behind it.
Who is worse?
1) The man who kills indiscriminately?
2) The man who kills only certain people who fit his own criteria?
Man #1 might kill anyone--gay or straight.
Man #2 will only kill gays.
That means that Man #2 is a threat to only a percentage of the population.
I know it sounds odd, but basing these choices on how much hate is involved is so arbitrary that it will definitely result (if it hasn't already) in unfair sentences.
Wrong acting is a crime. Wrong thinking isn't. So, wrong thinking behind a wrong act should not make it a worse crime, punishment-wise. Discriminating against those that do misses the point. You can't legislate against hate. You can only legislate against acting on that hate.
Do I think any of the men and women who committed the above crimes should get away with it? Of course not! But I don't think they should get harsher treatment because of their beliefs. That's not fair.
Man #1 above, who kills 30 people of various races and creeds could get 30 years to life while Man #2 could see a life sentence, flat, because he hated the race or sexual preference of the person he killed.
I'm just using those sentences as examples--the law in your state may impose different sentences.
The point is this: prosecute all crime, leave the judging of motivation to a higher power.
Well, guess what! Even after adjusting for inflation, the price of car juice is set to crack the record. Check out this cutting from a November 18, 2007 article at CNN.com that reports on how we're just nine cents short of the highest price for gas ever:
The price of gasoline has jumped another 13 cents in the last two weeks, close to the all-time high set earlier this year, according to a survey published Sunday.
The average price of a gallon of self-serve regular is $3.09, the Lundberg Survey found. That's just 9 cents below the record set in May.
The latest price is also 9 cents below the inflation-adjusted all-time high, said survey publisher Trilby Lundberg. In 1981, the price peaked at $1.35 -- which, in today's dollars, comes out to $3.10 using the latest Consumer Price Index data, she said.
Don't be surprised if the records are shattered in the coming weeks, Lundberg said. Even if crude oil doesn't climb further, "we can easily see another dime at the pump," she said, "because refiners are severely squeezed between their oil buying price and their gasoline selling price."
Nice, so even if oil doesn't climb any higher it won't mean lower prices at the gas pumps. Too bad the price of oil is almost guaranteed to go higher.
Damn, I still haven't bought that skateboard. Perhaps Santa will bring me one.
6 inch diagonal B&W (grayscale) screen
Uses Sprint's EV-DO network (connects to 'net via cell phone network) to hook you to the Amazon Kindle Store (think iTunes Music Store for digital books)
QWERTY keyboard for entering in book titles (and such) to said AKS, you can also annotate and bookmark
Compatible with Audible.com tracks as well as standard mp3s
Has an SD (low capacity) slot for "expansion"
Supports something called "Kindle format" for text docs, along with PDF, Mobi, HTML, plaintext, and image files like JPEG, GIF, and PNG (source) but I have yet to read conclusively that it surfs the web
Comes with a built-in dictionary and allows you to wirelessly connect to Wikipedia.org
All that for just $400.
I haven't even told you how expensive books and newspapers are.
Books: $9.99 (for most titles)
Newspapers: $9.99 to $14.99/mo
Magazines (the only reasonably priced thing here): $1.99/mo
Will it flop? Well, I haven't heard of Bezos making any flights into orbit and I only see Segways zooming down the street when there's a blue moon out, so, based on those two facts and the cost of the Kindle, I'm going to go out on a limb and say:
Baring an extreme price drop, the Amazon Kindle will bomb.
I mean, think about it: you're saying the future of a passtime that hardly anyone does is in an electronic device that costs $400???
For that price you can get a laptop--hell, the eee PC is the same price and it runs XP! I just dropped $400 on an XO laptop and it has basic PC features (like web surfing) and it has an e-Book mode. So, why should I be expected to drop another $400 on the Kindle? Just because it has free Sprint EV-DO service?? Well, it only has free EV-DO to the Kindle store and to Wikipedia--that's hardly a robust Internet experience. I can do more on my Sidekick 3--which also cost me $400. But my SK3 is a phone and I can surf and check my email and IM and, a short stack of other things.
So, remind me again why I should drop $400 on the Kindle?
I'd say this thing is worth $100 for what it does. Ditch the free EV-DO service and just let us load our own stuff in it and I'm good. Oh and the books that cost nothing to copy over and over and over? Those should be about $3--not $10. Who the hell do you think you're kidding, Bezos? $9.99 for a digital book? Where do the costs go? Not to cover design or printing--just to marketing and download service support (I'm assuming that most of the mark-up on the Kindle, itself, goes to pay for the EV-DO).
Frakkin' greedy bastards. All these guys think about is how much they can charge instead of how little. Do they want their device in everyone's hands? Newsflash, guys! The cheaper your tech is, the more people will buy it! This is especially true if your device is as useless as the Kindle.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Check it out:
It even gets right how I like to sit in the gutter on Hollywood Boulevard and type away on my MacBook. You can check out my Meez profile here: http://www.meez.com/thepete
Here's a cutting to give you an idea of what the article concludes:
Social psychologists have known for decades that, if we reduce our sense of our own identity - a process called deindividuation - we are less likely to stick to social norms. For example, in the 1960s Leon Mann studied a nasty phenomenon called "suicide baiting" - when someone threatening to jump from a high building is encouraged to do so by bystanders. Mann found that people were more likely to do this if they were part of a large crowd, if the jumper was above the 7th floor, and if it was dark. These are all factors that allowed the observers to lose their own individuality.
Social psychologist Nicholas Epley argues that much the same thing happens with online communication such as email. Psychologically, we are "distant" from the person we're talking to and less focused on our own identity. As a result we're more prone to aggressive behaviour, he says.
I interpret this as a feeling of less or no responsibility. I got into an argument a few months back with a friend about how the FBI had arrested a man for distributing un-aired episodes of 24 on the Internet. The thing is, the argument happened online. I don't think it would have happened at all in person because both I and my friend are much more polite in person. See, I view my website as my sandbox. I do what ever I want here. I also have a clear sense of who I am and why I have this site. I know all about being responsible for everything about ThePete.Com. However, in the same way I'm the boss so I can also not care about what I do or say on here. As a result, I let more of my feelings out than I would if you were sitting here with me now and, likewise, I say much more of what I really think (though I am pretty honest in real life, too).
Of course, other people come to my site, or to other sites and they have the same sense that they can get away with whatever they want--because it's the Internet and largely anonymous. The catch is, that doesn't matter. When I go to someone's site and leave comments, I know that I'm leaving something in someone's living room. If it's a giant, steaming pile of dung, they're not going to welcome me back because it's a pain in the ass for them to clean up after me. I know this, because it's happened to me on countless occasions over the past ten years of running this site.
Sadly, there is no solution to this problem. On the Internet, as in life, ideally, you need to be conscious of your actions and how they effect others--yes, the consequences of your actions online are generally much less pronounced than your actions in the real world, but they exist nonetheless, even if you can't see them. It's the digital version of the Butterfly Effect.
As in the real world, there seems (to me, anyway) to be a jarring lack of responsibility being taken by most people in America these days. Whether it's corporate bigwigs failing to see the damage they're causing to people and the planet, or the asshole in the White House thinking "Move On Bloggers" are any less Americans than he is. Whether it's people downloading music for free or the people running music companies that get rich off of charging too much for too little, far too many of us are setting bad examples.
We're all connected, is my point. There are very few actions one person can take that will not effect someone else (even if it's not immediate) somewhere else. As such, we all need to be more conscious of how we act toward each other.
Ironically, that friend that I argued with about the FBI is no longer my friend--not because of that argument--but because of another blog-comment-battle about whether John Travolta should have been cast in the movie version of Hairspray. This is what it's come to. A friendship lost over something as ultimately stupid as who got cast in movie.
The Internet is indeed a powerful tool. It can create friendships and destroy them. It can save lives and it can end them. It can change the world for the better or it can leave it exactly the same.
It all depends on how we want to use the Internet.
What helps me be more responsible on the Web are the following:
1) Remember there's a difference between criticizing and complaining--the former is constructive and the latter is destructive.
2) Ask yourself if the thing you're about to do or say is something you'd want others to copy. Would you want 1000 other people leaving this kind of comment (on your website)? Every time you do something, someone else could view your actions as permission.
3) Pick your battles--don't fight them all. For every retarded argument about John Travolta you can have, there's a serious debate about the FBI you can also have. I ask myself, do I really want to be wasting time arguing this? Or is there another debate that I can waste time on and maybe learn something, too?
I don't always follow these points because I'm not perfect. The thing is, I do try to be responsible and, if that NewScientist.com article is any indicator, there are a lot of other people out there who should be trying, too.
What a wonderful message! Cigarettes=liberation from the man's world!
Well, while cigarettes came to signify something else entirely since those days, it seems like women still can't shake off the man's expectations, even when they are given the choice. A post from Mashable.com reports on how the number one most popular website for women is CafeMom. According to comScore.com, a sort of Nielsens for the Internet, CafeMom.com got 90 million page views in October of 2007.
"CafeMom" is the woman's site that gets the most hits out of all of the sites for women. So, women still define themselves as baby-machines, it seems. Why aren't there women-tailored business sites? As in, sites that give advice to aspiring business women? And if there are, why aren't more women going there? I feel like I can only assume that, generally, women would rather be mothers than successful business people and this is where, I feel, society is still deciding for women what they want to be. It's not just telling them what to be, it's already convinced them that being a mom is something you must want to do. Also, women are dropping the ball in failing, utterly, to think for themselves.
The number two site in comScore's list? BabyCenter.com.
See what I mean?
Monday, November 19, 2007
Forgot to upload this yesterday. Not a photo of me literally, but I
view all things I create (all right, most things) as a reflection of
This may end up being a desgin for a glow in the dark Munny I have, but
I was hoping for something a little more like a weird version of the
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz. Replies.
Isn't that bizarre? A headline, followed by two less-than subtle gAds followed by the "post" that begins with "nikes4wholesale had some great ideas on this topic" followed by an excerpt of an actual post someplace followed by a link to the original post. That linkback is nice and all, but, really, this is pretty sleazy. If I found someone pilfering my content like this I'd be really annoyed. I'm very curious how this works--the dude must be using a WordPress plugin that grabs feeds and then posts only excerpts with the beginning added in.
Of course, anyone who sees this blog will realize it's fake when blogger names like "nikes4wholesale" and the one in the screencap below:
Yeah, "unknown" sure does have some great ideas on this topic!
Now, it looks, to me, like that plugin must surf search engine results for cell phone-related posts because check out this next screencap to see what happens when it stumbles across a post about that mentions cell phones but isn't really about them:
And a couple more:
WHOOPS! Now this site hates immigrants!
I'm really thinking that Google should do something about these people. For one, the people who run these kinds of sites are not real blogging. They're not even providing original content--sure, blogs like mine and many others do post other folks' content, but it's not like I just post excerpts and walk away. Even my TheMiniBlog is more about pointing to things that are cool, rather than simply lifting other people's content and making money off of it. The site that I stumbled across is obviously not being maintained by a human at all, which seems pretty skeezy. Granted, I don't think it's illegal, but I hope it's against Google's TOS. Hell, I'm not allowed to say "please click on my Google ads!" too often or I'll get threatened by Adsense emails threatening to stop paying me. It's actually happened to me.
Meanwhile, this dude gets away with it.
I'm realizing that the longer this strike goes on the less I feel like turning TV back on again. Why support these greedy bastards at all? Why not support the underpaid artists of the Internet? Between all of the and sites like MetaCafe.com and RcrdLbl.com, I think I should be able to find some media that will keep me entertained and away from big corporate entertainment for good. Then again, who owns MetaCafe these days? Ah well. The point is, I don't have to buy music or watch commercials any more.
Technically any good? As you can tell from the posters and trailers, the CG FX are incredible. However, I felt that they kind of fell short. There was still no real emotion in the faces and there were only moments where I felt that certain shots could have been mistaken for actual photos. I kept flashing back to supermarionation (Thunderbirds, Captain Scarlett and even Abe Lincoln in Disneyland's Hall of Presidents), to be honest. However, I was still able to enjoy the movie. The script was cool, dialog good (though unfortunate at times) and the story was updated in interesting ways, compared to the original poem, but I think there were some odd choices that made me seriously question the execution of the plot. There were comic relief moments that seemed contrived and stupid and there was an over-all lack of character development that left me with thrills but nothing to leave the theater with.
How did it leave me feeling? Excited, but realizing that the best reason to see Beowulf is for the spectacle. So, see this on the big screen if you're ever going to see it at all and preferably see it in an IMAX theater in 3-D to make sure you get the full effect of the spectacle.
Final Rating? SIYL - See If You Like - though this is NOT a kids' cartoon! There is serious violence and (effectively) a lot of nudity for a PG-13 film--between the nudity and violence I have to admit that I've seen much tamer R-movies than this PG-13er.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Sorry to get political ^_^ but I saw this on Democracy Now (http://DemocracyNow.org) last Friday and thought it was so important that I should share it. It's a clip that shows Dick Cheney in 1992, the then Sec of Defense, explaining why Bush 42 and Pals didn't go all the way into Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein after kicking his butt out of Kuwait. In his address at the Economic Club of Detroit, Cheney predicts everything that has happened since the Iraq Invasion of 2003.
...Cheney knew in 1992.
The above was a Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz. Replies.
Now, what this means is that he DID know that Iraq in 2003 would be a mess and just didn't care. Why? My guess is because he stands to make a shitload of money as soon as he gets out of office in 2009. He ran Halliburton for a time, and I seriously doubt they won't repay him for the mess in Iraq that Halliburton has made huge buckets of cash off of. These military industrial companies don't forget their benefactors and Cheney and his boss, Bush, have made a mess of Iraq on purpose so they can rake in the cash.
Yes, I'm saying they're both sociopaths. I blogged about Bush being diagnosed as a paranoid meglomaniac in a book back in 2004 and this new/old video shows us that Cheney is no fool--he knew and agreed with all of us "hate America firsters" back in 1992 but chose to disagree with us in 2003.
No, we've got some serious psychos on our hands and the Dems are too spineless and protective of their jobs to actually do their jobs.
Oh and in case you don't want to sit through the above video, check out the transcript of the clip taken from the full transcript of the Friday, November 16, 2007 edition of Democracy Now. I've added emphasis to save you even more time:
AMY GOODMAN: As we talk about how President Bush and Vice President Cheney made the case for war in Iraq, I want to turn to comments made by Dick Cheney in September of 1992. At the time, he was President George H.W. Bush's Secretary of Defense. During an address at the Economic Club of Detroit, Cheney was asked why the United States didnâ€™t bury Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War. This is how he responded close to fifteen years ago.DICK CHENEY: At the end of the war in the Gulf, when we made the decision to stop, we did so because we had achieved our military objectives -- that is, when we decided to halt military operations. Those objectives were twofold: to liberate Kuwait and, secondly, to strip Saddam Hussein of his offensive military capability, of his capacity to threaten his neighbors. And we had done that.
There is no doubt in my mind, but what we could have gone on to Baghdad and taken Baghdad, occupied the whole country. We had the 101st Airborne up on the Euphrates River Valley about halfway between Kuwait and Baghdad. And I donâ€™t think, from a military perspective, that it would have been an impossible task. Clearly, it wouldnâ€™t, given the forces that we had there.
But we made a very conscious decision not to proceed for several reasons, in part because as soon as you go to Baghdad to get Saddam Hussein, you have to recognize that youâ€™re undertaking a fairly complex operation. Itâ€™s not the kind of situation where we could have pulled up in front of the presidential palace in Baghdad and said, â€œCome on, Saddam. Youâ€™re going to the slammer.â€ We would have had to run him to ground. A lot of places he could have gone to hide out or to resist. It would have required extensive military forces to achieve that.
But let's assume for the moment that we would have been able to do it, we got Saddam now and maybe we put him down there in Miami with Noriega. Then the question comes, putting a government in place of the one youâ€™ve just gotten rid of. You canâ€™t just sort of turn around and away; youâ€™ve now accepted the responsibility for what happens in Iraq. What kind of government do you want us to create in place of the old Saddam Hussein government? You want a Sunni government or a Shia government, or maybe it ought to be a Kurdish government, or maybe one based on the Baath Party, or maybe some combination of all of those.
How long is that government likely to survive without US military forces there to keep it propped up? If you get into the business of committing US forces on the ground in Iraq to occupy the place, my guess is Iâ€™d probably still have people there today, instead of having been able to bring them home.
We would have been in a situation, once we went into Baghdad, where we would have engaged in the kind of street-by-street, house-to-house fighting in an urban setting that would have been dramatically different from what we were able to do in the Gulf, in Kuwait in the desert, where our precision-guided munitions and our long-range artillery and tanks were so devastating against those Iraqi forces. You would have been fighting in a built-up urban area, large civilian population, and much heavier prospects for casualties.
You would have found, as well, I think, probably the disintegration of the Arab coalition that signed on to support us in our efforts to eject the Iraqis from Kuwait, but never signed on for the proposition that the United States would become some kind of quasi-permanent occupier of a major Middle Eastern nation.
And the final point, with respect to casualties, everybody, of course, was tremendously impressed with the fact that we were able to prevail at such a low cost, given the predictions with respect to casualties in major modern warfare. But for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it was not a cheap or a low-cost conflict. The bottom-line question for me was: How many additional American lives is Saddam Hussein worth? The answer: Not very damn many. I think the President got it right both times, both when he decided to use military force to defeat Saddam Husseinâ€™s aggression, but also when he made what I think was a very wise decision to stop military operations when we did.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Dick Cheney, speaking in September of 1992 at the Economic Club of Detroit.
Crazy--absolutely crazy. He said in 1992 that getting Saddam out of power was worth "not very damn many." But maybe 911 changed all that. Maybe Cheney just wanted to get rich.
Maybe it's both.