Open a contact in Microsoft Outlook. Click the details tab. Look at the birthday field. See what I mean?
Unless you have a date entered, Outlook just stares back at you with the following: "Birthday: None" How sad.
I feel like I need to populate all of my birthday fields now, even for people I don't know. Maybe I should check and see if they have any anniversaries I should recognize as well. This could take me all day!
Monday, January 26, 2009
How Times have Changed
From MSNBC: "Former Merrill Lynch Chief Executive John Thain said Monday he plans to reimburse Bank of America for a $1.2 million renovation of his office a year ago, calling the cost “a mistake in light of the world we live in today.”
I agree with Mr. Thain that our world has changed a lot. A year ago is was a great idea to spend $1.2M on office renovations. Only today, in light of the recession and the deterioration of ones firm does it seem like a bad idea. At least he didn't try to spin it like he was trying to bolster the economy with spending!
I agree with Mr. Thain that our world has changed a lot. A year ago is was a great idea to spend $1.2M on office renovations. Only today, in light of the recession and the deterioration of ones firm does it seem like a bad idea. At least he didn't try to spin it like he was trying to bolster the economy with spending!
Friday, January 23, 2009
Who was in this Think Tank?
If you read the article linked in the headline you'll get more details on the new device Verizon wants to sell to consumers. It's for customers who have dropped their landline, but still like the landline functionality. It does some pretty minor stuff like look up traffic and weather through your broadband and receive text messages. The suggestion is that it works with your Verizon cell-phone for phone calls you place through it. What's truly astounding is that they want to charge $200 for the unit and $35/month subscription fee for the service, which essentially just gives you unlimited minutes when using the device.
Even though it's not explicit, the press release suggests that a broadband connection is required, so this is essentially a Vonage type device (Vonage being only $25/month for the same service offerings except it doesn't use the same telephone number as your cell phone). If you're already paying for the cell phone minutes, and perhaps getting unlimited nights and weekend minutes with that plan, it's a total ripoff that you're paying for overlapping unlimited minutes, especially when a service like Skype can offer calls for as little as pennies a minute from a device such as this.
I know that this is all designed for the uninformed consumer to continue wasting money and handing it to Verizon (and just like those sweet financial blogs I'll say that I'm a shareholder of Verizon and yadda yadda yadda) but I wish some company would come up with an innovative and useful product instead of one designed purely to take advantage. Imagine the sucker that's paying $70/month for their cell phone, $35/month for their Verizon DLS, and pitching in another $35/month for a phone that overlaps the functions of those two services they're already paying for! Instead, Verizon should be selling the unit at MSRP with no monthly fee and allowing the consumer to bridge their services (thus tying them to the Verizon brand and making Verizon look like some sort of leader in technology).
Even though it's not explicit, the press release suggests that a broadband connection is required, so this is essentially a Vonage type device (Vonage being only $25/month for the same service offerings except it doesn't use the same telephone number as your cell phone). If you're already paying for the cell phone minutes, and perhaps getting unlimited nights and weekend minutes with that plan, it's a total ripoff that you're paying for overlapping unlimited minutes, especially when a service like Skype can offer calls for as little as pennies a minute from a device such as this.
I know that this is all designed for the uninformed consumer to continue wasting money and handing it to Verizon (and just like those sweet financial blogs I'll say that I'm a shareholder of Verizon and yadda yadda yadda) but I wish some company would come up with an innovative and useful product instead of one designed purely to take advantage. Imagine the sucker that's paying $70/month for their cell phone, $35/month for their Verizon DLS, and pitching in another $35/month for a phone that overlaps the functions of those two services they're already paying for! Instead, Verizon should be selling the unit at MSRP with no monthly fee and allowing the consumer to bridge their services (thus tying them to the Verizon brand and making Verizon look like some sort of leader in technology).
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The Problems with Stocks
Stock ownership seems like a no-brainer for our society, because it seems like all large companies are publicly held and the ones that aren't are just privately held by investors who bought up all of the stock. In a bull market everyone seems to benefit from this ownership, whether it be their 401k or personal investment. Even if you aren't invested in your own company, the fact that you aren't invested doesn't leave you worse off in a bull market.
In a bear market/recession the situation is very different. Investors in a company have no feelings for the employees that work at the company. And even if there aren't investors specifically knocking on the CEO's door telling him to be more profitable, the CEO is obligated through a fiduciary duty to do his best to maximize shareholder value. In tough times this can seem all the more shocking and heartless to the employees of a company who are jettisoned so that investors can have some security. So Microsoft, which has around $20 Billion in cash is cutting 5,000 jobs in a bad economy to save $1.5 Billion over the next 18 months. A private company might be allowed to say "Let's ride this out and cut back on hiring" but a public company has to answer to some bloodthirsty money grubbing imaginary entity and from some of the investor responses I've read, they're actually saying "Too little too late" or "This should have happened a year ago."
It's hard to hypothesize what our society would be like if the outside investor angle was removed from the equation. I read this story from MSNBC that reflects at least one possibility, but this was a completely optional choice, not something mandated. Some wouldn't even find this fair and would believe that the family who owned the business was entitled to all the profits of its sale. In reality, what they did was right because the business grew at least in part based on the performance of the employees, and while their salaries compensated them for that, a windfall of "profits" seems like it should also be equally shared. Big companies don't operate that way, which is why the Waltons have billions while the employees make minimum wage and are supplemented by government healthcare. The irony in bringing up the Waltons is that unlike Microsoft, which has no person with a controlling interest, if the Waltons wanted to say that Walmart would have the best healthcare of any company in the country they could do it, and it would just decrease the bulge in their pockets a small amount. If the Waltons had the moral fiber of the Spungen family, maybe everyone would see Walmart in a different light.
In a bear market/recession the situation is very different. Investors in a company have no feelings for the employees that work at the company. And even if there aren't investors specifically knocking on the CEO's door telling him to be more profitable, the CEO is obligated through a fiduciary duty to do his best to maximize shareholder value. In tough times this can seem all the more shocking and heartless to the employees of a company who are jettisoned so that investors can have some security. So Microsoft, which has around $20 Billion in cash is cutting 5,000 jobs in a bad economy to save $1.5 Billion over the next 18 months. A private company might be allowed to say "Let's ride this out and cut back on hiring" but a public company has to answer to some bloodthirsty money grubbing imaginary entity and from some of the investor responses I've read, they're actually saying "Too little too late" or "This should have happened a year ago."
It's hard to hypothesize what our society would be like if the outside investor angle was removed from the equation. I read this story from MSNBC that reflects at least one possibility, but this was a completely optional choice, not something mandated. Some wouldn't even find this fair and would believe that the family who owned the business was entitled to all the profits of its sale. In reality, what they did was right because the business grew at least in part based on the performance of the employees, and while their salaries compensated them for that, a windfall of "profits" seems like it should also be equally shared. Big companies don't operate that way, which is why the Waltons have billions while the employees make minimum wage and are supplemented by government healthcare. The irony in bringing up the Waltons is that unlike Microsoft, which has no person with a controlling interest, if the Waltons wanted to say that Walmart would have the best healthcare of any company in the country they could do it, and it would just decrease the bulge in their pockets a small amount. If the Waltons had the moral fiber of the Spungen family, maybe everyone would see Walmart in a different light.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Investor Lawsuits
In the wake of the SEC probing Apple about their statements regarding Steve Jobs' health I just have one question: Who benefits from a shareholder/investor lawsuit?
To put it more robustly, if the shareholders were to win a lawsuit against Apple that said that Apple mislead them in reporting that Steve Jobs was healthy when in fact he wasn't, doesn't Apple have to pay damages in that lawsuit? And if Apple pays damages, wouldn't it just come out of the company and therefor the value of the shares would drop? The only real winner in the scenario of a shareholder lawsuit is a person so manic that they bought the shares at a high point after hearing the healthy news and sold them after later reports said he was unhealthy. If you're still holding on to the shares you're just taking money from one pocket and putting it in another. I'm sure there are some people out there who are manic enough to have been trading based on the news of the health of one individual, and since those people are clearly gambling they should be ignored or encouraged to do their own research (aka dumpster diving outside of medical clinics to find records) rather than relying on PR statements about someone's health.
To put it more robustly, if the shareholders were to win a lawsuit against Apple that said that Apple mislead them in reporting that Steve Jobs was healthy when in fact he wasn't, doesn't Apple have to pay damages in that lawsuit? And if Apple pays damages, wouldn't it just come out of the company and therefor the value of the shares would drop? The only real winner in the scenario of a shareholder lawsuit is a person so manic that they bought the shares at a high point after hearing the healthy news and sold them after later reports said he was unhealthy. If you're still holding on to the shares you're just taking money from one pocket and putting it in another. I'm sure there are some people out there who are manic enough to have been trading based on the news of the health of one individual, and since those people are clearly gambling they should be ignored or encouraged to do their own research (aka dumpster diving outside of medical clinics to find records) rather than relying on PR statements about someone's health.
Prostitute Shuffle
New, from Apple!
Sorry, sometimes blurting out the first thing that pops into your head really isn't all that helpful. What I really meant to say was: Why is it that prostitutes (or someone you at least expect to be a prostitute based on their clothing, vacant look, actions) can't seem to walk in the high heels that are required by their vocation? This of course doesn't apply to the movie prostitutes but I feel like the ones in real life shuffle and teeter like they're some little kid who just broke into mommies closet and it wearing big girl shoes. Maybe there are other reasons that I'm just not privy to and I understand (although I don't believe it myself) that high heels are difficult to walk in for the most part, but if you're doing it all the time you really should get better at it.
Sorry, sometimes blurting out the first thing that pops into your head really isn't all that helpful. What I really meant to say was: Why is it that prostitutes (or someone you at least expect to be a prostitute based on their clothing, vacant look, actions) can't seem to walk in the high heels that are required by their vocation? This of course doesn't apply to the movie prostitutes but I feel like the ones in real life shuffle and teeter like they're some little kid who just broke into mommies closet and it wearing big girl shoes. Maybe there are other reasons that I'm just not privy to and I understand (although I don't believe it myself) that high heels are difficult to walk in for the most part, but if you're doing it all the time you really should get better at it.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Media Spin
From MSNBC: "They were there to witness Obama’s banishing forever more than 200 years of history during which the office had passed from white hands to white hands."
I dislike how this makes it sound like some secret collusion, a hand shake in a dark room that confirmed that the president's seat was only for white men. So the day that a woman is elected president, I look forward to the quote that she is "banishing forever more than 200 years of history during which the office had passed from penis to penis."
I dislike how this makes it sound like some secret collusion, a hand shake in a dark room that confirmed that the president's seat was only for white men. So the day that a woman is elected president, I look forward to the quote that she is "banishing forever more than 200 years of history during which the office had passed from penis to penis."
Monday, January 19, 2009
Big Day
With headlines like "Nation's capital gets ready for big day" and pictures of men with assault rifles and scopes, one can understand feeling a little uneasy on MLK day.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Startling Realization
So, as I woke up this morning I began scheming for a way to end the dramatic wealth disparities that have been created in our society. In case anyone is ever curious it began with an end to stock ownership and capped executive/maximum salary & benefits, maybe to $1M, maybe something slightly higher. Anyway, the idea was that if the company had to run more like a non-profit, not holding on to cash to benefit shareholders, only to grow the company itself, and it would also be forced to pay higher salaries to employees, then in very little time the gap would be closed. Then I realized the problem.
Salaries for the working class can't grow by leaps and bounds. If they did then it would just lead to the type of inflation that would knock down that same purchasing power. If everyone had a bunch of cash then our demand would be high, supply would be low, and prices would have to increase. By allowing the few to control the wealth, as long as the few continue to allow wages to grow at a pace that matches inflation then the pricing structure all holds together. What strikes me then as still the most effective means of limiting the excess accumulation of wealth in our society is adding a few more steps to the income tax pyramid, raising the maximum rate higher than the 35% we're currently at, and giving that excess which we can't give to the employees for fear of causing inflation into the hands of the government. I really didn't think that's where I was going to get when I started thinking about reforming the system this morning but there it is.
Salaries for the working class can't grow by leaps and bounds. If they did then it would just lead to the type of inflation that would knock down that same purchasing power. If everyone had a bunch of cash then our demand would be high, supply would be low, and prices would have to increase. By allowing the few to control the wealth, as long as the few continue to allow wages to grow at a pace that matches inflation then the pricing structure all holds together. What strikes me then as still the most effective means of limiting the excess accumulation of wealth in our society is adding a few more steps to the income tax pyramid, raising the maximum rate higher than the 35% we're currently at, and giving that excess which we can't give to the employees for fear of causing inflation into the hands of the government. I really didn't think that's where I was going to get when I started thinking about reforming the system this morning but there it is.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Stupid Lobbyists
As a tax professional, one of the things that irks me the most is the effectiveness with which lobbying groups have managed to inseminate their viewpoints, which only benefit a small minority of people, into the public sphere. Much has been written but it seems that nobody can educate the public or has the resources to fight the disinformation being provided by lobbyists who wish to end the estate tax, even though it only affects the rich. Part of my job includes estate tax planning and I already know that my clients can effectively plan around most of the estate tax burdens as they are, but they should still be in place, and possibly be more restrictive so that we don't continue to have the family wealth monopolies that control our current landscape.
From the U.S. Chamber of Commerce web-site:
The U.S. Chamber is opposing a proposal by the incoming administration and Congress to retain the estate tax, also known as the death tax, instead of allowing it to expire as scheduled in 2010.
“If Washington’s incoming leadership really wants to jumpstart the economy and create jobs, they can start by sending the death tax to the grave once and for all,” says Chamber Executive Vice President for Government Affairs Bruce Josten. “We should not be burdening hard working Americans with this serious, home-grown threat when they face enough competition from emerging markets abroad.”
100% BS. There will be no jobs created because of a repeal of the estate tax. There will just be wealthy families able to pass their fortunes on to their children easily and forever. Want some more BS? How about this statement from a lobbyist hired by the Waltons (Wal-Mart fortune and America's wealthiest family):
Aubrey Rothrock III, a Washington lobbyist hired by the family, says the Waltons are mostly interested in bills to increase charitable giving through their family foundation. "The estate tax repeal initiative has never been the focus of our advocacy efforts," he says.
I would hope that even a layman would find it hard to believe that the Waltons are interested in bills to increase charitable giving through their family foundations. What exactly is stopping them from giving everything to charity? I'm not aware of a single limitation to the charitable deduction and in fact you could give your entire fortune to a foundation or to charities directly and pay NO ESTATE TAX. Each of the children were given their share of the company before its growth, so Sam did some pretty good estate planning their. When the wife of Sam Walton died she gave her wealth to the Walton Family Foundation (like I said, no estate tax, nothing to the government). The funny thing is that Walton Family Foundation paid compensation of 1.3M to Walton Enterprises LLC in 2006 for management of the Foundation so even some of that money just gets plowed back into the family. It's all a remarkable fleecing and I wish that better information could get around than what most people hear.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
A thought on Social Security
First, from the New England Journal of Medicine (props to google for finding me such a reputable sounding source):
"Although the Social Security Administration recently raised its estimates of how long Americans are going to live in the 21st century, current trends in obesity in the United States suggest that these estimates may not be accurate. From our analysis of the effect of obesity on longevity, weconclude that the steady rise in life expectancy during the past two centuries may soon come to an end."
This was essentially my thought in a nutshell, corroborated by the NEJoM. Social Security is supposed to run out because our life expectancy has grown, and we're even told by the SSA that they are raising the life expectancy estimates, I have to wonder how valid those estimates are given the growing trend of overweight/obese Americans. How could life expectancy not go down when the percentage of overweight and obese Americans went from 33.1% and 22.9% from '88-94 to a current 34.1% and 32.2% respectively? Someone would have to be lying because the % increase is certainly statistically significant so are the health concerns overblown or is the SSA afraid to say that our life expectancy is actually going down? I'd have to guess the latter because I haven't seen any medical advancements that seem to really be prolonging lifespans in recent years the way heart surgery and cancer treatments prolonged the lives of the baby boomers.
So maybe there is hope for Social Security after all!
(edit: sweet moving map! http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/trend/maps/index.htm )
"Although the Social Security Administration recently raised its estimates of how long Americans are going to live in the 21st century, current trends in obesity in the United States suggest that these estimates may not be accurate. From our analysis of the effect of obesity on longevity, weconclude that the steady rise in life expectancy during the past two centuries may soon come to an end."
This was essentially my thought in a nutshell, corroborated by the NEJoM. Social Security is supposed to run out because our life expectancy has grown, and we're even told by the SSA that they are raising the life expectancy estimates, I have to wonder how valid those estimates are given the growing trend of overweight/obese Americans. How could life expectancy not go down when the percentage of overweight and obese Americans went from 33.1% and 22.9% from '88-94 to a current 34.1% and 32.2% respectively? Someone would have to be lying because the % increase is certainly statistically significant so are the health concerns overblown or is the SSA afraid to say that our life expectancy is actually going down? I'd have to guess the latter because I haven't seen any medical advancements that seem to really be prolonging lifespans in recent years the way heart surgery and cancer treatments prolonged the lives of the baby boomers.
So maybe there is hope for Social Security after all!
(edit: sweet moving map! http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/trend/maps/index.htm )
Monday, January 12, 2009
Security
It worries me that on so many occasions when I've been faced with a password protected client file I can make a few guesses and figure out the password. At least a little creative personalization would be a nice sign. I'm talking admin and password working most of the time, or the password is the same as the user name or the first name is the user name and the last name is the password. All too easy (bonus: Mortal Kombat reference).
More stuff of the future that should be now!
Voice activated homes!
I'm pretty sure it would require some intricate system to actually be pulled off but all the technology is there and people could have this right now. A computer running a home network, a voice recognition system, connect the lights, connect the electronics, and bam, a sweet voice activated home of the future.
I'm going to go one step further and patent some scripted automation shortcuts where if I'm walking to the bathroom and I say "Bathroom" or something authoritative then I want the hallways, etc. lit up leading me to the bathroom and then turning off once I've made my way. And here's the thing, I don't want some goofy system where I have to say "Volume Up" to change the volume on my TV, but if I say activate the DVD command, the TV and DVD player should both turn on, and the TV should switch to the DVD input automatically.
If I ever get a chance at some point in my life to build my own home from scratch, you better believe it's going to have some serious networking capability so I can pull this off!
I'm pretty sure it would require some intricate system to actually be pulled off but all the technology is there and people could have this right now. A computer running a home network, a voice recognition system, connect the lights, connect the electronics, and bam, a sweet voice activated home of the future.
I'm going to go one step further and patent some scripted automation shortcuts where if I'm walking to the bathroom and I say "Bathroom" or something authoritative then I want the hallways, etc. lit up leading me to the bathroom and then turning off once I've made my way. And here's the thing, I don't want some goofy system where I have to say "Volume Up" to change the volume on my TV, but if I say activate the DVD command, the TV and DVD player should both turn on, and the TV should switch to the DVD input automatically.
If I ever get a chance at some point in my life to build my own home from scratch, you better believe it's going to have some serious networking capability so I can pull this off!
Friday, January 09, 2009
Video Phones
Shouldn't we all have video phones by now? Did cell phones somehow screw this up? Webcams are cheap, everyone has high speed internet, voip is free, so why don't we all have a home video phone in our living room yet?
Unemployment is... Wow
From MSNBC: "11.1 million people were unemployed in December."
I was literally chatting with someone online when they saw a co-worker get the axe and then shortly thereafter were laid off themselves. It really is a crazy, stressful time, even for the ones that aren't directly living the hardship.
It's almost enough to call into question our bizarre interconnected economic world. Maybe if way back when we never had opened up to the idea of allowing cheap exports to turn us into a nation of consumers then we would still have a production capacity, even if it was at the cost of higher priced goods. And since the goods were priced higher we wouldn't have so much nor expect to have so many material goods. And if our banks never could have sold bundled securities with fake risk grades to outside investors then the race to create these mortgages in the first place would never have occurred. If every person selling a mortgage was still holding that obligation, and every dollar that we spent on a product went into the pocket of another American, could this whole thing have still got as blown out of proportion as it did?
I tend to think that it wouldn't have. I also believe that this would have dramatically slowed down the speed of growth over the years but it all calls into question whether we NEED to grow at this speed in the first place, or if we have created this expectation for ourselves that even we could not live up to in the end. And yet still there are people saying that this entire recession is just a hiccup on the way to getting right back on the same tracks. I want efficiency in general, but what we have lacked for too long is accountability. I feel bad for those being caught in the back draft of the accountability we are currently facing, but at the same time I feel like nobody is really living up to all the reasons that we should be held accountable for our actions and we're letting ourselves off the hook a little too easily. That's what's really messed up about this world.
I was literally chatting with someone online when they saw a co-worker get the axe and then shortly thereafter were laid off themselves. It really is a crazy, stressful time, even for the ones that aren't directly living the hardship.
It's almost enough to call into question our bizarre interconnected economic world. Maybe if way back when we never had opened up to the idea of allowing cheap exports to turn us into a nation of consumers then we would still have a production capacity, even if it was at the cost of higher priced goods. And since the goods were priced higher we wouldn't have so much nor expect to have so many material goods. And if our banks never could have sold bundled securities with fake risk grades to outside investors then the race to create these mortgages in the first place would never have occurred. If every person selling a mortgage was still holding that obligation, and every dollar that we spent on a product went into the pocket of another American, could this whole thing have still got as blown out of proportion as it did?
I tend to think that it wouldn't have. I also believe that this would have dramatically slowed down the speed of growth over the years but it all calls into question whether we NEED to grow at this speed in the first place, or if we have created this expectation for ourselves that even we could not live up to in the end. And yet still there are people saying that this entire recession is just a hiccup on the way to getting right back on the same tracks. I want efficiency in general, but what we have lacked for too long is accountability. I feel bad for those being caught in the back draft of the accountability we are currently facing, but at the same time I feel like nobody is really living up to all the reasons that we should be held accountable for our actions and we're letting ourselves off the hook a little too easily. That's what's really messed up about this world.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Guess what Congress is talking about
“With coupons unavailable, support and education insufficient, and the most vulnerable Americans exposed, I urge you to consider a change to the legislatively mandated analog cutoff date,”
That's right folks, the most vulnerable Americans are exposed to not having TV! What is this world coming to when American's who apparently lack education (no not in general) to the analog television cutoff date won't have any TV to watch. Even though I'm subjected to these warnings on my already digital stations countless times somehow there are some people who still don't know you might need a converter box.
You know when they'll find out? When their TV stops working! Then they'll go to the local Walmart or Radio Shack, talk to some fine store associate, and learn that they can either buy a new TV or a converter box, their choice! Nobody is dying because they don't have TV so I don't think Obama and Congress need to wring their hands and worry about the helpless stupid Americans who can't watch their talkies.
That's right folks, the most vulnerable Americans are exposed to not having TV! What is this world coming to when American's who apparently lack education (no not in general) to the analog television cutoff date won't have any TV to watch. Even though I'm subjected to these warnings on my already digital stations countless times somehow there are some people who still don't know you might need a converter box.
You know when they'll find out? When their TV stops working! Then they'll go to the local Walmart or Radio Shack, talk to some fine store associate, and learn that they can either buy a new TV or a converter box, their choice! Nobody is dying because they don't have TV so I don't think Obama and Congress need to wring their hands and worry about the helpless stupid Americans who can't watch their talkies.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Keepon Beatbot
What seems like decades ago in internet time a video went viral showing a cute dancing robot essentially composed of two yellow foam balls. The back story was that it moved to the beat of music, as displayed on the video it was dancing to. It was also explained that this robot was designed as a research project for kids, yadda, yadda, yadda.
So that was back around August 15th, 2007. Where's the commercial version of this dancing robot? It's pretty much the exact thing we need robots for in this world. It pointlessly entertains us and seemingly can't harm us in any way. WoWee can make 500 different iterations of the RoboSapian but not one of them can dance to music in an entertaining fashion, yet these two yellow balls make it look fun. And yet it's still not yet made and affixed to an ipod dock and dancing to the beats in my office. What is wrong with this world? If I needed to freeze myself and rethaw in the future, how many years forward should I set the clock to ensure that there's a good dancing robot of some sort for my entertainment? Please use the comment section to assist me in making my decision.
So that was back around August 15th, 2007. Where's the commercial version of this dancing robot? It's pretty much the exact thing we need robots for in this world. It pointlessly entertains us and seemingly can't harm us in any way. WoWee can make 500 different iterations of the RoboSapian but not one of them can dance to music in an entertaining fashion, yet these two yellow balls make it look fun. And yet it's still not yet made and affixed to an ipod dock and dancing to the beats in my office. What is wrong with this world? If I needed to freeze myself and rethaw in the future, how many years forward should I set the clock to ensure that there's a good dancing robot of some sort for my entertainment? Please use the comment section to assist me in making my decision.
Careful what you say
E***: we may have to join the pacific northwest masses and buy a subaru at some point. ugh
me: those are some fugly cars...
E***: they're fugly, but they're capable
me: if you were saying that about a prostitute would that make it OK?
E***: yes
me: those are some fugly cars...
E***: they're fugly, but they're capable
me: if you were saying that about a prostitute would that make it OK?
E***: yes
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Cats don't get Technology, need Encouragement
This saturday our cats were given a late Christmas gift. The gift was actually technically for me but it's something I've wanted for the cats for a while. An automatic cat box!
It's not hard to imagine how things things work. The mechanics are only a step above what I could make with my Lego Mindstorm set. A sensor is activated by a cat presence within the box, a motor turns on 15 minutes after the area is clear, pushing a rake across the sand and flipping up any waste into a basket held above the rake.
When the device is first plugged in it comes to life for an initial test run, and this is the point where I knew there could be problems. Both cats came running over to stare as the motor made a loud whirring sound and it began its slow crawl over an initially empty plastic box. Then the rake, which could just as easily have been a long row of teeth swung up from the box and a plastic lid flipped open. Then the teeth came down, the lid (aka cat digestion box) flapped shut, and the monster made its slow crawl back to the starting position.
It didn't matter that later the box was filled with the same cat little the cats have used most of their lives. That could just be a trap, the light hanging from the end of an angler fish, just waiting for them to step inside. I moved the box so that it was in the same place as one of their old boxes, so they'd get the picture. When you first turn it on it lurches into action and they both ran over and just watched. When it was done moving one brave cat poked around it just long enough to start another cycle. 15 minutes of peace later and it was back in action, and both cats ran over to watch again. I had to go to work but for all I know this could have gone on all day.
I saw paw prints in the sand on day 2 but I guess they weren't ready yet and had decided to just pass on through. Three days into this little experiment I was starting to dread that my cats were indeed technophobes. We had let their other two boxes go uncleaned so that they may be encouraged to use the brand new clean litter, yet still they were hesitant. I resorted to drastic measures, removed one of the old fashioned cat boxes and took a clump from one box and placed it into the automatic cat box. Two hours later I get a call that some brave cat soul risked life and limb to use the new box. Hopefully this is the beginning of the end of manual cat box scooping as we know it!
It's not hard to imagine how things things work. The mechanics are only a step above what I could make with my Lego Mindstorm set. A sensor is activated by a cat presence within the box, a motor turns on 15 minutes after the area is clear, pushing a rake across the sand and flipping up any waste into a basket held above the rake.
When the device is first plugged in it comes to life for an initial test run, and this is the point where I knew there could be problems. Both cats came running over to stare as the motor made a loud whirring sound and it began its slow crawl over an initially empty plastic box. Then the rake, which could just as easily have been a long row of teeth swung up from the box and a plastic lid flipped open. Then the teeth came down, the lid (aka cat digestion box) flapped shut, and the monster made its slow crawl back to the starting position.
It didn't matter that later the box was filled with the same cat little the cats have used most of their lives. That could just be a trap, the light hanging from the end of an angler fish, just waiting for them to step inside. I moved the box so that it was in the same place as one of their old boxes, so they'd get the picture. When you first turn it on it lurches into action and they both ran over and just watched. When it was done moving one brave cat poked around it just long enough to start another cycle. 15 minutes of peace later and it was back in action, and both cats ran over to watch again. I had to go to work but for all I know this could have gone on all day.
I saw paw prints in the sand on day 2 but I guess they weren't ready yet and had decided to just pass on through. Three days into this little experiment I was starting to dread that my cats were indeed technophobes. We had let their other two boxes go uncleaned so that they may be encouraged to use the brand new clean litter, yet still they were hesitant. I resorted to drastic measures, removed one of the old fashioned cat boxes and took a clump from one box and placed it into the automatic cat box. Two hours later I get a call that some brave cat soul risked life and limb to use the new box. Hopefully this is the beginning of the end of manual cat box scooping as we know it!
Monday, January 05, 2009
Advertising Fail
Online ads are stupid in general because computers put them together and sometimes computer are a little too logical. My UPS/Turban story was one example, but here's one that's a bit stupider (pun intended)...
So yeah, I got this advertisement when on ESPN.com and no, it doesn't make any sense but I suppose they don't care as long as someone clicks on it. Now why anyone would anyone click on it is anybody's guess.
So yeah, I got this advertisement when on ESPN.com and no, it doesn't make any sense but I suppose they don't care as long as someone clicks on it. Now why anyone would anyone click on it is anybody's guess.
Star Wars: The Force Unleashed Review
First, I would like to point out some observations. The metacritic score for Star Wars: The Force Unleashed was a rather dismal 73, dismal given the relatively high production value, technology, and effort that appears to have gone into this game. Curious about this, I read several of the reviews that were on the low end and have formed an opinion about those reviewers as well. My second observation is that while the game did get mentioned in Time's rather laughable "Best Games of 2008" list, it didn't make the cut on a more dedicated site like Joystiq. What surprised me more is that it did not get mentioned by any reviewers as either "Best of the Rest" or "Biggest Disappointment"... It would seem to me that this game deserved some sort of recognition no matter where you fell on the fence about the gameplay.
The easy part to critique is the story. Most agree that it was well done, fit into the Star Wars universe nicely between III and IV, and actually added something to the story, making it a worthwhile prequel. Since the story covered a very limited timeline, it did not do much to expand on characters, but it did provide an insight into some of the settings in Star Wars that I thought was nice, and I'm not even a Star Wars fan. This alone made it worth playing through in my opinion, as the settings were all well done, unique, and interactive.
The star of the show, as evidenced from the title, is the Force. Many reviewers complained that they didn't get enough diversity of force powers, although I think this game included all of the known powers and actually did add a few (in comparison to Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic there were definitely new powers). I find it difficult to find fault when a designer is relatively restricted by an established IP. Furthermore, there was unlocking of powers throughout the first play through, so I felt a natural progression, even if I tended to use some of the original powers more than the unlocked ones. Another complaint was the targeting system, and my only reasonable guess is that this was fixed in a patch because I never found it difficult to target enemies that I wanted to attack.
For me, the question was whether I felt like I was controlling a person very strong in the force, and one powered up force push alone gave that impression. As I fought the miscellaneous enemy here or there I would occasionally fling them into the air as if they weren't even worth my time to bother fighting. If I had to complain about the force powers, my complaint would lie in how they were controlled via the controller because I think that the designers could have designed the force lift/throw mechanic better. In the game once you lift an object/person with right trigger you control the throwing of that person either up or down with the right thumbstick or left/right/forward/back with the left thumbstick. The reason I tended to throw characters up into the air is that I would naturally pick them up with the right thumbstick and use the same thumbstick to attempt to fling them forward but instead they would fly up and to their deaths. While flinging them up was entertaining at times, it was an unintended consequence. Alternatively they could be flung forward on release of the trigger with no coaxing on the left thumbstick and that also would have felt natural. Using both did not feel natural.
What felt the most unique throughout the game was the environment. While many aspects were clearly in place purely to provide a demo for the "Digital Molecular Matter" technology by Pixelux Entertainment, it was all done very well. To put it simply, they modeled glass, plants, wood, and metal to all act appropriately when interacted with by the force. In an early stage of the game you come across a giant wooden door that also has a steel frame. As you use force push to knock it down you cannot help but feel impressed as the wood shatters and flew away while the metal deformed in exactly the shape you would envision if a huge gust of force blew through it. Throughout the game there are metal doors that must be pushed through and the deformation is always slightly different which adds to the realism. Plants act rubbery, glass shatters, but only falls where force is applied. It all felt right. What really showed this all off were settings that included these elements but in a normal fighting scene, where glass would shatter and fly around purely because you were using the force powers on enemies you fought. In a world of plants, they even showed off a combination of elements, with plants that would respond with a rubbery reaction, but pulled too far and they would break off like a rubber band snapping. New technology that is put to work and not just a gimmick definitely warrants some praise.
Boss battles are the area that I was most critical of, but not for the reason several reviewers pointed out. I do not mind dying on a boss battle in medium difficulty. I think I would find a game too easy if I played through and beat every boss on the first effort so I was surprised that some reviewers faulted having to replay a boss 5 times. What's more, the game actually saved some progress made for bosses automatically to reduce the amount of replay required. I did find that repeating one technique of using lightening then attacking with the lightning light saber combo seemed to get me through most battles, but they were still challenging and I found them consistent. My biggest complaint was that just at the finale of the fight, a script kicks in to show you defeating the boss, but the player is required to push buttons corresponding to the characters actions. This resulted in me not fully enjoying the final moments of the battle because I had to focus on the button pressing or else the sequence might have to be restarted. I found this to be a very poorly designed flaw in a game that is suppose to focus your attention on seeing the devastating power of your force.
Everything else worked so I would say that it was a good game. Whatever score you want to attach to that recommendation is your business but I think that it was worth playing, not frustrating, and a very unique experience.
The easy part to critique is the story. Most agree that it was well done, fit into the Star Wars universe nicely between III and IV, and actually added something to the story, making it a worthwhile prequel. Since the story covered a very limited timeline, it did not do much to expand on characters, but it did provide an insight into some of the settings in Star Wars that I thought was nice, and I'm not even a Star Wars fan. This alone made it worth playing through in my opinion, as the settings were all well done, unique, and interactive.
The star of the show, as evidenced from the title, is the Force. Many reviewers complained that they didn't get enough diversity of force powers, although I think this game included all of the known powers and actually did add a few (in comparison to Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic there were definitely new powers). I find it difficult to find fault when a designer is relatively restricted by an established IP. Furthermore, there was unlocking of powers throughout the first play through, so I felt a natural progression, even if I tended to use some of the original powers more than the unlocked ones. Another complaint was the targeting system, and my only reasonable guess is that this was fixed in a patch because I never found it difficult to target enemies that I wanted to attack.
For me, the question was whether I felt like I was controlling a person very strong in the force, and one powered up force push alone gave that impression. As I fought the miscellaneous enemy here or there I would occasionally fling them into the air as if they weren't even worth my time to bother fighting. If I had to complain about the force powers, my complaint would lie in how they were controlled via the controller because I think that the designers could have designed the force lift/throw mechanic better. In the game once you lift an object/person with right trigger you control the throwing of that person either up or down with the right thumbstick or left/right/forward/back with the left thumbstick. The reason I tended to throw characters up into the air is that I would naturally pick them up with the right thumbstick and use the same thumbstick to attempt to fling them forward but instead they would fly up and to their deaths. While flinging them up was entertaining at times, it was an unintended consequence. Alternatively they could be flung forward on release of the trigger with no coaxing on the left thumbstick and that also would have felt natural. Using both did not feel natural.
What felt the most unique throughout the game was the environment. While many aspects were clearly in place purely to provide a demo for the "Digital Molecular Matter" technology by Pixelux Entertainment, it was all done very well. To put it simply, they modeled glass, plants, wood, and metal to all act appropriately when interacted with by the force. In an early stage of the game you come across a giant wooden door that also has a steel frame. As you use force push to knock it down you cannot help but feel impressed as the wood shatters and flew away while the metal deformed in exactly the shape you would envision if a huge gust of force blew through it. Throughout the game there are metal doors that must be pushed through and the deformation is always slightly different which adds to the realism. Plants act rubbery, glass shatters, but only falls where force is applied. It all felt right. What really showed this all off were settings that included these elements but in a normal fighting scene, where glass would shatter and fly around purely because you were using the force powers on enemies you fought. In a world of plants, they even showed off a combination of elements, with plants that would respond with a rubbery reaction, but pulled too far and they would break off like a rubber band snapping. New technology that is put to work and not just a gimmick definitely warrants some praise.
Boss battles are the area that I was most critical of, but not for the reason several reviewers pointed out. I do not mind dying on a boss battle in medium difficulty. I think I would find a game too easy if I played through and beat every boss on the first effort so I was surprised that some reviewers faulted having to replay a boss 5 times. What's more, the game actually saved some progress made for bosses automatically to reduce the amount of replay required. I did find that repeating one technique of using lightening then attacking with the lightning light saber combo seemed to get me through most battles, but they were still challenging and I found them consistent. My biggest complaint was that just at the finale of the fight, a script kicks in to show you defeating the boss, but the player is required to push buttons corresponding to the characters actions. This resulted in me not fully enjoying the final moments of the battle because I had to focus on the button pressing or else the sequence might have to be restarted. I found this to be a very poorly designed flaw in a game that is suppose to focus your attention on seeing the devastating power of your force.
Everything else worked so I would say that it was a good game. Whatever score you want to attach to that recommendation is your business but I think that it was worth playing, not frustrating, and a very unique experience.
No Blank Check?
I'm sure that many people are upset by the economy and the actions that our government is taking, supposedly to fix the problem. I'm just wondering where politicians get off being so hypocritical and yet manage to be re-elected year after year. Here's some faults on both sides to start the new year:
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Sunday "We want to make sure it's not just a trillion-dollar spending bill, but something that actually can reach the goal that he (Obama) has suggested"...
After giving a blank check to Paulson that has not done anything to help the problems he identified, maybe you could chalk this response up to the "fool me once" knee-jerk response. But really, if anyone should get a blank check to experiment with government spending I would lean towards the president in a brand new administration to get that blank check. We've thrown enough money at unpopular wars, bailing out banks, etc. that this is just a drop in the bucket.
Now for my complaint about Obama's plan, he's essentially rehashing a Bush refund with a slight spin on delivery:
Obama would offer a tax cut equal to $500 a year for individuals and $1,000 for couples. The credit would work essentially as a payroll tax credit, meaning the money could be delivered fairly quickly. Companies could simply reduce the tax they withhold from employees' paychecks.
Since it was evident that people were happy to stick the government checks that the Bush administration sent out, Obama is trying to sneak it in to our wallets, but one still has to ask how much this will really benefit our situation. The unemployed certainly won't enjoy a payroll tax cut. The rest of the populous will hopefully save the money, and we're left with the government holding less money and everyone in the same situation they were already in. I prefer the rest of the plan which suggests spending on infrastructure, but I think even more emphasis should be made on green projects that will have a longer lasting beneficial impact. The problem, as most have suggested, is that creating 3 million jobs repaving roads and installing solar panels is not going to do much for the unemployment problem, because these people are being laid off from tech and manufacturing jobs, not building/roadwork. Only time will tell how this all plays out, but these are some pretty ugly times.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Sunday "We want to make sure it's not just a trillion-dollar spending bill, but something that actually can reach the goal that he (Obama) has suggested"...
After giving a blank check to Paulson that has not done anything to help the problems he identified, maybe you could chalk this response up to the "fool me once" knee-jerk response. But really, if anyone should get a blank check to experiment with government spending I would lean towards the president in a brand new administration to get that blank check. We've thrown enough money at unpopular wars, bailing out banks, etc. that this is just a drop in the bucket.
Now for my complaint about Obama's plan, he's essentially rehashing a Bush refund with a slight spin on delivery:
Obama would offer a tax cut equal to $500 a year for individuals and $1,000 for couples. The credit would work essentially as a payroll tax credit, meaning the money could be delivered fairly quickly. Companies could simply reduce the tax they withhold from employees' paychecks.
Since it was evident that people were happy to stick the government checks that the Bush administration sent out, Obama is trying to sneak it in to our wallets, but one still has to ask how much this will really benefit our situation. The unemployed certainly won't enjoy a payroll tax cut. The rest of the populous will hopefully save the money, and we're left with the government holding less money and everyone in the same situation they were already in. I prefer the rest of the plan which suggests spending on infrastructure, but I think even more emphasis should be made on green projects that will have a longer lasting beneficial impact. The problem, as most have suggested, is that creating 3 million jobs repaving roads and installing solar panels is not going to do much for the unemployment problem, because these people are being laid off from tech and manufacturing jobs, not building/roadwork. Only time will tell how this all plays out, but these are some pretty ugly times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
