Archive for June, 2006

A rant about computers, the web, or some such

Matt, one of the student workers said it best in a conversation a couple weeks ago when he commented that in the future, he’ll use Firefox, with all of it’s extensions to access the web, where he will do everything he needs to do; I really cannot agree more. I could really care less what operating system I am using, be it Windows XP, Macintosh OS X, Ubuntu, or whatever else, as long as I can install Firefox and all the extensions I have come to love. And, if another web browser came along that not only offered the extensions I use but more, I’d gladly switch to it, as this post isn’t about what browser to use or what extensions to use in Firefox.

I access the web for a variety of reasons, ranging from communication via chat and e-mail to news and information. I use the del.icio.us service to list my bookmarks. Digg to search for news and other articles. Wikipedia for encyclopedic information. RCC’s intranet for work related information. Advance Wars By Web and Travian for games. I access my variety of e-mail accounts. That’s what I do just through my web browser. For work e-mail I use an e-mail client and for chat I use GAIM, but those are just programs to get information from the web. It all comes down to the fact that as long as I can use the web, I’m fine with the computer and operating system I am using. Sure, I might complain about the speed of the connection or the processor or the memory, but that’s only because I might want to do it faster. As much as I might like a MacBook Pro so that I could run Windows and Macintosh, it really doesn’t matter which of those two OS’s is better: I just want my Internet and web access.

Hell, computers are practically worthless to me know; I require implants. I want the ability to request information and get it, having it superimposed somewhere in my field of vision. When Meghan and I were visiting her family for Memorial Day, I couldn’t have wanted this more. Topics were mentioned for which minor, and yet important, details were unknown by all. Eventually I pulled out the laptop and searched Wikipedia for the information. Why did I do this during an active discussion? Because I needed, no, wanted to know the information, and I knew I would forget to look it up later. It would have been nice to be able to have the information presented to me in my field of vision so that I could know the answer to the information item in question.

“But Sean, you really wouldn’t know that information, as all you did is call it up from the web.” True, but would not the same be said for any bit of knowledge that one reads from a book and regurgitates back to someone, much like some parts of the standard education system in this country. I think that’s where some of the issues lie with people incorrectly using the web to find information. Many people choose not to look information up. Sure, most know how to type stuff into a search engine, but that’s not what I mean. The act of looking up information involves checking multiple, universally trusted sources. It’s possible that a search engine may give you a random site that has been ranked high with your criteria, but does not have correct or useful information. If you go looking for information and take the time to consider what you are reading, you will pick up and remember some of the information. Sure, not all information is important enough to remember, but I think it is an abuse of the ability to research, read, and process information to not attempt to recall what you read or where you read it.

That was a side trek, but a valid one. Internet access allows me to get to the web and all that is contained there in. I enjoy it for all it is worth, especially for the information it makes accessible. Many articles and information from the web have prompted conversations with family, friends, and coworkers, which range from topics that are non sequitur to important.

Will Canada be the first Cashless Society?

Article has 4 sub-articles about how Canada is moving towards being Cashless. If this works, it will certainly be interesting. I know some people, such as my mother, would be against a cashless society, possibly just to be able to hold on to the money. However, money has been universally agreed upon as “any goods or token used by a society as a medium of exchange, store of value and unit of account.” [?external:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money  ]  As a result, we’ve just sort of invented what had the value to back this magical currency, typically pretty things such as gemstones and precious minerals such as gold. That is, after all, why they are precious. A cashless society is just a way of moving beyond what backs the money.

Sure, you eventually just get to a point where these credits are meaningless and all it takes is some clever hacking to get additional credit. Then again, all it took to become richer was to create fake money. There’s no way to prevent fraud for any type of monetary unit, even if we went back to bartering, as goods could be faked or made to look better than they really are, so it really doesn’t matter.

I just want to see how it works out.

read more | digg story

My position on Net Neutrality and how I reached it

Back in April, I put up some information on the Net Neutrality issue. I’ve done some minor reading on the matter, but not much that has cleared up the issue. From what I could tell, I really could not determine whether I should go with the knee-jerk “don’t touch my Internet!” reaction or the “the telecoms have the right to do that” reaction. Last Saturday, Dr. Paul Cesarini of BGSU was the keynote speaker for the ResNet Conference that was at BGSU. At the end of his talk, someone asked a question which came down to what he thought of the network neutrality issue. His response was that the telecoms were kind of like the mafia. “Google, we not saying that anything will happen to your packets, but we can’t gaurantee that nothing will. If you give us some money, we’ll make sure that nothing will happen to the packets you send out.” A nice, simple explanation in my opinion.

I’ve had Dr. Cesarini as a co-instructor for a class a couple years ago, so I know that he knows his stuff. He has also done work for the EFF, as well as numerous other organizations and groups, including research with DRM. I was leaning towards the point of view that he gave, but because of who he is, what he has done, and his stance on the matter, I feel confident in stepping onto the side of the debate that is against the telecoms in this matter.

Sometimes it helps knowing who is taking what stance before jumping to a conclusion.

Moments after I posted the above, I found Net neutrality has ruined the Web on digg. Enjoy.

The unofficial Chatsum dictionary

As seen at [?external:http://www.chatsumdictionary.com http://www. chatsumdictionary.com]:

banana.
pronounced “banana dot”, a metaphor for being exicted about chatsum
The URL That Shall Not Be Named
a url that made Lee mad that NightHawk and PolarBear kept posting that deals with the show that chatsum was debuted at
chatsummed
an effect like the /. effect

All this courtesy of [?external:http://www.chatsum.com Chatsum].

Not Ready To Play Nice

I was watching the VH1 Top 20 countdown yesterday morning and a new video came on from the Dixie Chicks. I don’t really consider myself to be a country music fan, but this video caught my attention and I decided to follow-up by finding out the background story online. The video was for the song “Not Ready to Make Nice” and it is the Dixie Chicks first single since they received all the attention about some comments made against President Bush. Now I admit that I was already in a bad mood, but I was just so angry about the sad state of our DEMOCRACY that years afterward people are still harassing these women. Let’s put this in perspective:

The Crime: At a concert in Europe The Dixie Chicks said that they were ashamed that the President was from Texas

The Backlash: Death threats, banning of their music from radio stations, public demonstrations against the group

These days a lot of celebrities have been using their fame and media attention to voice their opinions. As a comparison we can look at Tom Cruise’s comments against psychiatry.

The Crime: In repeated interviews, including the Today Show and Access Hollywood Tom Cruise bashed people with mental illnesses who take medications, specifically Brooke Shields, and said that they could get off the drugs and just take vitamins for the same effects

The Backlash: Brooke Shields and the mental health community said that his comments were “dangerous and irresponsible”, but it was acknowledged that he was allowed to have an opinion

Comparing these 2 cases illustrates a couple points. First, The Dixie Chicks made public comments on ONE occasion to a much smaller audience. Second, they criticized an ELECTED OFFICIAL, someone who CHOSE to be in that position, and someone who should have EXPECTED criticism as we live in a DEMOCRACY where citizens are not only entitled to their opinions, but also are EXPECTED TO FORM THEM AS PART OF THEIR ROLE AS A CITIZEN. And honestly poking fun at the President seems far less of a crime to me than taking cheap shots at thousands of mentally ill who had no part in choosing their fate. (Tom Cruise might still feel the wrath from this, just wait for the first lawsuit from the family of a suicide victim who failed at the vitamin approach.) Furthermore, whether you agree with what either Tom Cruise or The Dixie Chicks had to say, you should remember that freedom of speech is part of America and if being a patriot means embodying American ideals it means being OK with people speaking their minds. I seem to remember something in history class about us fighting a war to have the right to criticize our leaders. I’m sure our forefathers could not have foreseen the power of today’s media or the influence carried by today’s celebrities, but I can’t imagine that if they had known they would have written a clause in the Constitution to keep just Natalie Maines quiet. They probably were hoping that the American people would be responsible enough to question not only their elected officials, but also their sources for information and realize that Tom Cruise is not a licensed health professional and the Dixie Chicks are not economists, military experts, or political strategists.

So overall I’m proud of the Dixie Chicks. I’m glad that they are “not ready to make nice”, and I think they’re better patriots for it. Maybe they can remind some people that we can better love our country, our government, and our president because we have the right to hate them.




Bad Behavior has blocked 300 access attempts in the last 7 days.