Steamd

After reading a recent interview with Prince on Mirror.co.uk, there’s only one conclusion I can come up with about him: Prince is a f@#&ing moron!

Seriously though, I like Prince and I like a lot of his music (mostly his older stuff). Yes, he’s eccentric as hell (and truly a bit on the weird side) but I’ve never seen or read anything that made him out to be a bad guy. Never heard about him bad mouthing or hurting anyone, which more or less backs up his faith in God (he is a Jehovah’s Witness after all!).

No doubt—the man is a highly talented and gifted musician, but this recent interview has me thinking that he’s also “gifted” in other ways (if you know what I mean!). Given his views about the internet, Prince is “special” in more ways than one.

Think about this: If Prince had his way, none of his music would be sold electronically. In fact, his last album “LOtUSFLOW3R” is only available on CD and isn’t available at all on Amazon or iTunes. Chances are, his new album “20TEN” probably won’t even be available via retail any time soon since it’s being given away for free in the UK only in the Daily Mirror. No word on when that album will be available in the US because Prince doesn’t even have a website. His battle over online piracy is no secret. He even tried to prevent a woman from posting a YouTube video of her baby dancing to “Let’s Go Crazy”!

If that weren’t enough…checkout what he said during the interview:

The internet’s completely over. I don’t see why I should give my new music to iTunes or anyone else. They won’t pay me an advance for it and then they get angry when they can’t get it.

Why would Amazon, iTunes, or any other online music retailer pay Prince an advance on something that hasn’t proven to be a good seller yet? That doesn’t make any sense. You get what ever other artist gets: a cut of the profits off the total sales. Take it or leave it! (Which, in Prince’s case, it’s safe to say he already chose to leave it. Moron.)

The internet’s like MTV. At one time MTV was hip and suddenly it became outdated. Anyway, all these computers and digital gadgets are no good…They just fill your head with numbers and that can’t be good for you.

Hmm…you know…Prince is right but only a teeny-tiny bit. Look around and you’ll notice there’s a lot of people (especially kids) with their faces buried in a desktop, laptop, mobile phone and such just texting, tweeting, Facebooking away and not paying any attention to the rest of the world. It concerns me a bit and makes me wonder if any of these people have any social skills at all. Will the future leaders of the world lead in 140 character increments? Really?

While there are certainly plenty of folks whose heads are filled with numbers, the rest of us understand that the internet is just a tool and a highly powerful tool at that. And, just like any tool, it can be abused. Some of us abuse the tools we use more often than not. We can avoid some of these abuses by simply designing better ways of using these technologies.

Beyond that, it’s been proven time and time again that online piracy has been curbed to a greater degree thanks to a surge in online music sales. Too many people use MP3 players and simply don’t want to hassle with physical media like CD’s. It’s just so much more convenient to simply download an album and load it onto an iPod. Based on that, the fact that Prince is not allowing his new music to be distributed via iTunes and Amazon actually promotes more piracy and translates to even more lost sales. Plus, not having an official website translates to a lot of fans being out of touch as to what Prince is up to. It’s a bad business decision through and through.

The last five years of internet innovation has shown us that we’ve only touched the tip of the iceberg. We’re discovering new and innovative ways to present media. And, thanks to an explosion in smart phone technology and devices like the iPad, people are starting to absorb and use media in more exciting ways. The internet is far from over. It’s actually only just begun.

If a picture is worth a thousand words then how many words can you get out of 39 pictures? If you look at the recent pictures posted on The Boston Globe website then they’re worth billions. Click over and take a hard look at all the pictures. Seriously. I’ll wait.

Now, consider the following: It’s been over a month since the Deepwater Horizon oil rig blew up. All efforts by BP (British Petroleum) to plug the leak that has been spewing millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf have failed. It appears that BP is initiating one last ditch effort tomorrow, performing what they call a “top kill”, an attempt to using heavy mud and cement to plug the leak.

Now ask yourself: What if they fail? What if the “top kill” doesn’t work? What now?

The only reasonable answers to those questions is to simply shut down all offshore drilling and any future drilling till we have the technology to address such disasters. Think about it. We can’t run the risk of another disaster like this one. If BP can’t plug the leak in a reasonable timeframe and we don’t have the necessary resources to clean up all the oil, then what can we expect the next time another disaster occurs? What if it’s worse the next time? Is it really worth it? No, it isn’t.

The choice here is either more oil or a cleaner, better environment. You can’t have both. We can get back to square by continuing to buy oil from the Middle East while we transition to cheaper alternatives like natural gas. What we can’t get back is a damaged environment. Once the coastlines are damaged, they’ll never be the same. It’s damage that’s just not easily undone.

Is damaging the environment really worth the need we have to drive our cars? Is that a price you’re willing to pay? If you answered “yes” to these questions then you are an idiot.

I’m definitely the kind of guy for whom others describe as, “There’s a man who really knows where his towel is”. Celebrate Towel Day, in honor of Douglas Adams, by carrying a towel.  :)

Read more…

A co-worker/associate recently posted a blog post entitled What I had when working on Mac. After reading it, it struck me as mildly amusing. Some of the writer’s points are legitimate gripes…but not the kind of gripes that I feel are show stoppers. But the other gripes just don’t make any sense because the writer failed to offer enough information to get a clear view of why they’re legitimate gripes.

Now, before I go any further, let me just say that I am not a stranger to PC’s. In fact, before switching to Mac’s, I was a longtime PC user who worked within the IT industry as an IT Supervisor for nearly 6 years. I’ve used every single version of Windows since Windows 95 first came out. I’ve setup numerous Windows servers and have a lot of experience supporting multiple Windows workstations for small businesses up to 100 employees. Yes, I do know quite a bit about Windows.

Windows has plenty of strengths and weaknesses, as does the Mac OS. I understand that some people will simply prefer Windows over the Mac OS, and that’s just fine. However, if you’re going to complain about why one OS sucks more over the other, be prepared to backup your arguments.

Let’s take a look at some of the arguments presented by Ken, the writer of the blog post. It’s a short post; too short in my opinion to make any legit complaint.

1. the size in KB is really messy. It’s showing me 2KB for dozens of file but when uploading on ftp the real size varies quite largely.

Err…I’m not sure how this is a legitimate complaint. I mean, I use the Finder everyday and don’t have a problem at all with how it reports the size of really small files. You have to look at it from Apple’s point of view. They designed the Finder to be very, very simple; something that the average user could understand. Most people only care about the approximate size. Thus, they probably opted to have the file sizes of files smaller than 1KB or 2KB rounded up. How often does any user really need to know the actual size of a file less than 2KB? It’s a small freakin’ file! Who cares?

Now, if you really care about the reporting of accurate file sizes, you might look into a Finder alternative like Path Finder. The beauty part about the Mac is that there’s an app, utility, or script that solves just about every gripe you could have about the OS. Not every gripe can be fixed…but a lot of them can.

2. the active window doesn’t have a specific color, everything is gray, hard to make a distinction between the active window and others, especially when you have opened a couple.

Funny…I could say the same thing about Windows 7 (and Vista before it):

The two windows look almost identical except for the difference in the minimize, maximize, and close buttons in the top-right corner of each window…which is, ironically,exactly how the Mac does it!

Now, here’s the thing that has always annoyed me about Windows Vista and still with Window 7…Aero! Looking at the screenshot above, you’ll notice that all the windows and even the taskbar is semi-transparent with the wallpaper showing through. This to me is highly distracting. Granted, you can turn it off but I still wonder why Microsoft concentrated so much on eye candy rather than concentrating on improving the design of the windows themselves. For instance, take a look at the following window:

Now, compare this window with a typical Mac window:

The Mac window is much sleeker, more refined with less chrome; whereas the Windows window has more chrome, especially at the top, and feels more busy. Sure, the Mac window has a lot of grey…but after staring at your computer screen for hours, viewing a bunch of sleeker grey windows is much easier on the eyes than a bunch of semi-transparent busy windows in my opinion.

3. the resizing of the window is possible from only one point which is the right – bottom corner. Regularly I am working on my 24′ LCD with two windows opened (left plus right) all the time, Dreamweaver and Firefox usually. Just imagine how is to align everyday these windows to occupy the maximum space of my desktop.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. We all know this is different than Windows and, yes, we know a lot of people don’t like it. But after you spend months using a Mac you get used to it. To get around this gripe, I use a simple little app called SizeUp. It basically allows me to maximize a window to full screen, fill just half the screen, and even a quarter screen with just a simple keyboard shortcut. The result is that I can align one or more windows very quickly without fussing about with resizing a bunch of windows.

4. there is no cut file (CTRL+X) in MacOS which is a shame, such a shortcut should be cross operating systems without any doubt as it is one of the most used keyboard commands on a computer. To do the job done on a Mac you have to either open two windows and drag and drop which is actually the easy way or to drag the file on the desktop and then to drag it again where you want to move it! Grrrr!

Yeah, that’s another little thing that some people have a problem with. Many have asked why Apple has failed to offer this feature in the Finder. Honestly, I don’t know exactly what Apple’s full explanation is but it’s clear that they did it as a matter of some kind of design principle. Maybe offering just one way (copy) instead of two ways (copy and cut) to move a file and/or folder was better to them when it came to more novice users. Who knows. Personally, I complained about it for a while when I first got a Mac but now I don’t really complain about it much. You learn to live without it. But if you must have it, use Path Finder.

5. Apple Mighty Mouse is a piece of crap, the scroll ball is not working at all and for the regular scroll on web I have to click or to move the browser vertical slider. Awful!

Now, here is an issue that has absolutely nothing to do with the decision to use a Mac or not use a Mac. There are plenty of other mouses to choose from other than the Apple Mighty Mouse. If you don’t like the damn mouse then just go get another one. I personally use a Logitech mouse and keyboard on my Mac. Why, oh, why anyone would choose to not use a Mac just because of a shitty mouse is beyond me. Next gripe!

6. The computer speed is not that good as you might read on Mac reviews. Until you will use a Mac at its full performance parameters, at what point, I guess a Mac will beat a PC, it’s hard to believe that using a Mac instead a PC will make any difference.

To make a comparison at a bigger scale is like using two cars, a regular car and a Mustang – the Mustang will really make a good score on a speed track but on a regular street, both will ride with the same speed.

Like I said, a Mac probably will make a (big) difference if you are a video gamer programmer and need a super-duper computer or working in other fields which required a lot of power. For the daily – regularly use I strongly believe a PC is the best fit.

Err…right. I have way too many questions about this gripe but I’ll try and touch on the obvious ones.

First, what Mac are you using? There’s a big difference between a Mac mini, an iMac, and a Macbook Pro when it comes to performance. The same applies to PC’s: there’s a big difference between a cheap ass $500 desktop PC and a $2000 Sony laptop, wouldn’t you say? No pun intended but I think you’re trying to compare apples with oranges. I would need to know what Mac you’re using and what the specs are before I can legitimize your gripe.

Second, if you’re a video game programmer, you’ll likely be using a PC anyways…that is, unless you’re programming for games on the Mac. What you should have said is that if you’re a video editor, a graphics designer, or a 3-D animator, a Mac will likely be a good fit for you. If all you’re doing is checking email, surfing the web, and writing the occasional document or spreadsheet then any computer will do. It’s a matter of personal preference at that point. But to say that a Mac isn’t good for everyday use is ridiculous. Again, it’s all about what you prefer.

It’s a shame that the writer of the blog post didn’t write a more lengthy explanation of his gripes. If he did his point of view would have been much clearer. My point of this blog post is to illustrate the importance of looking at things from different angles. You can’t just simply say “I hate this!” and expect people to take you at your word. You have to provide constructive criticism with examples. Doing so allows for a much more educated debate. Don’t you think?  :)

Translation: I don’t have a real intelligent response and can’t put my money where my mouth is so…I’m just gonna bullshit my way through it and just pretend that I know what I’m talking about.

Read more…

Translation: Flash is dying! Get over it!

Read more…

Yeah, this about sums it up for Amazon. Too funny!

Read more…

Some time ago, I attempted to do a series of posts based on a series by Ann Coulter on the current health care debate^[1]. Well, as fate would have it, I didn’t exactly have time to really devote to is and, as such, never finished it. To finish this series, I’m topping it off with a response to Ann Coulter’s recent blog post entitled “My Healthcare Plan“. So let’s see what CoulterCare would look like…

CoulterCare is described as a “one-page bill creating a free market in health insurance” with an emphasis on the words “free market”. Ann claims that “nearly every problem with health care in this country…would be solved by my plan“.

Here’s her plan…

1. Congress will amend the McCarran-Ferguson Act to allow interstate competition in health insurance.

This is probably one of the only things I agree with that CoulterCare mandates. However, I do not agree that it will provide the level of competition that Ann thinks it will. Granted, it would allow for a greater degree of competition but, let’s face it, these are insurance companies we’re talking about. What will likely happen is that many insurance companies will merge together thus causing a flux of less competition rather than more. States that had only one or two insurance companies present would continue to have just one or two due to the fact that a lot of companies simply don’t want to try and compete.

More so, if an insurance company has already merged with companies that have a presence in that state then you won’t see new insurance companies move into those state. We saw this happen with banks and financial institutions back in the 1990’s. Once banks and financial institutions were given the right to compete more through mergers and acquisitions, a slew of mergers happened almost immediately. One would think that this would mean more competition within the banking and financial sector. However, many purported that this allowed for banks and financial institutions to get too big and thus create less competition and more problems.

If we allow the same sort of behavior with health insurance companies then it’s possible that what happened to the financial sector could happen in the health insurance industry: a full-on collapse of the system. Only way to protect against that is some common sense regulations and rules. Granted, it’s a good idea to allow for interstate commerce within the health insurance industry. But to simply tear down the fences and let them roam free isn’t a good solution. We still have to have some gates to keep from floods happening.

2. The exclusive regulator of insurance companies will be the state where the company’s home office is.

According to CoulterCare, “every insurance company in the country would incorporate in the state with the fewest government mandates, just as most corporations are based in Delaware today“. This would open up a big ole’ can of worms. Ann claims that having such a provision would keep insurance companies from having to follow idiotic state mandates that require all insurance plans to cover bogus things. That may sound great and all, but it also goes against the Conservative principle of allowing the states to decide on these kinds of issues.

For instance, let’s pretend that I live in a state where abortions are legal specifically in cases where the mother’s and/or child’s life is in danger. Pretend that my wife is six-months in and the doctor has given us the bad news and recommends that we abort the child immediately, else we run the risk of my wife and the child of dying due to complications. Now pretend that CoulterCare is in full effect and, since our insurance company is based in a state where abortions are not covered and aren’t legal, our insurance company has told us that they will not cover it. Thanks to CoulterCare, we’re stuck with a bill for thousands and thousands of dollars for something that was totally beyond our control. Not good.

Again, just like with interstate commerce, common sense rules and regulations can be put in place to ensure that insurance policies aren’t covering bogus things. Goofy state-based regulations need to apply. Let the states decide.

3. Prohibit the federal government from regulating insurance companies, except for normal laws and regulations that apply to all companies.

Freed from onerous state and federal mandates turning insurance companies into public utilities, insurers would be allowed to offer a whole smorgasbord of insurance plans, finally giving consumers a choice.

This sounds great, doesn’t it; until you realize that, other than the interstate commerce regulations, insurance companies haven’t really been regulated much by the federal government. Right now, consumers don’t have much choice.

Consumers don’t have a choice on what doctor they can go to. If the doctor you’ve been using for the past ten years isn’t a preferred doctor and in-network according to your insurance company then you will likely not get coverage or receive only a small percentage of coverage.

Consumers as well as doctors and hospitals don’t have the final say-so on what doctor visits, tests, procedures, medications, operations, and such get covered. Only the insurance company has the final word. While you may try to appeal their decision, good luck getting them to pay for it in the end.

Consumers have no say-so as to how much total coverage is provided by their insurance company. An insurance company can stipulate that you’ve maxed out your coverage at any time and refuse to pay any additional medical bills. You could be sitting in the hospital dying and in need of a life-saving procedure, but if your insurance company refuses to pay…good luck!

All of this has nothing to do with government intervention or regulations. It’s all behaviors from the insurance companies in an attempt to maximize profits and make share holders happy. Without some common sense rules and regulations from our government, insurance companies will continue with these behaviors and thus giving consumers less choice instead of more. When consumers aren’t in control over their healthcare, how can one claim that they have choice? That doesn’t make any sense.

CoulterCare claims that “in a free market, the government wouldn’t need to prohibit insurance companies from excluding ‘pre-existing conditions’“. It seems that CoulterCare is mixing the idea of ‘pre-existing condition’ with ‘charity’. That is not what we’re talking about here. Consider this…

I, myself, have a disease with no cure that every health insurance company would see as a ‘pre-existing condition’. If my wife were to loose her job, we would likely end up losing our insurance unless we take over the payments for our insurance plan. If we were to drop the insurance plan and go with another insurance company there is absolutely no guarantee that the new insurance company will cover my ‘pre-existing condition’ right away. As such, I would be forced to have to pay the full price for all my doctor’s visits, all tests, and all prescription. That adds up to a whole lot of money.

Prior to my wife getting a new job, I was without insurance between six months to a year. In that time, we’ve had to minimize doctor’s visits, find alternative medications that cost much less (not to mention less effective than the ones my doctor recommended!), and pay out our doctor’s bills over time. It put a serious dent in our finances and put a serious strain on my ability to maintain good health and get access to the preventative care I needed to avoid the possibility of landing in an emergency room.

Would CoulterCare consider me ‘charity’ case? I suppose so. All I wanted was to be able to pay a reasonable rate for a healthcare insurance policy so that I could get the preventative care I needed at a price I could afford. If CoulterCare were policy then insurance companies would continue with the same practices and thus would force me out of their pool since I would be considered a ‘high-risk’ customer.

Ann doesn’t get it. Ideology can’t fix the healthcare system. You can’t apply political ideology on how corporations run. Corporations don’t care about Conservative principles and ideals; they care about growth and profits for their shareholders. Thus CoulterCare would only help corporations find new ways to maximize profits and wouldn’t solve anything; rather it would make it worse.

I’m not anti-corporation; rather I’m a firm believer in free markets and capitalism. But there is a difference between creating a health profit and profiteering. In order to avoid abuse, you have to create a common sense framework of rules and regulations that everyone can follow. The current healthcare bill, while imperfect, at least takes some steps to creating that framework. CoulterCare does nothing to promote that framework.

Free markets are never ‘free’. Nothing is ever ‘free’. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. No one is entitled to a ‘free lunch’. Thus free markets can never be maintained and will never be sustainable without a framework of common sense rules and regulations. Sustainability and innovation are the keys to maintaining an open free market; an idea that Ann Coulter and other Conservatives are not talking about. They just don’t get it.

1. Health Care, Fiddle Sticks, and Ann Coulter: Part One, Part Two, Part Three, and Part Four [↩]

The irony of this just kills me. The two do kinda go together though. They both kind of invoke a religious experience. Makes you wonder…could you smuggle in a bunch of cocaine behind the Mona Lisa?  Maybe some heroin inside a Van Gogh?

Read more…

Back in 2001, like so many other folks in the tech industry, I got laid off and had a hard time finding another job. I ended up working as a computer technician at the tech desk of a local Best Buy. So when I read about the shenanigans Best Buy puts customers through with computer optimizations at The Consumerist^[1] I was not at all surprised by what I read.

Back when I worked at Best Buy, we were encouraged to offer customers computer optimizations. By encouraged I mean we were forced shove computer optimizations down the throats of all customers buying computers. We were told to tell the customer just about anything to get them to buy them: “Your computer will get a virus if you don’t!” or “Your computer won’t run as fast without the optimization!” or even better “The latest updates will take you hours to download and install! We can do it in just minutes!” All of these are a bit of a stretch. Most customers would respond with, “So, you’re telling me that this brand new computer I’m buying isn’t nearly as fast as it should be and won’t work right out of the box?” Yes, Mr. Customer, that’s exactly what Best Buy is trying to tell you.

For a brief time, that was actually true…but that was when a nasty virus was running rampant and caused some Windows XP to get it without doing anything other than get online. For a while we were able to apply the security patches and run a computer optimization on just about every computer in the store prior to purchase and then charge the customer for the optimization. Just like Betty in The Consumerist story, we were selling computers with the optimization already done. Customers didn’t have a choice. The reality was that the customer was getting a pretty good deal. The Windows XP service pack that fixed the issue was over 200 megabytes which, for most people, would take about an hour or more to download. Since we already downloaded it, all we had to do was install it and optimize the computer a bit. Instant $30 for just a bit of work. Problem is that this only lasted for a few weeks. We couldn’t use that as an excuse once most computers were being shipped with the appropriate security patches already pre-installed.

So, if security issues and large patches aren’t an issue then why would a computer optimization be a good deal? And why should any customer be forced to pay for one if they didn’t ask for it? My take is that value is in the eye of the beholder. If your going to pay $40 for something it should have some kind of value attached to it.

When I was doing computer optimizations, I would make sure that the customer got their money’s worth. I built an automated routine that would install not only the latest patches onto the computer but also a few other bits that would help keep the computer clean. I would also optimize the computer so that certain pre-installed programs don’t run automatically. This varied from model to model. Some models had a lot of crap starting up when you fired up the computer which really slowed things down. Some didn’t have much at all. So if it’s just patches then you’re not really getting your money’s worth. It’s stuff that you can do yourself by just getting online and autoupdating the computer. There were other little optimizations here and there that we did but nothing earth shattering that would boost a computer’s performance by 200%. That would be ridiculous. That alone is what makes computer optimizations a complete rip-off.

As for antivirus software installs, I honestly believe we ripped off customers. I mean, why would you pay an extra $30 just to have someone install software that you can install yourself? I understand that there are people who don’t know much about computers and would rather pay someone to do all that stuff for them. If you’re one of those people then, to be honest, you’re a sucker. Seriously, instead of paying someone, learn to do this stuff yourself. It’s not that hard. Otherwise, you’ll continue throwing money away for no other reason other than you’re lazy.

Is up-to-date antivirus software a good thing to consider when you get a new computer? Absolutely. In fact, I believe every computer salesman should let customers know about their options and educate customers when they buy a new computer. If you’re buying a Mac then antivirus software is less of a problem. But on a new Windows machine? Yes, you might want to consider some antivirus software. While the software pre-installed on the computer might work, usually it’s on a trial basis of about three months or so. Rather than forget to update your software three months later, you might want to consider just buying a good antivirus program that gives you a full year of updates. Otherwise, you put yourself at risk of getting virus or malware infections, which is never fun to contend with.

Bottom line is that laziness is why Best Buy is able to extort so many people into getting optimizations. The average computer buyer really doesn’t know much about computers, so when a Best Buy staff member tells them all the nasty things that can happen if they don’t get the optimization then they feel stupid and end up giving in simply because they don’t know enough to say no!

So, what can you do to protect yourself? Simple. Learn something about the computer you’re using and/or buying! Learn to do stuff yourself rather than relying on other people to do it for you! I don’t care how you do it: read a book, go to a class, get someone to teach you. Whatever method you need to learn how to use and maintain a computer, do it!

UPDATE:

Here a video from Consumer Reports about Best Buy computer optimizations:

1. Best Buy Optimization Is A Big Stupid Annoying Waste Of Money [↩]