Saturday, June 07, 2008
New iPhone coming
So... new iPhone in two days. Are ya excited!? Are ya!? ARE YA!!?!! Ah, never mind.
Voice-activated cell phone services
"Voice-activated cell phone services", the current Pogue video segment, is cool, and like usual, funny.
(If you get it over iTunes podcasts, the picture resolution is much better.)
(If you get it over iTunes podcasts, the picture resolution is much better.)
Saving your blog writing
If you have a blog and you're like me, that you write the posts directly into the web interface, perhaps it's a good idea to every so often save your blog pages to your own computer, so you're not depending on Blogger or whoever to save it forever.
Myself, I save the monthly archive pages (which there are links to on the right).
I save it in Mozilla/Firefox, because it can save generic HTML plus makes a folder with the embedded images. Safari can only save as HTML without saving the images, or it saves in a proprietary format which includes them but can't be opened with any other browsers. I think the Firefox solution is so much better. Also it can save as text-only. I think it's a poor show from Apple that Safari does not have these platform- and application-independent options.
---
Talking about Safari, both my laptop and desktop Macs have Safari 3.1.1, but it's different: on the desktop, safari scales down (non-embedded) pictures which don't fit in the window, but on the laptop it doesn't. (For added irony, it would be a more useful feature on the laptop, what with the smaller screen.) I can't find a setting to determine this. Any idea anybody?
Myself, I save the monthly archive pages (which there are links to on the right).
I save it in Mozilla/Firefox, because it can save generic HTML plus makes a folder with the embedded images. Safari can only save as HTML without saving the images, or it saves in a proprietary format which includes them but can't be opened with any other browsers. I think the Firefox solution is so much better. Also it can save as text-only. I think it's a poor show from Apple that Safari does not have these platform- and application-independent options.
---
Talking about Safari, both my laptop and desktop Macs have Safari 3.1.1, but it's different: on the desktop, safari scales down (non-embedded) pictures which don't fit in the window, but on the laptop it doesn't. (For added irony, it would be a more useful feature on the laptop, what with the smaller screen.) I can't find a setting to determine this. Any idea anybody?
Drying phones
A tip I got from a friend who recently had his mobile phone get wet and talked to a repair geek:
If your phone (or, I imagine, other electronic gadget) gets wet, let it dry for a week before turning it on.
For one thing, the board soaks up water. For another thing, there are layers of copper in there, and they will oxidize if electricity goes through while it is wet.
If your phone (or, I imagine, other electronic gadget) gets wet, let it dry for a week before turning it on.
For one thing, the board soaks up water. For another thing, there are layers of copper in there, and they will oxidize if electricity goes through while it is wet.
More on compacts
Michael Reichman weighs in on compact cameras.
The Sony W300 looks interesting. Particularly how we all are so sure that more megapixels invariably produces more noise, and here comes this camera which has the highest megapixel count of any compact, but apparently also unusually low noise. I guess we don't know nothin'.
Small note; Michael writes:
"Joy of joys, the W300 has an optical viewfinder. Yes, it's small, and only shows about 80% of the taken frame. But it's there, it zooms with the lens, and it means that one doesn't have to shoot with the camera at arm's length the way middle aged people have to read menus in restaurants when they've forgotten to bring along their glasses."
Mike is not alone in feeling this way, I read it many places. But I can't help wondering how we'd all feel if all cameras had had screens for many decades, and somebody now introduced a camera with an optical viewfinder... "the makers of this camera apparently expects us to walk around with it pressed against our faces like a nicotine patch. It's very odd and inconvenient, it hides your face and greases up the backside of the camera..."
Some suggest it helps to stabilize the camera to press it against your head. I doubt so, you have to hold your breath so it does not interfere, and then you get tense because you get out of breath.
Apart from that it restricts the view angles you can photograph from, to head height.
Update: The Sony W300 has a label which reads: "Full HD - 1080". But if you look closely with a magnifier, you can see the words "still image" next to the label. And sure enough, the video is only VGA. And sure enough, the still image resolution is far above "1080". But what kind of weasel marketing is this? "Full HD - 1080" is meaningless unless it's about video. Clearly they want people to buy the camera thinking it delivers high-end HD, and when people find out it doesn't, then they can point to the label: "see, it's only the still images which are HD". Very disingenuous.
30 pounds and Political Correctness
"What's the difference between a boyfriend and a husband? About 30 pounds."
-- Cindy Gardner
Interesting that if somebody said that about women, they'd be strung from a lamp post. But you can say it about men, because they are currently seen as an oppressor, so you can say what you want about them.
Funny in general, who you are allowed to make fun of. For instance, stand-up comedian Ron White (whose early album Drunk In Public was fantastic, but seems to have run out of material) has a spiel about the Inuit in Alaska, I think it is. About how ugly they are. Imagine he was saying that about blacks, or Asians? But when it's a tiny minority like the Inuit, the audience is laughing it up.
What can we learn from that? It suggests to me that Politically Correct fads like who we can criticize or which words we may use are not so much based on compassion as they are on fear. Obviously the Inuit are not less deserving of our compassion than the blacks or Asians, but they are much less deserving of our fear because there are so few of them, so who cares if anybody disrespects them?
-- Cindy Gardner
Interesting that if somebody said that about women, they'd be strung from a lamp post. But you can say it about men, because they are currently seen as an oppressor, so you can say what you want about them.
Funny in general, who you are allowed to make fun of. For instance, stand-up comedian Ron White (whose early album Drunk In Public was fantastic, but seems to have run out of material) has a spiel about the Inuit in Alaska, I think it is. About how ugly they are. Imagine he was saying that about blacks, or Asians? But when it's a tiny minority like the Inuit, the audience is laughing it up.
What can we learn from that? It suggests to me that Politically Correct fads like who we can criticize or which words we may use are not so much based on compassion as they are on fear. Obviously the Inuit are not less deserving of our compassion than the blacks or Asians, but they are much less deserving of our fear because there are so few of them, so who cares if anybody disrespects them?
Friday, June 06, 2008
Max Hardcore
"Max Hardcore" may not be some people's idea of a nice man, and his porn videos even fewer people's idea of wholesome culture (they often contain consensual violence or actors pretending to be minors), but the verdict against him is highly problematic because it's a verdict against fantasy. If people can be put in jail for what goes on in their heads, we're on a very slippery slope.
P said:
In Lebanon and most arab countries, if you criticize the State, its leaders, or do the same with a "friendly country", you can be sent to jail by virtue of law. It doesn't matter for one second if you were merely stating the bare truth. Besides, anything bare is public obscenity, so there!
Otherwise put, if as a journalist -or a blogger- you can reveal a genuine and proven corruption scandal and present irrefutable proof in a court of law, the local George-W-Bushes can legally haul yo' ass to da slammer. Giddit? So jest shaddup, boy, and bow yo' head to da man. Sit. Be quiet. Play dead. Heel.
So much for freedom of expression and the Chart of Human Rights, eh?
Phooey. ):-P
Now THAT's what I call repugnifying public pornographic obscenity. But I'll call it without raising my voice too much...
P said:
In Lebanon and most arab countries, if you criticize the State, its leaders, or do the same with a "friendly country", you can be sent to jail by virtue of law. It doesn't matter for one second if you were merely stating the bare truth. Besides, anything bare is public obscenity, so there!
Otherwise put, if as a journalist -or a blogger- you can reveal a genuine and proven corruption scandal and present irrefutable proof in a court of law, the local George-W-Bushes can legally haul yo' ass to da slammer. Giddit? So jest shaddup, boy, and bow yo' head to da man. Sit. Be quiet. Play dead. Heel.
So much for freedom of expression and the Chart of Human Rights, eh?
Phooey. ):-P
Now THAT's what I call repugnifying public pornographic obscenity. But I'll call it without raising my voice too much...
Land of the blind
Does anybody know that old short story about a man who comes to an isolated land where everybody is blind? He can't prove to them that he has an ability they don't.
It's highly interesting. If you think about it, if the blind people did start to believe him, they would view his ability as a supernatural one.
Graham sed:
Sounds like H G Wells' "In The Country Of The Blind." It was a great story IMO.
Yep, that's the one. Thanky.
It's highly interesting. If you think about it, if the blind people did start to believe him, they would view his ability as a supernatural one.
Graham sed:
Sounds like H G Wells' "In The Country Of The Blind." It was a great story IMO.
Yep, that's the one. Thanky.
LisaNova and Jenna Elfman
Like I've said, it seems this is the rise of the age of the female comedian. "Comedienne" for short, I guess. Bully for them.
Lisa Donovan Nova plays Ashley Moorehouse, Jenna Elfman plays Shirl Davidson.
"Ashley" interviews Dubya.
Jenna and Lisa in another sketch.
Lisa is a phenom I'd missed. She has over 100,000 subscribers on U-toob. Often funny, pretty hot, and not above using her assets.
I'd missed her because I don't surf around on YouTube that much. Am I the only one who finds it stressing? I quickly get into a mind mode of "find the next good one, the next better one, better, one more, next..." Total sensory overload.
Here's a video interview with Revver's founder about Revver's revenue-sharing program. The cola/mentos guys earned $35k in a couple months. I wonder how U-toob's revenue sharing program is doing?
Lisa Donovan Nova plays Ashley Moorehouse, Jenna Elfman plays Shirl Davidson.
"Ashley" interviews Dubya.
Jenna and Lisa in another sketch.
Lisa is a phenom I'd missed. She has over 100,000 subscribers on U-toob. Often funny, pretty hot, and not above using her assets.
I'd missed her because I don't surf around on YouTube that much. Am I the only one who finds it stressing? I quickly get into a mind mode of "find the next good one, the next better one, better, one more, next..." Total sensory overload.
Here's a video interview with Revver's founder about Revver's revenue-sharing program. The cola/mentos guys earned $35k in a couple months. I wonder how U-toob's revenue sharing program is doing?
Web sites die quick
Web desing guru Jakob Nielsen (both spellings are due to him being Danish) says that your addresses/pages on your web site must live forever, because every time you change them, you disconnect from all the sites which may have linked to them.
But it seems most don't follow that advice. And worse: even domain names don't live forever. For various reasons I've checked up on domains I've found on old links pages and on old graphics I have lying around. And I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya, to note that better than half of those randomly selected domains are simply gone. Defunct.
Even big commercial ventures like for example StanLee.net, which was an attempt by comics legend Stan Lee at making web comics commercially viable, is just gone. No site, not even a single page. It's just stupid, because keeping a domain and small site on a server will only cost you like twenty dollars a year. And you can put links on the page to whatever new things you would like your old fans to look at now. I've only let one of my domains expire, and that was because it was a .dk domain, and the Danish registrar authority was a pain in the ass to deal with, so I just gave up.
A similar point: I am also shocked, shocked I tell ya, to notice how many artists and celebrities don't even have their own web sites. Even as a very, very minor artist myself, I find it inconceivable to not have my personal site. Apart from anything else, it's just fun. And people can find you. But better than half of the actors, artists, writers etc that I look up don't have their own site. They let it be up to others to project their image on the web. Such a pity. I mean, even a discussion board for the fans on your own site must be an invaluable resource for keeping the finger on the pulse, for any well known person.
But it seems most don't follow that advice. And worse: even domain names don't live forever. For various reasons I've checked up on domains I've found on old links pages and on old graphics I have lying around. And I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya, to note that better than half of those randomly selected domains are simply gone. Defunct.
Even big commercial ventures like for example StanLee.net, which was an attempt by comics legend Stan Lee at making web comics commercially viable, is just gone. No site, not even a single page. It's just stupid, because keeping a domain and small site on a server will only cost you like twenty dollars a year. And you can put links on the page to whatever new things you would like your old fans to look at now. I've only let one of my domains expire, and that was because it was a .dk domain, and the Danish registrar authority was a pain in the ass to deal with, so I just gave up.
A similar point: I am also shocked, shocked I tell ya, to notice how many artists and celebrities don't even have their own web sites. Even as a very, very minor artist myself, I find it inconceivable to not have my personal site. Apart from anything else, it's just fun. And people can find you. But better than half of the actors, artists, writers etc that I look up don't have their own site. They let it be up to others to project their image on the web. Such a pity. I mean, even a discussion board for the fans on your own site must be an invaluable resource for keeping the finger on the pulse, for any well known person.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Transformers shirt gets jet ban
"Transformers shirt gets jet ban". The Sun.
(Why do mainstream media publications insist that headlines must be nigh unreadable?)
I'm sorry for a week full of making fun of people's insane phobias, but I just can't get over the surrealism of it all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)