CAT | Musings
As you might imagine, I’ve been spending a lot of time working with Microsoft Office 2007 lately. I really love the new interface and I’m a huge fan of the new font “Calibri“. I noticed, however, that the default document now uses “Calibri Body 11pt” rather than “Times New Roman 12pt”. I was curious why the font size shrank, so I wrote up a sample document to compare the two. Here it is.
As you can see, Calibri 11pt is a bit smaller than Times 12pt, but it feels just as readable. I think it’s the difference between a serif and sans serif font. Anyhoo… I just found this comparison interesting and thought I’d share my findings with the world.
Seriously, these out-of-control “anti-monopoly” lawsuits HAVE to stop. Not long ago the EU ruled that Microsoft’s inclusion of IE8 in their upcoming Windows 7 product is “anti-competitive behavior”. As a result, copies of Windows 7 sold in the EU will be shipped without a web browser. Let me explain why this is a MAJOR problem.
If you choose to not use Internet Explorer as your primary web browser, you must install an alternative (like Firefox or Chrome). However, what’s the most basic way of installing them? By downloading them from the internet! If you don’t have an internet browser to begin with, you have to jump through all sorts of hoops to get one… hoops that the VAST majority of computer users have no idea how to jump through. Additionally, they can’t just Google how to do this because they don’t have a web browser to get to Google in the first place! It’s a HUGE disaster!
Why do you think Mac OS X has become such an enticing alternative to Windows? I’ll give you a hint. It has nothing to do with it being “the most advanced OS ever” (which I strongly contest). It’s not that it’s any faster or more powerful than Windows. The biggest thing OS X has going for it is that it’s an entire ecosystem that just works out-of-box. It includes a web browser, an email client, a photo manager, etc… and all of these applications play very nicely together.
Now, when Microsoft is finally getting their act together and releasing a not-horrible web browser, the technologically illiterate anti-trust lawyers come out and completely screw over the consumer by claiming that bundled software is anti-competitive. It’s disgusting, and a perfect example of our out-of-control sue-happy legal systems.
Source: CNet
Swine Flu…
…past tense of…
Pigs Fly!
…unless you disagree with me! Okay, so I usually do my darnedest to avoid news from Hollywood… frankly, I don’t care how “proud to be out of touch”“…I think it’s probably a good thing. We’re the ones who talk about AIDS when it was just being whispered, and we talked about civil rights when it wasn’t really popular. And we, you know, we bring up subjects… I’m proud to be a part of this community… and proud to be out of touch.”
-George Clooney they may be. That said… this story showed up at the very top of my Google news feed and it’s got me all angsty-frustrated. Basically, a Miss America contest is being lambasted for stating (when prompted, mind you) that she believes marriage should be between one man and one woman. She made this statement very tactfully, and even said that “it’s great Americans are able to choose one or the other”. Evidently her giving an honest opinion lost her the crown.
When did it become okay to discriminate against those who share a different opinion than you? I don’t care what side of the gay marriage issue you’re on… we all need to work harder to have a spirited exchange of free speech. The power of this country is that we can disagree with each other all we want, yet still coexist in an environment of respect and toleranceMore on tolerance later… ;o).
</soapbox>
It’s controversial, many are up in arms about it, and it’s becoming ubiquitous. I’m talking, of course, about the recent cost hikes in online music. iTunes now sells music at 69¢, 99¢, and $1.29 price points (although you’ll be extremely hard pressed to find 69¢ music… most everything is now $1.29 (up from 99¢). Right on cue, the Amazon MP3 store has followed suit and now charges the same $1.29 per download. Well, here’s my solution to dealing with over-priced music downloads:
Several months ago I discovered that, if I like 1 song from an album, I generally like 2-3 more… and if I listen to the whole CD several times, another 2-3 songs start to grow on me. Considering this, I’ve started purchasing full albums from Amazon. The trick, however, is to purchase USED CDs… which are usually extremely cheap ($2.50 shipping typically dominates the cost). It doesn’t matter if the discs are a little scuffed up… good CD ripping solutions can make use of the data redundancy built into the CD specs and recover from pretty significant errors.
This way, I can get full CD quality music for ~40¢ per track. I immediately rip the CD to 256 kbps M4AMusic compressed with the M4A format is MUCH higher quality than MP3… I consider it a vastly superior file format. files and then archive the physical disc… no need to worry about backing up my downloads. Additionally, if a new file format becomes popular in the future, I still have my source media and can re-rip my collection to stay up-to-date with technology. All and all, a win-win-win solution!
If you’ve paid attention to the news lately, you’ve inevitably heard that Shepard Fairey… the creator of the iconic Obama “Hope” image is in the midst of a lawsuit with the Associated Press over his source image. Fairey is claiming fair use while the AP is claiming damages for using an uncited photo. Personally, I side with the fair use argument but believe that derivative work, including all future reproductions of “Hope”, should include a citation to the original artist’s work unless other explicit permission has been granted.
In this case, however, I’ve stumbled across some very interesting information about Shepard Fairey. Much of the media I’ve followed (including an exposé by NPR) has painted Fairey as a champion of fair-use and open-license. He’s explicitly stated that work in the open domain should be available for derivation. Sadly, he has a strong history of hypocrisy with respect to copyright protection & artist rights.
Shepard Fairey created the following derivative work (right) based on a photograph (left) by Manny Garcia. Garcia and the AP are now seeking damages from Fairey for not citing his source or paying licensing fees.
However, in 2008, Baxter Orr created the following derivative work (right) based on Shepard Fairey’s original image (left). Fairy ordered a cease and desist, threatened to sue, and called Orr a “parasite”.
Mr. Fairey… you are not a heric icon of the fair use movement, you are nothing more than a commercialist hypocrite who is narcisistic enough to believe that you are above copyright law and basic artistic manners.
Source: Boston Globe, Wikipedia, & Consumerist
I like to think of myself as reasonably informed, but I’ve still been pretty much in the dark about how this whole “credit crisis” thing happened. Well, I just came across this excellent video that explains the situation in very down-to-earth terms. Honestly, it’s one of the more fascinating web videos I’ve seen in a long time. It certainly cleared a lot of things up for me, here’s hoping some of you might find it helpful.
The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.
Okay, I don’t normally post crap like this, but I was sent this video clip by a good friend and I must say… it’s pretty stellar. Enjoy!
Remember last August when I wrote about Joe Biden’s close ties with the MPAA and the RIAA? Well, it looks like old habits die hard.
Among the men appointed to the Department of Justice are:
- Donald Verrilli: The man responsible for killing Grokster, suing Google on behalf of Viacom, and the infamous lawsuit against Jammie Thomas.
- Tom Perrelli: Lawyer extraordinaire for the RIAA
- David Ogden: Defense lawyer for the Copyright Term Extension Act
- Neil MacBride: Created the program that rewarded people for phoning tips about suspected software piracy
So much for “bringing the integrity, depth of experience and tenacity that the Department of Justice demands in these uncertain times.”
We’ve all heard about the DTV transition, but how much do we really know about it? Here are some fun (or not-so-fun) facts about the technology:
- The transition is not about when digital broadcast can start, it’s about when analog broadcast must end. Why force the end of analog broadcast? Money… plain and simple.
- The biggest lobbyists for the DTV transition were cable and satellite providers like DirectTV.
- Digital TV uses less bandwidth than analog TV… so there will be left over space in the spectrum that’s no longer being used. What’s going to happen to this space? It will be sold. This is what this transition is really about… several big companies want that bandwidth space, and as usual, the little guy is getting screwed.
- What’s so great about DTV? Better picture quality. Period. That’s the only advantage the average American will get out of the transition. This assumes, of course, that the people who care about high-def don’t already have cable… ’cause the only thing changing is over-the-air broadcast.
- What sucks about DTV? Sadly, a number of things. For starters, most people who still get their television over the air don’t care all that much about quality. As the previous bullet states, that’s the only gain they’ll see. So we’re really spending all this money for very little perceived gain for the consumer
- Unlike analog TV, DTV is all or nothing. Either you get a strong enough signal or you don’t get anything at all. Gone will be the days of slightly “snowy” yet easily discernible video. Most of those channels will be simply unviewable. Just take a look at what’s going on in Hawaii right now.
- Related to the previous point, gone are the days of watching a staticy news channel during a strong storm. I remember many nights as a child, watching the weather reports on the TV in the basement during a tornado storm. Any situation where the video used to go fuzzy, will now produce a complete lack of video signal (even if the audio used to be understandable). Again, DTV is all or nothing.
- Think about the people you know who still used an anteana for their television. Are they the most technically savey folks? I didn’t think so. Unfortunatly, they’re the ones that will have to deal with the DTV converter boxes that the government is subsidizing. Granting, these boxes aren’t much more difficult to hook up than a DVD player… but it’s still non-trivial for most people.
- Many people don’t know about the DTV converter boxes or aren’t sure how/where to get them. So, several big electronics resellers are pushing very hard to get these people to purchase brand new digital TVs that don’t require a box. There are too many people spending hundreds, if not thousands of dollars on equipment who would be just as well off buying a $60 box and getting a $40 rebate from the government.
- Many broadcasting stations are spending thousands of dollars a day to transmit both analog and digital television signals. If the government’s plan of postponing the deadline goes through, many of the smaller, more local stations won’t be able to afford this dual broadcast for the additional months until the switch. Their only financially viable option will be to cut out the analog signal early.
- What happens when the local guys are forced to cut analog early? Consumers who aren’t ready for the switch (and likely never will be) will have to start tuning into the other larger broadcasters who can afford to transmit both signals. End result… the little guys are screwed.
In short, I’m quite oppose to the DTV transition… but unfortunately, it’s going to happen. When it does, many consumers will be confused and placed in a very vulnerable position. If the transition is delayed, local broadcasters will be forced into a very difficult business situation that greatly favors the larger corporations.
Sources: Consumerist, Gizmodo, Wikipedia, EngadgetHD, & DTV Facts
