As much as I am loathe to give an idiot more free press than they deserve, I don't believe my readership numbers will have much of an impact on the story. So by now you've heard more than you care to of the story of the Big Time Football Star using his celebrity as a Bully Pulpit. What more can be said, really?
Well, I am of the opinion that he has a right to protest by sitting during the National Anthem. We all have a right to freedom of expression. That right does not require that the person exercising it have any facts straight, or even any point to make. Which in this case is fortunate.
Since it is his right to protest, he should not be criticized for doing so. However, there is plenty of criticism to go around about not having a reason to complain. It's not like he knows the pain of struggling. Colin Kaepernick was adopted by a loving family after his father abandoned him and his mother. As a youth he had a gigantic pet tortoise. Let's face it, he had more money than me before he ever started playing football.
So, we will assume at least a middle class upbringing. Not exactly a kid who could possibly relate to the street life. I would add to this, that his making a judgement of every American, based on the actions of a few police officers, makes him more bigoted than those few police officers. In fact, given that the stories that made the news almost exclusively exonerate said police officers (outside the city limits of Chicago, of course) One could assume he is either ill informed or...
He is the type of immature tool that was despondent over not being in the news lately for his, played-out, signature touchdown display, and felt the need to do something to draw attention to himself. It is also the right (obligation) of his employer, and the National Football League, to fine him for his silliness.
Hell, if he were in the NHL, NBA or MLB he would be fined, and possibly suspended. Why do we tolerate so much bad behavior from football players? I mean really, at least he's not in the news for rape, domestic abuse, or substance abuse.
Sp while I will defend his right to be an immature, ill-informed, protesting moron; I would remind him that there are better ways to make a point.
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
The Death of Physical Media.
There are a lot of items in the news, currently, that bear some deep thinking: Cops being murdered in Dallas in retaliation for things that happened in two places that are certainly not Dallas, Bernie selling out to Hillary, Why now, more than ever, we need a viable third party candidate. I will not be addressing these. Sadly, when examined, they are exactly what they appear.
Instead I will address the death of physical media, and why it is a bad thing. Two items conspired to put me on this track. First, one friend has decided to do a blog reviewing obscure albums and bands. Its worth visiting. (Flagrant free plug). The other item was that another friend called while I was loading a Blu ray for the kids, and commented on how odd it was that I still used physical media. It is odd, actually. But a few days later I was truck by an epiphany... or a bread truck... something made me start thinking, anyway.
See physical media has an intrinsic value. I do not mean the mere ability to barter it. But that it exists in an unaltered form. Like the strange albums reviewed on the site above. In a the modern world these records would be removed from the servers to make more room for Taylor Swift's newest album. (Nothing against her, really, but the world needs Captain Beefheart too. Now more than ever)
Not only do we run the risk of only being able to select from pre-screened corporate rock, movies, and books, but there is a more insidious trouble lurking here. Do you own an unaltered copy of Star Wars? Nope. Not even that dust covered VHS is the same as the original print. Wouldn't you like to own a copy of that? Now what do you think would have happened if you owned a unaltered copy, but on a cloud server, and Lucas Film wanted to "improve" it to the new version. Guess which copy you would now own.
I hear many of you yelling at your screens: "But anyone can publish anything they want now. Virtual publishing works." Sure, right up until someone needs server space, or someone decides we should be offended by it, or a media conglomerate sends a DMCA takedown request, you can find it. But where are those things in ten years? Twenty?
I'm not saying we shouldn't be using virtual media, but there are inherent problems with it. Physical media has it's share of problems as well. The best use of virtual media would be archiving physical media, as virtual media has the capacity to be permanent.
Instead I will address the death of physical media, and why it is a bad thing. Two items conspired to put me on this track. First, one friend has decided to do a blog reviewing obscure albums and bands. Its worth visiting. (Flagrant free plug). The other item was that another friend called while I was loading a Blu ray for the kids, and commented on how odd it was that I still used physical media. It is odd, actually. But a few days later I was truck by an epiphany... or a bread truck... something made me start thinking, anyway.
See physical media has an intrinsic value. I do not mean the mere ability to barter it. But that it exists in an unaltered form. Like the strange albums reviewed on the site above. In a the modern world these records would be removed from the servers to make more room for Taylor Swift's newest album. (Nothing against her, really, but the world needs Captain Beefheart too. Now more than ever)
Not only do we run the risk of only being able to select from pre-screened corporate rock, movies, and books, but there is a more insidious trouble lurking here. Do you own an unaltered copy of Star Wars? Nope. Not even that dust covered VHS is the same as the original print. Wouldn't you like to own a copy of that? Now what do you think would have happened if you owned a unaltered copy, but on a cloud server, and Lucas Film wanted to "improve" it to the new version. Guess which copy you would now own.
I hear many of you yelling at your screens: "But anyone can publish anything they want now. Virtual publishing works." Sure, right up until someone needs server space, or someone decides we should be offended by it, or a media conglomerate sends a DMCA takedown request, you can find it. But where are those things in ten years? Twenty?
I'm not saying we shouldn't be using virtual media, but there are inherent problems with it. Physical media has it's share of problems as well. The best use of virtual media would be archiving physical media, as virtual media has the capacity to be permanent.
Friday, June 24, 2016
How Britain got it's groove back.
Right now the markets are reacting to Britain's leaving the EU (European Union) in a very predictable way. Markets hate instability, and England leaving not only creates it's own instability, it could act as a bellwether for other countries departing. I would keep my eyes on France and possibly Germany.
Scotland too is planning a vote to secede from the UK, (Britain) in order to rejoin the European Union. If you are voting for independence, just to join another super national group who will rule over you; clearly you don't understand what the word means. But I digress... This action would cause further instability. Ireland and Northern Ireland are already talking re-unification.
But I see a quick end to this nonsense. The markets, and the fat cats who run them will quickly realize that a Britain not encumbered by the, mostly insolvent, countries of the EU is a more stable, more prosperous country. Most likely the major players already see this and are buying British stocks and Pounds so they can enjoy the huge surge to come.
The downturn will be driven by panicky investors who fear any change, while the older, smarter investors are laughing and preparing to become even wealthier. It's what they've been doing for generations, after all; waiting for panicky people to panic, and taking advantage of the low buy in now, and high sell off later.
This is the best thing for Britain financially, even though the vote was mostly centered on retaking sovereignty. Maybe we can learn from this. It is best to put self-rule, liberty itself, ahead of all other concerns. Prosperity will follow.
Scotland too is planning a vote to secede from the UK, (Britain) in order to rejoin the European Union. If you are voting for independence, just to join another super national group who will rule over you; clearly you don't understand what the word means. But I digress... This action would cause further instability. Ireland and Northern Ireland are already talking re-unification.
But I see a quick end to this nonsense. The markets, and the fat cats who run them will quickly realize that a Britain not encumbered by the, mostly insolvent, countries of the EU is a more stable, more prosperous country. Most likely the major players already see this and are buying British stocks and Pounds so they can enjoy the huge surge to come.
The downturn will be driven by panicky investors who fear any change, while the older, smarter investors are laughing and preparing to become even wealthier. It's what they've been doing for generations, after all; waiting for panicky people to panic, and taking advantage of the low buy in now, and high sell off later.
This is the best thing for Britain financially, even though the vote was mostly centered on retaking sovereignty. Maybe we can learn from this. It is best to put self-rule, liberty itself, ahead of all other concerns. Prosperity will follow.
Saturday, January 16, 2016
Your bias is showing.
Recently I've seen an image circulating. You know the kind, someone tried to force a meme by putting words over an image. Normally I ignore these things, as they are thoughtless ignorance encapsulated; but this one bothered me. It represented the culmination of assumptions feeding confirmation bias, feeding assumptions, in a vicious circle. Rather than direct traffic to the site hosting it; I, armed with the fair use doctrine, am posting it here.
Let's disassemble the assumptions and biases here. First this assumes that these two people have any intent at all. They may simply have been walking down the street. This isn't likely the case, but I'll cover that shortly. Next, it assumes they are cowards, and that only armed services members and veterans can be brave, or defend themselves or their country. Since the second amendment was born out of the fact that non military people armed themselves to liberate us from the British, this is especially off base. Lastly the assumption that they are "playing army". Because one cannot possibly be engaging in any activity with a firearm, unless you are acting immature. This is an assumption feeding a confirmation bias and back.
The first assumption is the funniest. Ever run into armed people just wandering around? Me neither. That is because it doesn't happen, in this country, unless you are out hunting. This was most likely from one of the many "Open Carry" events in places like Texas, which were to highlight the absurdity of the laws there. It was lawful to carry a rifle openly, or a handgun concealed, but not a handgun where it could be seen. This left enforcement far too open to interpretation.
These protests worked, and as of this January it became legal to carry a handgun openly. Other protests seek to "desensitize" people to the sight of a firearm, which should be no more alarming than the presence of a bat, hammer, or other tool. At no point, that I could find, was the intent of these protests to intimidate anyone. That is why the rifles are slung, and not carried.
I have prepared an image as a rebuttal, which is every bit as ignorant, assumptive, and reinforcing of bias. It was done for satire, and not because I am stating the contained words to be truth.
See how this can be turned around. These people are engaged in the same activity. A collective agreement to protest. Unlike the protesting people carrying rifles, however, their right to intimidate is protected. (http://www.nrtw.org/d/big_labor_special_privileges.htm). Paints a different picture now doesn't it?
Let's disassemble the assumptions and biases here. First this assumes that these two people have any intent at all. They may simply have been walking down the street. This isn't likely the case, but I'll cover that shortly. Next, it assumes they are cowards, and that only armed services members and veterans can be brave, or defend themselves or their country. Since the second amendment was born out of the fact that non military people armed themselves to liberate us from the British, this is especially off base. Lastly the assumption that they are "playing army". Because one cannot possibly be engaging in any activity with a firearm, unless you are acting immature. This is an assumption feeding a confirmation bias and back.
The first assumption is the funniest. Ever run into armed people just wandering around? Me neither. That is because it doesn't happen, in this country, unless you are out hunting. This was most likely from one of the many "Open Carry" events in places like Texas, which were to highlight the absurdity of the laws there. It was lawful to carry a rifle openly, or a handgun concealed, but not a handgun where it could be seen. This left enforcement far too open to interpretation.
These protests worked, and as of this January it became legal to carry a handgun openly. Other protests seek to "desensitize" people to the sight of a firearm, which should be no more alarming than the presence of a bat, hammer, or other tool. At no point, that I could find, was the intent of these protests to intimidate anyone. That is why the rifles are slung, and not carried.
I have prepared an image as a rebuttal, which is every bit as ignorant, assumptive, and reinforcing of bias. It was done for satire, and not because I am stating the contained words to be truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)