I've neglected this blog for a while, but that is how things go. It wasn't like anyone even cared. No matter now because I got something to share.
This is one of the most rational and impassioned speeches on gay marriage rights I have seen. Senator Diane Savino, representing the "fighting" 23rd senate district of New York (aka Statan Island and bit of Brookyln), points out that it is not the responsibility of the state to determine if couples are "fit" to marry. States do not judge the quality of a couple before issuing a certificate. People just show up at city hall, ask for a certificate, and their pretty much done, that is if they are man and woman. Imagine if they did determine fitness, would Las Vegas chapels marry anyone?
She also points out that despite legislation, religious organizations can still choose to determine the standing of a marriage. The catholic church could deny sacrament if they feal the marriage is unholy, or in Judaism, the honour of an alia could be withheld. Nothing would stop that discrimination, but the state does not have the same standing. Discrimination by the government is plain wrong.
Yet, the bill failed in the senate. Shame. More state assemblies will be taking up similar measures soon (New Jersey), and maybe people will come to their senses and see the blatant wrongness being perpetuated against equal citizens of the union. Or shamefully not.
Check out the video, worth your while:
Friday, December 4, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
The Onion on the Apple Psyche
I am not a big Apple fan. I think they brainwash their customers into purchasing 
products because "it's cool," or "trendy," or "secure." When in most cases, they are years behind in hardware, there machines run hot enough to either glow or cook an egg, and I continually the most insecure. People are still willing to pay twice as much for them, and those that do tend to be completely fanatical. Well, if you are crazy about Apple and proud of it, do they have the product for you.
The Onion is reporting on the next-best, must-have Apple product. The iPhone 3Gi - the first invisible iPhone. All you have to do is believe ...
* If you don't know, The Onion is a fake news source that presents satire and humour. No such product, as of yet, is planned for release. But, I wouldn't put it past them.
products because "it's cool," or "trendy," or "secure." When in most cases, they are years behind in hardware, there machines run hot enough to either glow or cook an egg, and I continually the most insecure. People are still willing to pay twice as much for them, and those that do tend to be completely fanatical. Well, if you are crazy about Apple and proud of it, do they have the product for you.The Onion is reporting on the next-best, must-have Apple product. The iPhone 3Gi - the first invisible iPhone. All you have to do is believe ...
I bet some poor sap is already standing out in line in front of the Apple right now.
SAN FRANCISCO—In a move expected to revolutionize the mobile device industry, Apple launched its fastest and most powerful iPhone to date Tuesday, an innovative new model that can only be seen by the company's hippest and most dedicated customers.
...
* If you don't know, The Onion is a fake news source that presents satire and humour. No such product, as of yet, is planned for release. But, I wouldn't put it past them.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
"Man Cave" Created in Albany
Two idiots create a "Man Cave" in the New York state capital to, "sell drugs, smoke pot and sleep for hours during work shifts." They may be heroes to some, but they are probably of a job and may face some jail time to boot.
Either way, the NYT's article is absolutely hilarious!
Either way, the NYT's article is absolutely hilarious!
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Mutually assured desctruction ... no way
Yesterday, the NYT op-ed ran an essay by Robert X. Cringely in which he argues that Google and Microsoft compete with each other not to usurp the other because their interest are entangled. And, the only reason why Google is shooting across the bow of big, bad Microsoft by announcing Chrome OS is to simply keep Microsoft, "on their toes."
Crigley goes on to point out that most of Google's search request originate from Microsoft PCs, and that has "facilitated so much of [Google's] success." And that Google's real fear is that Microsoft will one day block access to Google's servers (can someone say "anti-trust").
I'm sorry, but that is all bull sh*t. Google really does have a shot to usurp Mircsoft, and their is no mutually assured destruction. The whole point of Google's develop model is that the browser is the OS, and in most ways they are right.
The Chrome browser is a simulated operating system. It handles multiple processes (a.k.a. tabs), schedules tasks (a.k.a. applets, javascripts, html rendering), and handles input, output, and visualization (a.k.a. what you see, type, and print).
Imagine a world of cheep (netbook like) PC's that run a minimal operating system (Chrome OS) and run only one program, the browser (Chrome). Within the browser you have your email, office products, calendar, telephone, and whatever else Google comes up with. All of these programs are free to the user (with advertising, paid for without), and the computer is a quarter of the cost because you don't have to pay for a stupid Windows licence (even when you don't want it).
If I were Microsoft, I would be worried. But, not that worried.
What Microsoft has that Google doesn't is coperations signed on for what seems the like the long haul. Their tech departments aren't just going to change over to a new OS overnight, and why would a coperation trust Google to store all their trade secrets on some server in Iowa? Plus, there are a lot of f*cking computers at these coperations and that is a lot of Windows and Office licences. Microsoft isn't going to fade away overnight.
The fact is, Google cannot completely obliterate Microsoft, but it can give them a serious body blow in the consumer market. That is where Microsoft is weakest, and that is where Google is attacking. It isn't going to happen all at once, and hey, it could be some other start-up that lands the punch, as Crigley points out, but it is only a matter of time.
One thing is clear, Google doesn't need Microsoft.
Microsoft makes most of its money from two products, Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office. Nearly everything else it makes loses money, sometimes deliberately. Google makes most of its money from selling Internet ads next to search results. Nearly everything else it does loses money, too.
Neither company really cares because both make so much from their core products that it simply doesn’t matter. But companies, like people, strive and dream and in this case both dream, at least sometimes, of destroying the other. Only they can’t — or won’t — do it in the end, because it is against the interests of either company to do so.
Crigley goes on to point out that most of Google's search request originate from Microsoft PCs, and that has "facilitated so much of [Google's] success." And that Google's real fear is that Microsoft will one day block access to Google's servers (can someone say "anti-trust").
I'm sorry, but that is all bull sh*t. Google really does have a shot to usurp Mircsoft, and their is no mutually assured destruction. The whole point of Google's develop model is that the browser is the OS, and in most ways they are right.
The Chrome browser is a simulated operating system. It handles multiple processes (a.k.a. tabs), schedules tasks (a.k.a. applets, javascripts, html rendering), and handles input, output, and visualization (a.k.a. what you see, type, and print).
Imagine a world of cheep (netbook like) PC's that run a minimal operating system (Chrome OS) and run only one program, the browser (Chrome). Within the browser you have your email, office products, calendar, telephone, and whatever else Google comes up with. All of these programs are free to the user (with advertising, paid for without), and the computer is a quarter of the cost because you don't have to pay for a stupid Windows licence (even when you don't want it).
If I were Microsoft, I would be worried. But, not that worried.
What Microsoft has that Google doesn't is coperations signed on for what seems the like the long haul. Their tech departments aren't just going to change over to a new OS overnight, and why would a coperation trust Google to store all their trade secrets on some server in Iowa? Plus, there are a lot of f*cking computers at these coperations and that is a lot of Windows and Office licences. Microsoft isn't going to fade away overnight.
The fact is, Google cannot completely obliterate Microsoft, but it can give them a serious body blow in the consumer market. That is where Microsoft is weakest, and that is where Google is attacking. It isn't going to happen all at once, and hey, it could be some other start-up that lands the punch, as Crigley points out, but it is only a matter of time.
One thing is clear, Google doesn't need Microsoft.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Cyber Security and the U.S. Government
After all the talk, after all the breaches cyber security is being discusses in the same sentence as national security. Today in the New York Times, a front page article describes President Obama's and the Pentagons plans to set up new groups and organization to handle the cyber security problem. The pentagon will be in charge of the government systems, and there will be another arm in charge of civilian defences.
There is issues of privacy for the normal civilians. Many of the computer used in attacks are in homes, and your Grandmother's computer could be a target. Also, who will be in charge when it comes to civilian networks? There is a "cyber-czar," but a real task force will need to be expansive. Plus, the networks within the U.S. are vital to the rest of the Internet and actions taken here can effect commerce throughout the world.
Also, what can they really do? How will they focus their energy? Will they consult for utility companies to secure the electrical grid other critical infrastructure, or will they actually build and maintain the systems hand-in-hand? There has been much-a-do about data breaches, i.e., stealing personal identifiable information, is this covered?
All in all, it is important that the government is wising up to this problem, but I can't see what they can do from afar. In computer security, you need boots on the ground because there are so many critical networks, and 10 people discussing policy in the west wing will have no real effect unless they have tech-admins enforcing it.
Either way, I am interested to see where this leads, but one thing is for sure, the modern day spy infiltrates through the network. I am glad we are starting to try and plug those holes.
There is issues of privacy for the normal civilians. Many of the computer used in attacks are in homes, and your Grandmother's computer could be a target. Also, who will be in charge when it comes to civilian networks? There is a "cyber-czar," but a real task force will need to be expansive. Plus, the networks within the U.S. are vital to the rest of the Internet and actions taken here can effect commerce throughout the world.
Also, what can they really do? How will they focus their energy? Will they consult for utility companies to secure the electrical grid other critical infrastructure, or will they actually build and maintain the systems hand-in-hand? There has been much-a-do about data breaches, i.e., stealing personal identifiable information, is this covered?
All in all, it is important that the government is wising up to this problem, but I can't see what they can do from afar. In computer security, you need boots on the ground because there are so many critical networks, and 10 people discussing policy in the west wing will have no real effect unless they have tech-admins enforcing it.
Either way, I am interested to see where this leads, but one thing is for sure, the modern day spy infiltrates through the network. I am glad we are starting to try and plug those holes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
