The MPEG LA firm, the firm that owns the patent for the H.264 codec, stated

MPEG LA, the firm that controls licensing for a number of video and other standards, announced on Thursday that it will never charge any royalties for Internet video encoded using the H.264 standard that Apple favors, as long as that video is free to end-users.

Note the language used…

If a video is encoded using the H.264 codec, MPEG LA will not charge royalties for the Internet video SO LONG AS that video, that was encoded using H.264, is free to end-users…

Let me say that one more time…

If a video is encoded using the H.264 codec, MPEG LA will not charge royalties for the Internet video SO LONG AS that video, that was encoded using H.264, is free to end-users…

I don’t see how that assures anyone that MPEG LA will make the H.264 codec “open” in any way…

Do you?

I read an article that states most “boyfriends” wouldn’t LET their girlfriends sunbathe topless…

Would you?

I ask because men go around topless all the time…

Women wear bikinis that, lets be honest, do nothing to “cover up” their “assets…”

Why do SOME men objectionize “boobs?” Everyone has them… Even the men…

Sure, some are bigger and some are smaller… Some are real, and some are fake…

It doesn’t seem to make a difference.

How do you take the objectionization out of an object?

If you make the cookies freely available, do kids still desire to get in the cookie jar? This is why managers of doughnut shops give their new hires all the doughnuts they can eat for the first few days? That way, the “new” hires stop wanting donuts…

I’ll ask again… If you make the cookies freely available, do kids still desire to get in the cookie jar? No, but the kids still want and like cookies…

I do agree that just making boob-images more available won’t stop the issue…

Do women also have to play a part in the solution by stop focusing attention on the boobs solely as sexual objects?

What are your thoughts?

So it was…

At the end of the game between Ghana and Uruguay, a Uruguay player hit the ball out of the goal using his hands…

While the player did receive a red card, the goal was not allowed…
The penalty kick was missed!

Question: Did the ball pass the line of the goal prior to the handball?

I think it did pass the line of the goal–which means it was a goal and shouldn’t have been a penalty kick.

Anyone have any video that would show this?

The rule should be that handballs at the goalline should be an automatic goal and not a penalty kick. You see, making it a penalty means the defense will ALWAYS commit the penalty rather than allow fair play to rule in Soccer.

Soccer shouldn’t be about bad play determining the winner. Rather, Soccer should be about good soccer playing.

If you think that defensive play was good, imagine if it was your team that was denied the goal. Yes, now you realize what an idiot you were for thinking that type of play is “good soccer.”

Really…

So says the 5-Judge majority as stated by Judge Alito.

Why is this a surprise? It shouldn’t be… Think about the first 10 Amendments…

They are limitations on governmental power over citizens. Shall we review?

1st - Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2nd - Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

3rd - Protection from quartering of troops.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

4th - Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

5th - Due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

6th - Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

7th - Civil trial by jury.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

8th - Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

9th - Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th - Powers of States and people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

All of these grant rights to citizens that are to be guaranteed to the citizens of the USA. I think that is a good thing…

“Liberal” Judges don’t get it and, thank God, can’t sell it…

Yahoo has a news link that states:

Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, each wrote a dissent. Stevens said that unlike the Washington case, Monday’s decision “could prove far more destructive — quite literally — to our nation’s communities and to our constitutional structure.”

Does he recall that the reason we have a country is that the citizens had guns? Just because people can use guns unwisely isn’t a reason to reduce the rights of the citizenry… If that were the case, Free Speech would be reduced first since most arguments and fights begin with words… Perhaps the Judges in their “Ivory Tower” have forgotten this fact… I hope they aren’t that … ignorant!

The passage of concealed carry laws has been “trumpeted” as being so dangerous by many anti-gun groups including the Brady Campaign… However, none of the states with such “Shall Issue” laws has seen any of this destruction to any of their communities. While not funny, it is enlightening that the areas with the most strict gun control laws are those very places where gun violence is so bad-Chicago, Washington D.C., …

Constitutional Victory

Nobody likes like gun violence. Nobody.

Liberals should be granting liberal rights to the citizenry rather than reducing citizen rights. Funny that it appears to be those labeled as “conservative” that grant rights to all of us…

For those who think this will create bad violence and killings, I have a statement…

If the President of the Brady Campaign went out and bought a gun and obtained a concealed carry permit, he/she would not be any more likely to commit gun violence than any other citizen who does the same… Those you need to worry about are those criminals who break the laws and who are willing to use gun violence to “get what they want.”

Remember, the criminal is committing a crime. I don’t think making it illegal to own a firearm is going to stop a criminal from owning a firearm. It hasn’t worked in the United Kingdom, and it won’t work anywhere…

Think critically rather than with your emotions. One is good, the other is scary.

Often a person never realizes…
People surround us.
I feel she may not realize her value,
and I don’t want her feeling that way.

I give you a pink lily-to plant and to grow with you, wherever you go.

A Lily because…
the lily was so revered by the Greeks that they believed it sprouted from the milk of Hera, the queen of the gods.

Pink because it Is a mixture of red and white.
… because pink represents all that is feminine and sweet:

• the first hint of a blush;
• the hue of soft, sun-kissed skin;
• the color of lips and tips

of fingers that lift the petals up
for the attention they deserve…

• to be felt;
• to be inhaled; and
• to be admired.

The flower withers next to you.
You constantly amaze me.
I sit here in awe as I watch you:

• work hard;
• live free; and
• enjoy the journey and the view.

To have such courage and guts…
How does it feel to be on a pedestal?

One day, someone else will see in you what I have always seen…
Then I will console myself with memories:

• a smile;
• trembling hands and fingers;
• a glance;
• a too-long touch;
• unrequited support; and
• acceptance of the imperfect me.

I sit here on my cheeks, each with an iq of at least 80…
and think…
If anyone is perfect,
It must be you.

May life always send you:

• bright and warm days;
• joy in living, even if there are no waves to take you places; and
• warm, supportive friends who, like sand, let the unimportant sift through while surrounding and supporting you.

Enjoy the flower.
I know I do. 

There are no pictures of breasts or any other NSFW item here. If you were just looking for that “item,” you can now leave. However, please stay and read the post if you are interested in how you think…

A woman, Jen McCreight, has posted a picture of herself showing some cleavage to oppose a statement made by a male Islamic Cleric. The news post states

“Many women who do not dress modestly… lead young men astray, corrupting their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes,” Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi was quoted last week as saying by Iranian media.

Comedic Insertion

Yes.. Those ARE the two I was looking for…

Sorry, couldn’t help it, there was some “force” affecting me when I made that statement…

If you still don’t get it, well… I can’t help, and I apologize for the use of said language above…

Back to the Story

I am always surprised when a person, religious or not, makes a statement about women and the effects women have on men - different from how women affect men (just to be clear).

Humans have wanted to separate themselves and their “compatriots” into cliques for a very long time. Such separations are to make “us” feel “better” than “them.” It doesn’t matter who “us” and “them” are or whether or not anyone actually is better, but the breakdown of humans into sub-groups continues today.

A woman wears a “skimpy” outfit, and people can imagine what that looks like… Often they are imagining a similar outfit, and they ought to be asking themselves why they have that image associated with that word or phrase.

People think of a “successful man” and often think of a man in a suit and sporting a tie. People think of a “librarian” and an image comes to mind. Why?

Each society has certain similar belief patters, often from religious or social customs. Fashions change because the “new” is “cool” and worn by “that guy” or “that girl” rather than the new “fashion” offering some benefit to the user over the “old” fashion.

We have beliefs that we have due to our parents, our friends, our cliques, our environment, our religion, our society, marketing forces, and other issues we have to deal with as humans. Often, we get “beliefs” because our parents had those beliefs–many times, we haven’t thought why we think that way, we just do…

It is time to start realizing that thinking a girl in a mini-skirt, with thigh-high hose, knee-high boots, and too-tight spaghetti-strap shirt is “loose” or “morally lascivious person” may be wrong. What you are thinking says something about you rather than the person you are looking at while you think those thoughts. You should ask yourself why you have those thoughts and whether those thoughts are generalizations, outright lies, or other baggage that has kept you “prisoner” to your raising (sometimes it is like brainwashing).

Imagine someone coming up to you and yelling, “You are are a stupid (insert your insult here)!” Does the statement, in any way, define you, the person at whom the insult is directed? No. The statement being made says something about the speaker.

Back to Nature

A lion hunts to feed itself and, perhaps, the other lions. The lion does not go out looking for a “hot” meal… (sorry, I’ll try to resist…). If a lion kills a lamb, we don’t blame the lamb for being attractive, for being chased, or for being eaten (sorry, I’m not really trying…). Rather, the lion made a choice on what to kill. The lion may like the taste of lamb, but any lamb would work. The lamb killed was likely sick, injured, or old and not the voluptuous, athletic animal which is better able to evade the lion’s attack.

My Thoughts

Don’t blame the wolf in the sheep’s clothes. The wolf is a wolf and will hunt sheep. It is irrelevant that the religions of the world have problems with the wolf who dresses in a sheep’s clothing (yep, went there again).

Humans will think in sexual terms. We are, after all, animals. We can procreate, or breed as a friend of mine likes to say. Sexual activity feels good because it helps guarantee the continuation of the species.

If you are religious, you have to wonder why God made it feel so good–he could have made it feeling-free. Since it does feel good, you have to admit that God created sexual activity that way for a reason. While it may be to procreate, God may have wanted animals to have a way to get rid of stress. I don’t presume to know all of the reasons, but I can tell you evolution will favor those species that get pleasure from sexual activity. As a matter of fact, I will state that if a certain group of humans got MORE pleasure form sex than others, those populations would tend to grow faster than the others… How is that for behavioral biology? I guess most everyone can grasp that concept…

Summary

Don’t blame women for a man’s activity. Rather, blame the man for not being able to control his emotions and desires. The woman had no way of forcing the man to do anything. Rather, the man chose to act.

This is like arresting prostitutes to stop the desire some men have for sexual activity… It just isn’t going to work folks.

Perhaps the religious community should look to the force for help. If they find the force, they could once again get men to state…

Those aren’t the droids we are looking for…

I was browsing on my iPhone the other day, and I was going to comment on a story about the iPad.

However, the post already had over 1,000 comments, and I couldn’t be bothered to sit there and scroll down to the bottom…

Why is there no way to get to the bottom of a web page on the iPhone besides simply sliding your finger up the screen 500 times?

I am always amazed at what you can’t do on this thing…

What say you?

I read a comment about Apple on Yahoo

Anyone who knows anything about Flash knows that it’s buggy, bloated crap. The three major things that use Flash are Video, Advertising and games. Flash video is very quickly being replaced by HTML5, ad’s that move or start playing movies automatically or dramatically slow a page load will not be missed by anyone and as for games… Flash is not touch-screen supported on ANY platform! (And the last I saw, the iPhone is not lacking in the game department!) Flash is a proprietary disruptive resource hog that interferes with Apple’s consistent, simple, high quality user experience across all of its platforms. I applaud Apple for drawing a line in the sand by not allowing a poor technology by “a lazy company” to ruin the #1 rated smartphone platform. Apple abandoned the floppy drive years before the PC did because it recognized it’s useful life was over. Apple is doing the same with Flash. In Jobs we trust.

I am not sure if the person commenting knows Flash or HTML5, but I haven’t heard whether HTML5 will make the user find codecs for each site that uses a different codec to encapsulate their video. Remember that in the past (prior to Flash)?

Flash handles all that back end “traffic” so that the user just gets the service (streaming video, games, etc.). Saying HTML5 will replace Flash because it can stream video or play games is like saying pdf will be replaced by a text editor…

Where this is going…

Apple’s iPod and iPhone are used by many non-techies. These people have used a device like a calculator–just doing what they want for a specific purpose. iPods play content (music, video, etc.), iPhone (smartphone, even though network phone might be more appropriate), …

By introducing all of these non-techies to tech, Apple is educating them and making them, essentially, techies-or many will be in the future.

Why this is important…

Back in 2005 and 2006, I commented that Apple’s move to x86 hardware was going to be easy and fine for the user (the developers were screaming, but the user wasn’t going to care…).

Adam has a post on Uneasy Silence stating

I was working at an Apple reseller when the Intel switch was announced at WWDC 2005 and distinctly remember one of our employees in tears over the announcement and vowed to not sell Intel Macs when they began shipping. The same guy quit the day the iMac and Macbook Pro began shipping in January of 2006. I’m not telling this story for everyone’s amusement because there were thousands of Mac fans with the same feelings and anguish towards our favorite company. In fact, I know many fanboys that personally switched to Linux with AMD chips or bought the last Quad 2.5Ghz G5 PowerMac and stated it would be their last Macintosh computer.

I was more optimistic about the news and decided to simply wait until revision two of the Intel Macs. I have and am now the proud owner of a Core2Duo Macbook and after using this machine for a week; I can see how great this has been for Apple.

. . .

Kudos for his patient outlook. I stated, on 8 June 2005, that the move was good and that nobody should care (yes, you have to scroll down to the post because I did it all by hand back then…).

People don’t really care what is under the hood any more. Intel and AMD know this now. Although users are more hardware-independent, some do decide to become software independent as well. Microsoft, Apple, Linux Distributions (Red Hat, SUSE, Ubuntu, Debian, etc.), Linux GUI developers (KDE, Gnome, etc.) should be taking notes.

Counsel

I still don’t think most techies care what is the hardware so long as the software lets them do what they want…

John Gruber states

What Apple doesn’t want — and as we see now, is not going to allow — is for anyone other than Apple to define the framework for native iPhone apps. What Apple is saying here is, if you’re going to write a native iPhone app, then you need to target our platform; if you want to do something else, then target the iPhone with an optimized web app. I.e., the iPhone OS supports two software platforms: Cocoa Touch and the web. Apple isn’t going to let anyone else build a meta-platform on top of Cocoa Touch.

I agree. Well, I agree until the userbase revolts and Apple is forced to alter its plans. If Apple is good at anything, it is responding to change in conditions. Just think back to the switch from PowerPC CPUs to those of the x86 design…

Joel Spolsky has an article that talks about why corporations want to do what Apple is doing. In his article, Joel states

Headline: Sun Develops Java; New “Bytecode” System Means Write Once, Run Anywhere.

The bytecode idea is not new — programmers have always tried to make their code run on as many machines as possible. (That’s how you commoditize your complement). For years Microsoft had its own p-code compiler and portable windowing layer which let Excel run on Mac, Windows, and OS/2, and on Motorola, Intel, Alpha, MIPS and PowerPC chips. Quark has a layer which runs Macintosh code on Windows. The C programming language is best described as a hardware-independent assembler language. It’s not a new idea to software developers.

If you can run your software anywhere, that makes hardware more of a commodity. As hardware prices go down, the market expands, driving more demand for software (and leaving customers with extra money to spend on software which can now be more expensive.)

Sun’s enthusiasm for WORA is, um, strange, because Sun is a hardware company. Making hardware a commodity is the last thing they want to do.

Oooooooooooooooooooooops!

Sun is the loose cannon of the computer industry. Unable to see past their raging fear and loathing of Microsoft, they adopt strategies based on anger rather than self-interest. Sun’s two strategies are (a) make software a commodity by promoting and developing free software (Star Office, Linux, Apache, Gnome, etc), and (b) make hardware a commodity by promoting Java, with its bytecode architecture and WORA. OK, Sun, pop quiz: when the music stops, where are you going to sit down? Without proprietary advantages in hardware or software, you’re going to have to take the commodity price, which barely covers the cost of cheap factories in Guadalajara, not your cushy offices in Silicon Valley.

“But Joel!” Jared says. “Sun is trying to commoditize the operating system, like Transmeta, not the hardware.” Maybe, but the fact that Java bytecode also commoditizes the hardware is some pretty significant collateral damage to sustain.

An important thing you notice from all these examples is that it’s easy for software to commoditize hardware (you just write a little hardware abstraction layer, like Windows NT’s HAL, which is a tiny piece of code), but it’s incredibly hard for hardware to commoditize software. Software is not interchangable, as the StarOffice marketing team is learning. Even when the price is zero, the cost of switching from Microsoft Office is non-zero. Until the switching cost becomes zero, desktop office software is not truly a commodity. And even the smallest differences can make two software packages a pain to switch between. Despite the fact that Mozilla has all the features I want and I’d love to use it if only to avoid the whack-a-mole pop-up-ad game, I’m too used to hitting Alt+D to go to the address bar. So sue me. One tiny difference and you lose your commodity status. But I’ve pulled hard drives out of IBM computers and slammed them into Dell computers and, boom, the system comes up perfectly and runs as if it were still in the old computer.

Joel’s article is great. Go read the economics of it all. However, I want to point out one bit…

Sun’s enthusiasm for WORA is, um, strange, because Sun is a hardware company. Making hardware a commodity is the last thing they want to do.

Oooooooooooooooooooooops!

Sun is the loose cannon of the computer industry. Unable to see past their raging fear and loathing of Microsoft, they adopt strategies based on anger rather than self-interest. Sun’s two strategies are (a) make software a commodity by promoting and developing free software (Star Office, Linux, Apache, Gnome, etc), and (b) make hardware a commodity by promoting Java, with its bytecode architecture and WORA. OK, Sun, pop quiz: when the music stops, where are you going to sit down? Without proprietary advantages in hardware or software, you’re going to have to take the commodity price, which barely

This is exactly why Apple is fighting to keep the hardware from becoming a commodity. One of the easiest ways to do so is to make the device/hardware appear to be what makes the experience. If you can make the iDevice THAT different and still great to use, then you have preserved your hardware from becoming a commodity. Since OS/X is limited to Apple hardware, you preserve both the hardware sales and the software sales… Nicely thought…

Except…

Apple already moved from the PowerPC CPU to the x86 line of processors. Doesn’t that mean that the hardware is a commodity because the software does not rely on the hardware to provide the particular service. Yes, I do know only Apple sells Apple hardware/software, but work with me here…

Back to educating the masses…

Many of those iDevice users are becoming techies. When they become techies, they too may want more from their device and wonder why Apple isn’t helping them over helping Apple. Many users won’t care–techies or not.

However, Apple could be limiting their success unless they provide more “openness” since people will move for the “software.” But wait, you say… Apple apps only run on apple hardware. Yes, and that is a brilliant catch isn’t it?

However, what happens when other OSes or other devices can provide the exact/similar experience without the IDevice? What stops people form leaving the iDevice?

One reason could be investment in the iDevice software…

This is why I have written that Apple is hoping that the users will want to retain their investment instead of having to “start over” upon buying a new smartphone…

Apple is working to make hardware not be a commodity. However, Apple has a plan if hardware is a commodity. Namely, Apple is the only person selling the software (iPhone OS). If the services become available across OSes, Apple is hoping you will want to retain the investment in the apps…

Apple Fans…

You are welcome to like their products, continue to use their products, and not care about any of the issues I have discussed. What is “right” for me may not be “right” for you. I accept that.

However, I need you guys to stop railing against Adobe by asking “Why doesn’t adobe start using html5, an open standard?” This question appears in more comments than I care to count!

Let me explain. No, there is too much, let me sum up…

I have to ask those that ask…

Why are they using Apple and not Android (or FreeBSD or Linux on the PC) then? Why not an “open standard?”

I generally get silence, a smile (gotcha!), or more rants about how Apple is “the savior.”

Summary

What have we learned?

1. Apple will fight to keep the hardware from becoming a commodity;
2. Apple will fight to keep the OS and software tied to Apple hardware;
3. Apple will continue to “update” the iDevices to keep their users coming back for more;
4. Educated users will continue to demand more from Apple;
5. Apple will sell as many apps as they can in case they can’t stop the hardware from becoming the commodity;

None of this should surprise anyone who has been around since the Apple //… Think about it. Really.

The problem I have is that Apple proved that hardware is the commodity when they moved to x86… It wasn’t about the hardware. Yet, they expect us not to remember and to accept that now, hardware isn’t a commodity…

I don’t get that Apple logic. I bet Steve doesn’t either, but he is trying to sell it. He is having lots of luck too.

However, he lost me…

The 1st generation iPhone will join my Apple //e and my Mack+ in the garage when I upgrade to my next phone…. I wonder how many will follow as they become more educated (i.e., techy) due to the use of those iDevices?

Anyone have suggestions?

What say you?

Bebo.com, an on-line social networking community, is up for sale by AOL. I like “less popular” sites, so I decided to join…

I got to the sign-up page, and I get

The email address ********@gmail.com has not been recognized. Please check and try again.

Not recognize a gmail e-mail account? No wonder you have trouble with membership. Nobody wants SPAM to their personal mailbox, and many companies have policies to stop social network e-mails from hitting their servers.

I sent bebo.com an e-mail asking them if they knew that their service was not accepting gmail e-mail accounts for new signups. I’ll let you know what I hear.

Are you a bebo.com member? Do you use a gmail e-mail account? Did you have any problems? Did you sign up with that e-mail address or did you add it after you had joined?

What say you?

Starbucks is getting heat right now over people openly carrying firearms into their stores where it is legal to open carry firearms anywhere unless prohibited by legal means. Gun blogs, such as Alphecca, are posting the story and providing discussion about the issue.

The Brady Campaign is using a scare tactic to try an limit the carrying into Starbuck locations. If Starbuck caves into the Brady Campaign, I’ll never buy at Starbucks again…

Here is my issue…

Statements such as the following by Paul Helmke lack any critical thinking…

The decision by Starbucks to welcome guns in its restaurants where the law permits represents a public health risk. While food-borne illnesses are estimated to kill 5,000 Americans each year, more than 30,000 of us are killed annually by firearms. Guns represent a public health threat at least as great as food poisoning. Firearm fatalities are consistently ranked as one of the leading causes of death among young people in America. As Dr. David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health wrote in 2004, “Across U.S. regions and states, where there are more guns, children are at a significantly greater risk of dying.”

Showing large numbers of deaths without a reason
Of the 30k that are killed, lets see what constitutes that 30,000 deaths…

Newbius has a page that discusses the CDC statistics on deaths. Go read it and be educated… That is government data there, and the data is not provided by the “gun nuts”–whoever they may be.

It is all a lack of Critical Thinking
The reasoning seems to be that firearms could cause death, so we should deny entry of such ‘dangerous’ items into Starbucks…

Should we not allow anyone to enter Starbucks since we all carry E. coli? Should we deny entry to those 1,000,000 or so individuals who carry the virus that causes AIDS? Should we deny entry to … You get the idea… SCARE TACTIC!

Don’t get me started about denying drive-thru service since automobile accidents cause about 35,000 deaths per year in the USA…

Don’t be fooled. You are just as likely to be shot by someone in Starbucks as you are contracting AIDS because Starbucks serves those with the virus that causes AIDS. You are much more likely to die in a car accident than end up with the two examples from the last sentence–perhaps you should stop driving to be safe?

Think critically. Fight for everyone’s rights rather tan jump on a bandwagon that has no thought to their reasoning–especially when there is NO logic for the reasons they give…

I listened with interest to Radio Times, a radio show on public radio today (2/16/2010). I found myself trying to think critically on the issue–childhood obesiety. I feel like there are a few items that could have been dealt with better or that were omitted from the discussion even if the issue was ‘brought up’ in the episode.

I felt as if those interviewed were looking to provide an answer as to why “we” are overweight and how “we” can solve that problem. Topics ranged from gender, ethnic group, etc… Why not simply say they ingested more calories than they expended?

Those on the show stated that “times have changed” and that television, the Internet, … all mean we have less time to do what our grandparents did. While I disagree on that–my grandparents didn’t have chicken at the store, they had to raise it, kill it, cook it… I recall them saying they had less free time because they had none of the conveniences that we have today…

Times sure have changed. However, my grandparents use to say that you had to work and care about yourself and those you love–don’t expect the government or your employer to look after your best interests (they went through the Great Depression).

Today, “we” expect too much… We expect music to be ‘free’ on the internet, we expect to have a car, a house, medical insurance, etc… Why?

Medical insurance was started during WWII when there were wage freezes. Employers created a way to “pay” people more that did not violate the rules and offered health insurance as part of their employment. There was no desire to give health insurance…. Rather, companies wanted to attract better employees–paying more or providing health insurance were the same thing. Providing medical insurance had nothing to do with “people deserve medical care.” Yet, society at large now sees medical insurance as a necessity for everyone.

We think “we” are so educated and “advanced” that everyone should have food, a home, medical insurance, … I too think it would be nice to have ‘free’ medical insurance and care. However, how do we fund these “expectations?” How do we pay for it all? You can’t have everything at no cost–either we pay directly or indirectly (taxes).

Personal responsibility should be taught. You want “this?” Go work for it… Go earn it… You can’t just go ‘take’ it (as is seen with music sharers and the like–that is like walking into the music store and walking out with a Vinyl Record without paying for it even if “we” don’t “see” it that way today).

I hear people say, “But not everyone can afford it.” I agree. However, I have always obtained insurance–it wasn’t always cheap, and it wasn’t always what I wanted. I’m a diabetic, and I have to have a company provide it since insurance companies will not give me long-term insurance as an individual due to my diabetes. I can create my own company and get it that way. There are options, even if they aren’t very affordable. Again, why does it have to be affordable? How do you get $10 of fish for $5? I’ll tell you–you don’t. You get less fish.

The issue with obesity, childhood or otherwise, is more caloric intake than caloric expenditure. This may be due to unhealthy food, portion size, sedentary life style, or any combination of those, or other, issues.

It may not really be an issue of ‘healthy’ food versus ‘unhealthy’ food is it? If ‘healthy’ food may not make us ‘feel full’ (as is seen with sushi vs. McDonalds Big Mac and Fries), might a person eat more calories (sushi) to feel as full as a person who eats the Big Mac? I would love to see an unbiased study looking at that issue…

Times have changed. They sure have changed (internet, television, …) Why do we think that ‘it should be easier’ for us to feed our families healthy food? Why pass on that responsibility to the food grower, manufacturer, distributor, packager, etc.? Why isn’t it OUR responsibility as parents or as the parent? The guests stated it shouldn’t be so hard… Why should it be easy? Why do we have an expectation of “easy?” This is what I do not understand… If there is such a market for this healthy eating, why don’t your guests start the company? It might be that providing that type of food isn’t so inexpensive. I don’t know. I’m not in the food industry, and I’m not a farmer.

Has anyone told their kids “don’t worry about work, life will be easy. Your employer/government will take care of you.”? I doubt any parent would provide that advice to their children. Yet, here I was hearing that “it shouldn’t be so hard” to raise a family today” and that “others” should make it easier for me… All on public radio.

Teach children about portion size, calories, food groups, and medical/scientific facts. I would guess that most parents don’t realize what portion size is appropriate (for them or their kids).

Why do “we” feel a need to make others do what is best for us? We, as individuals and as a society, should welcome the responsibility of doing what is best for us.

Instead of saying “companies can’t make this,” “you have to make that,” “you can’t advertise to…,” or “you need to have more ‘healthy’ alternatives,” I’d love us to teach our kids, and ourselves, that marketing tries to get us to buy their product. We need to teach our kids that the kids on television may not even like what they are eating–kids believe what they see at those ages, and we, as parents, need to educate them.

If we don’t teach personal responsibility re: food and tell our kids that others are responsible for their weight, what are we telling the public at large about responsibility re: anything else? What about education? Is it the school’s fault if the kids fail? Is it the same answer if the kid never works on becoming educated? Is it the school’s responsibility to raise the children or simply to provide a forum and location for education?

Putting the responsibility for “what is best for me” on someone else absolves me of any failure since “it wasn’t up to me.” However, the fault IS with the end-user since the end-user made a choice–to buy, eat, chew, swallow, … the food in question. It may be a medical issue (hormones, digestive tract issue, etc.), but those that are obese have some responsibility for their condition–whether a cause (due to eating) of it or a responsibility to care for a medical condition.

My oldest child–fed entirely on breast milk for 18 months–is now at 95% on both height and weight. My youngest, premature by 90 days, is fit and trim at the 50% mark for weight and 75% for height. Generalizations about breast milk and weight are not, I think, appropriate—especially where some mothers can’t produce, some babies won’t attach, … Address the issue–caloric intake vs. caloric expenditures. While other issues, ethnic groups, social and economic status, etc. may have influences on what and how we eat, we are all human.

On a side note, I’d love for this “race” word to go away like the “sex” form on governmental forms (they mean gender)… Neither are appropriate. We are all human. It isn’t as if we are cats and dogs that can’t breed. Why do “we” need to distinguish ourselves from others? Doing so, in my opinion, is part of the problem… If we were all “the same group” and all the rules applied to all of us in that group, what is the problem? Yes, idealistic. However, which world is better?

At some point, it becomes about realizing that “others” can make decisions that “I” think are wrong, and I can still let them make those choices rather than removing choices from their plate. The guests stated they were not suggesting we remove choices. I agree.

However, by suggesting that the responsibility is not ours, you minimize the probability of success–it would be like giving a hungry person a fish rather than teaching him to fish. The person still eats, but the person fishing says it is their responsibility to catch the fish while the other says nobody gave me any fish today. While they may both go hungry, one can go out and do something about their hunger while the other simply waits for someone else to “solve” their problem.

Calories are calories. Lets simply reduce the amount ingested and try to increase the caloric expenditure through exercise. Less in and more out = less weight.

What say you?

Making it right is sometimes impossible, he said.

Attempting to fix what is broken? Yet, he said, ‘it’ is already broken… The concentric circles have echoed outward from the breaking, and no matter how much we try, the waves can never be put into reverse to make it ‘as if it never happened.’

I said that I was sorry. He smiled that Gogs smile and said, “Aren’t we all?”

He said, “Try to smile.”

To summarize Gogs…

Smile

You will look better, you will feel better, and I hope, at some point, that we can all realize that getting over ‘it’ and forgiving will make us happier, even if it can’t make it ‘as if it never happened.’

Smile.

It really feels better.

We all make mistakes. Me, you, them, us, … I will not define you by your mistake–much less your worst mistake. I hope you extend everyone else the same courtesy I extend you.

You might actually feel better if you let go, smile, and think better of them, of yourself, and of life in general.

Smile.

You are worth it, and, whether you think so now, they are deserve no less than you.

Gogs. He was a smart man.

Conan O’Brien has 32 Million reasons to not like Jay Leno and to retire, for now…

Jay Leno has the Tonight Show back, has little honor, and learned nothing…

We all now see what a professional Johnny Carson was when he let Leno take his spot.

I wish we could have Carson back…

There are too many “experts” on every subject.

In my opinion, there are too many subjective thoughts that enter people’s “objective” opinions.

People might like a particular car and find ways to justify their finding that it is “the best” whatever…

Similar with firearms and Ammunition…

Firearms

Many ‘experts’ talk about the 1911, the Sig, or (insert your firearm choice here)…

The question to ask is are any of them suggestion or opinion that a gun is the best that isn’t their carry gun? If there are ‘many’ experts who disagree on the ‘best’ gun, why do you think there IS a ‘best’ gun?

What is ‘right’ for one person may not be ‘right’ for another even though it ‘not being right’ doesn’t make it ‘wrong’ for anyone else…

What I mean is that IF I like the Sig P239 for my CCW, others may disagree. People can say “It is too heavy” or doesn’t offer enough rounds for the weight/cost. They could opine that the P239 in .40 is too heavy, too expensive, sits too high in the hand, … The Sig P239 may still be the ‘right’ gun for me. I don’t care what everyone else says because I am not everyone else… I don’t have their hands, their stance, their experience, … I have me and mine. As long as I shoot it well, like the gun, and carry it, it IS the best gun for me regardless if everyone else in the world hates the gun in question. Comprende?

If someone else says the best CCW is a 1911 in .45 ACP because… That may be the best gun for them. How does their choice affect me in any way? Because they ‘justify’ their definition of ‘best?’ Give me a break… If placement is all (we will get to this in a minute..), why does their thought on weight, bore-axis, safety placement, decocker location, etc. make any difference? An opinion, theirs and mine, relates to MY thoughts and may not mean anything to anyone else.

Who cares? Why do people need to feel as if they have people agreeing they have made the ‘best’ gun or ‘best’ choice? Be happy with the gun you use and be happy everyone else doesn’t agree–we couldn’t afford that single firearm then could we?

Diversity in thought is a GOOD thing… Try to remember that everyone is entitled to their opinion, BUT that opinion doesn’t make any differing opinion mean that the ‘others’ who share that ‘differing opinion’ are ‘wrong…’ That is hard for people to do–separate the subjective from the objective. However, practice thinking that way helps, so practice…

Ammunition

Chuck Hawks has a site where he discusses guns, bullets (aka, ammunition), and other items. He states

I agree with him when he states

I cannot stress too heavily that the primary determinant of stopping power is BULLET PLACEMENT.

He states a .32 is better if carried and well-placed (head, torso, …) when shot than a .45 ACP that is at home or used to shoot a person in the foot or finger.

I also agree with him when he states

One should carry only hollowpoint ammunition in a defensive handgun.

The reason is that solid metal bullets (ball) often go in and out of the person being shot. The exiting bullet can hit someone else as it can travel quite some distance past the person being shot. You want to stop the lethal threat not create lethal threat to an innocent bystander or neighbor. A hollowpoint, by design, is supposed to expand upon hitting the target–the idea is to enter the body, expand, and stop in the body.

What do I disagree with?

An attacker shot twice with ball ammo will probably have four holes in him rather than two, and is thus in far greater danger of death from blood loss.

Lets think about this for a second… If there are two 8″ holes in a gallon of water, the gallon of water with two holes may empty the gallon of water quicker. If the water in the gallon container is in a sponge, the limiting factor to “bleeding out” may be how fast the blood enters the wound channel (the pipe) rather than the size of the pipe… Remember, blood lose from a shot to the foot may be less than that from a wound to the heart… Placement is king.

We all have our preferences. While I see many carrying 230grain JHP ammunition in their .45 handguns, I don’t think that is ‘better’ than the 185grain JHP. Why? Because statistics show…

Statistics can show anything. If the person threatened with the loss of their life has either ammunition and places their shots well, there is no difference in the outcome–the attacker is stopped. Hell, ammunition in .380 ACP or 9mm would be just as effective wouldn’t it?

Remember, as Chuck states…

I cannot stress too heavily that the primary determinant of stopping power is BULLET PLACEMENT.

Summary

Choice is, by definition, subjective. While statistics may say the X is ‘best,’ I may still chose to use Y. You don’t have to agree, and you don’t have to like it. I’m not saying you are ‘wrong,’ and I would ask why you feel some need to be ‘right,’ although you might not be… Let others be different and do what they want.

I guarantee you aren’t always right. If you think you are, you have already been wrong…

I was reading up on some handguns to help a friend chose one to buy since they feel threatened when they work in the woods–she felt she was approached by a bunch of wild/feral dogs while she consulted for a client.

I suggested some safety-laden handguns for her to review, and while we were looking on-line, I came upon this analysis of ‘guns vs. no guns.’

I generally laugh when I read a ‘pro-gun’ or an ‘anti-gun’ position that uses ’statistics’ and ‘analysis’ to ‘justify’ their position. People… we can disagree without getting upset or thinking the other person is ‘an idiot.’

I always write so the ‘moderator’ thinks I am irritated with their article. Then I use calm language and facts to one of many solutions that I think might work to solve the perceived problem.

Here is my response…

I am surprised by your response…

“There’s the rub. If they were not to hand, they could not be handled irresponsibily.”

Well… We might as well make the possession of ammonium nitrate, knives, cars, and other items capable of causing individual or massive damage, illegal!

You state this as well…

“This is significant because less than 10% of UK murders involve firearms (60 from roughly 800), while in the USA the figure is around 65-70% (2004: 11,624 from 16,137).”

I hate to mention it, but were all those murders in the UK from rifles? If not, it seems making handguns illegal won’t stop the murders–it just means that the average citizen can’t own a handgun. You see, the criminal doesn’t care what the law says…

What is the murder rate in the UK vs. the USA? Per population? What are the issues involved–crime, hate-group involvement, etc? You can’t simply look at specific rates. At least you focus on murder rate and don’t use the death by firearm that many use–which includes suicides…

I don’t see anyone suggesting we don’t … fly any more since September 11 just because some terrorist used a perfectly good weapon (da plane) in an irresponsible manner.

Your comment:

“I’ll think about that next time I kill someone with a Liquorice Allsort or assault them with a Hamster.”

does not address his comment. Rather than make a subjective statement, address the issue or your argument is very weak.

It would be easier to remove the ability to fly or drive as those ‘rights’ are not even listed in the Constitution.

Look at the Bill of Rights–a national expert pointed this out to me. What do those Amendments guarantee? To whom are those rights guaranteed?

You might find some way to disagree, but those amendments guarantee rights to all citizens rather than to a specific group of people. Even the criminals are entitled to those rights…

Perhaps you should realize that everyone (even the criminal) has rights even if you don’t like them. Instead of trying to remove the rights people have, try to make a solid, valuable, and constructive suggestion on how to reduce violence.

You state:

“This is significant because less than 10% of UK murders involve firearms (60 from roughly 800), while in the USA the figure is around 65-70% (2004: 11,624 from 16,137).”

What I’d like to see is what is the murder rate… Do you think that the murder rate would change if guns/handguns were never available or do you think that the murderer would simply choose a different … weapon? Remember, without the intent to kill with malice aforethought, there is no murder. Whether the person uses a gun, a bat, a car, or other ‘item’ is irrelevant.

Who is committing the murders? What is the breakdown of CCW permit holders vs. non-holders? What percentage or number are under-age?

You shouldn’t say “That person ate meat and he died” to support your vegan cause. People who eat plants die too. What caused the death? What was his genetic predisposition? There are MANY things that affect death, and focusing on generalities is not accurate or helpful in my opinion.

People need to be taught, starting at a young age, how to reason and identify and solve problems. Taking a position and stating that everyone else is wrong is not logical or reasonable — even if you are right (and I don’t think you are).

The difference between those who I know and you is that you appear to want everyone to be/think/live like you–everything else is wrong. I prefer to allow diversity in thought so that people have the freedom to do what they think is right for them without being limited by what I want to see/hear/etc. I don’t guess you suggest my freedom of speech should be limited because you don’t like what I am saying? I certainly support your right to have your position. I think you are mistaken that any inanimate object can be a ‘killer’ just because it is an object.

Certainly, chemicals react with air/water and may explode at a certain point with no human interaction, but I don’t think there is any ‘intent’ to kill in that instance.

What drives a person to kill? I don’t have all those answers, but research on that topic and how to limit disagreements and the feelings/emotions that lead one party or both parties to get so emotional as to feel a need to use violence to ’solve’ the problem would be much more valuable than to simply yell, “you are wrong” while providing bad data that only supports your side.

Unfortunately, nobody doing any of these discussions actually appears to look look at really good data. Do some Google/Yahoo searches for the Texas study that looked at data between CCW permit holders and the average citizen population. What was found?

How can we, as a society, allow differences that make this country great while protecting our safety? Teach psychology starting in elementary school as it deals with bullies, inadequacy, etc. so that people learn why people do what they do and to assist in everyone knowing productive ways to resolve disagreements.

You aren’t going to remove disagreements–my guess is you and your closest friends disagree on certain issues. However, I doubt you end up picking up a book and throwing it at them (or do you?). Perhaps you, like most of us, have tools at your disposal to resolve these emotional issues instead of resorting to violence.

The people we need to worry about are those people who are not capable of rationalizing behavior and a method to solve disagreements.

Funny that you don’t realize that…

If we all could rationalize appropriately so that we don’t let our emotional response get to ‘that point,’ the free availability of guns, poison, etc. wouldn’t be relevant since there would be no violence anyway.

So… What is better? Remove guns and don’t address the underlying issue as you suggest? I’d suggest we start trying to solve the problem with a solution rather than address the ‘runny nose.’ By solving the problem, we remove the deaths and much more than the runny noses…

Of course, that is just my opinion…

Shuttlefly is one of many on-line photo storage sites. You might be asking why I am writing about them …

If you look at the Terms of Service, you will notice that Section 3 states…

3. Your Submissions

In the event that you post or upload to the Service, or otherwise submit to or through Shutterfly as part of your use of the Service, any materials including, without limitation, photographs and other images, text, graphics, videos, visuals, sounds, data, files, links and other materials (collectively, “Submissions”), you will retain ownership of such Submissions, and you hereby grant us and our designees a worldwide, non-exclusive, sublicenseable (through multiple tiers), assignable, royalty-free, fully paid-up, perpetual, irrevocable right to use, reproduce, distribute (through multiple tiers), create derivative works of, and publicly display and perform (publicly or otherwise) such Submissions, solely in connection with the Service (including without limitation for purposes of promoting the Service). Please note that, while you retain ownership of your Submissions, any template or layout in which you arrange or organize such Submissions through tools and features made available through Shutterfly are not proprietary to you, and can be used by Shutterfly and others for any purposes. You acknowledge and agree that you have no rights in any such template and/or layout, and such template or layout shall be the sole and exclusive property of Shutterfly.

Wow…

So they can use your photos to promote their service without any notice, permission, or payment.

Not a big deal?

I say it is… Why does Shutterfly need a world-wide, non-exclusive right to distribute, to anyone for any purpose, a picture of “Uncle Ed” or anyone else for that matter? They could use a sunset picture free of charge in a world-wide superbowl ad, and the Copyright holder might not even get acknowledged.

Some ’service’ they provide…

I think I’ll look for another on-line storage site. I’ll let you know what I find…

A U.S. District Court has ruled that a person is not entitled to know if the government takes a look at your e-mail.

The opinion, available here, was written by Michael Mosman in a case involving probable cause for a search of an individual’s gmail e-mails in order to search for evidence of a crime. The federal government asked that the person whose e-mails were being searched had no right to kno his e-mails were being searched.

Be worried?

Not really. The federal government still have to have probable cause to get the warrant, but they don’t have to notify you.

Remember, the federal government can search items in a FedEx truck without notifying you–they do have to notify FedEx… Therefore, your ISP or mail provider will get a notice about the federal government searching your e-mail.

The 4th Amendment applies, but it applies to the Service Provider and not to the user who sent/received the e-mail message.

The Judge, in an article on Yahoo News, states

“If a suspect leaves private documents at his mother’s house and the police obtain a warrant to search his mother’s house, they need only provide a copy of the warrant and a receipt to the mother, even though she is not the ‘owner’ of the documents,” he writes.

Whether you like it or not, that makes legal sense…

Nancy Pelosi is quoted as saying

“I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made,” Pelosi said. Some of the people hearing the message “are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume,” she said.

Pelosi also is quoted as stating

“Our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe,” she added. “But I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause.”

The USA is great, in part, due to the rights given to the citizens, including the First Amendment Right to Free Speech (limited to time, place, etc.).

What I have a problem with is

take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause…

What does this mean, exactly?

If I say I am opposed to (fill in your issue here), am I responsible for “incitement” if someone goes out and kills someone associated with said issue?

Personal responsibility

A certain Senator is responsible for yelling, “You lie!” to President Obama. No doubt he should have refrained from said outburst.

Why do we not hold those who act responsible for their actions if they are mentally competent? Why do we hold others responsible for another person’s actions?

Disruptions

Pelosi has spoken about “disruptions” at town hall meetings regarding healthcare, and she stated, as reported in USA Today, that

These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.

She made these comments at a Town Hall Meeting in San Fransisco on January 17, 2006–when George Bush was in the White House…

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so I will provide you with a video…

Simon Scowl, at deciever.com, has an article on her double-standard or her change in opinion

Then: “I’m a fan of disruptors. Nothing could be more American.”
Now: “Disruptors are simply un-American.”

Then: “I understand your anger.”
Now: “I can’t stand your anger.”

Then: “Shout it out.”
Now: “Shut it up.”

Presumably Pelosi knows what cameras are, and that they were being aimed at her during this event. Did she think nobody would dig this up? Did she think she wouldn’t have to eat her own words? Did she think?

Summary

We should support the First Amendment Right to speak up and state your opinion, regardless of the opinion. Your Freedom of Speech is not limited by your position on the matter–for or against. Rather, you have the Right of Free Speech that is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Your “democratic,” “republican,” or other viewpoint is irrelevant to whether or not you have the right to speak.

We are all individuals who will hold different values. To assume, for an instant, that my values are, somehow, more “right” than your values means I am not representing you and think I am never in the wrong–this is dangerous thinking.

I am sure Hitler did not march on Poland and start killing Jews and Homosexuals because he thought he was wrong. We have to limit making ‘our’ actions “right” and ‘their’ actions “wrong” simply because they are ‘our’ or ‘their’ opinions.

Opinions are like votes–all citizens are entitled to have one.

However, I hope we have empathy to grasp the issues on both sides of the chamber. If we don’t, where is the Change that we were promised?

I support the President of the USA (democrat or republican) because he/she is elected by the people (electoral college, actually). I may oppose certain policy and proposed laws, but that is what being a citizen of the USA is all about.

Freedom, and the support of the right of others who have the same freedom I do even if their opinion differs from mine.

Isn’t it?

We are entitled to health care.

We are entitled to any medical procedure that might be required to save our lives–cost be damed!

We are entitled to a job with a nice salary.

We are entitled to our flat-screen television…

Why does everyone feel entitled to all of this?

I don’t mind giving people things, and I wish we all had great medical insurance. My suggestion was to give every USA citizen the same health-care and retirement options as federal workers–if they deserve it, so do we.

If that option isn’t economically feasible, why do we offer it at all? It isn’t that I am “cold” or “evil,” nothing can operate on a negative cash flow. While we certainly have been for a while, it appears that we are having to answer for that spending.

If we keep spending what we don’t have, it will be worse for everyone when we have to pay the piper… The bill will come due, of that we can all be sure.

Too much russian spam. Until I find a better SPAM filter, I have turned off commenting.