Stephen Colbert vs George Lucas on a lightsaber duel!
Movie: Woman Drawn from the Inside Out.
Considine gets 'Ultimatum' from Uni
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Apple Antagonizes Muslims
Muslims are reported to be unhappy about the 5th Avenue Apple Store. Take a look for yourself and see if you can figure out why:
Apparently, the Apple Store's big offenses are 1) being a cube (as is the Ka'ba, the holiest shrine in Islam) and 2) being open 24 hours, also like the Ka'ba. Oh, and 3) alcoholic beverages are served at the Genius Bar.
It's clear to me, if to nobody else, that Steve Jobs obviously has it in for Muslims. What possible reason could he have for green-lighting a cubical building, other than to stick it in the nose of peace-loving Muslims? The problem with tolerance, as I'm sure many Muslims are realizing right now, is that people will abuse that tolerance. It's only because Steve Jobs was given too much play on his leash that this sort of nonsense is taking place.
Oh, and apparently Apple fans are calling this store the "Apple Mecca." Despicable! I'm sure Israel is behind that one, at the urging of George Bush and Co.
Isn't there an aphorism that says those looking for conspiracies at every turn will find them?
Apparently, the Apple Store's big offenses are 1) being a cube (as is the Ka'ba, the holiest shrine in Islam) and 2) being open 24 hours, also like the Ka'ba. Oh, and 3) alcoholic beverages are served at the Genius Bar.
It's clear to me, if to nobody else, that Steve Jobs obviously has it in for Muslims. What possible reason could he have for green-lighting a cubical building, other than to stick it in the nose of peace-loving Muslims? The problem with tolerance, as I'm sure many Muslims are realizing right now, is that people will abuse that tolerance. It's only because Steve Jobs was given too much play on his leash that this sort of nonsense is taking place.
Oh, and apparently Apple fans are calling this store the "Apple Mecca." Despicable! I'm sure Israel is behind that one, at the urging of George Bush and Co.
Isn't there an aphorism that says those looking for conspiracies at every turn will find them?
Interesting Interestings - 10-11-06 AM
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Interesting Developments
In an earlier post I revealed that my blogging activities had a sinister purpose.
Unlike many bloggers, I don't feel the need to bare dark personal secrets in this space. Anyway, I don't have too many juicy bits of gossip that anybody (other than my mother) would care to listen to. Rather, I simply want to talk about whatever interests me (gasp!). Well that, and to learn through practical experience what moves web traffic and how crowds respond.
So I wrote some content that wouldn't make Robert X. Cringely fear for his job but similarly wasn't shabby for a 30 minute morning hobby. At times I'd submit my work to news sites like digg and newsvine and reddit. Not much (nothing, actually) made it to the top of any of those lists. And in the three months I've been doing this I haven't developed a following of rabidly supportive followers, ready to raise the banner in whatever direction I tell them for my cause de jeur.
I wouldn't consider this a failure of the experiment, merely an indication that I haven't figured out the formula to this whole thing - and since this has been a very casual experiment, who knows if I will ever get the formula thing down. I understand there is time (and effort!) involved in being popular.
All that to say this - I did a Google search today on "whatever's interesting". This site is number one. What!? I don't know how many people search on that exact phrase - it seems rather unlikely that a huge amount of people would - but that's just cool. Check it out.
What's weird to me is that N and I now have something like 40 posts going. A search for this site (the syntax for this is "site:whateversinteresting.blogspot") on Google only shows seven entries. And it's not just the first seven that they grabbed, but rather a random smattering.
Unsure exactly what that means.
Anyway, my social experimentation has entered a new season of its life. I'm happy that at least I'm in Google now. If somebody's looking for a story about surly chain-smoking police monkeys, we're going to be getting hits galore.
Unlike many bloggers, I don't feel the need to bare dark personal secrets in this space. Anyway, I don't have too many juicy bits of gossip that anybody (other than my mother) would care to listen to. Rather, I simply want to talk about whatever interests me (gasp!). Well that, and to learn through practical experience what moves web traffic and how crowds respond.
So I wrote some content that wouldn't make Robert X. Cringely fear for his job but similarly wasn't shabby for a 30 minute morning hobby. At times I'd submit my work to news sites like digg and newsvine and reddit. Not much (nothing, actually) made it to the top of any of those lists. And in the three months I've been doing this I haven't developed a following of rabidly supportive followers, ready to raise the banner in whatever direction I tell them for my cause de jeur.
I wouldn't consider this a failure of the experiment, merely an indication that I haven't figured out the formula to this whole thing - and since this has been a very casual experiment, who knows if I will ever get the formula thing down. I understand there is time (and effort!) involved in being popular.
All that to say this - I did a Google search today on "whatever's interesting". This site is number one. What!? I don't know how many people search on that exact phrase - it seems rather unlikely that a huge amount of people would - but that's just cool. Check it out.
What's weird to me is that N and I now have something like 40 posts going. A search for this site (the syntax for this is "site:whateversinteresting.blogspot") on Google only shows seven entries. And it's not just the first seven that they grabbed, but rather a random smattering.
Unsure exactly what that means.
Anyway, my social experimentation has entered a new season of its life. I'm happy that at least I'm in Google now. If somebody's looking for a story about surly chain-smoking police monkeys, we're going to be getting hits galore.
Interesting Interestings - 10-10-06 PM
McCain Criticizes Clinton on N. Korea
Quake Raises Fears of 2nd N. Korea Test
Pan's Labyrinth (2006)
Pan's Labyrith Official Website.
I can't wait to see this movie. It's going to be good.
Teacher, school district at odds over performance
Dallas Museum of Art
Here's the school.
Mexico May Take Fence Dispute to U.N.
Nazty
Google - Not So Smart After All?
Edit: Here, as well, I'm duping what N already posted. I warned that I got all my material from N, but this is just silly.
Google buying YouTube makes no sense. Then again, they're the gazillionnaires and I'm not - it's quite possible that I'm missing something critical here. Still, I doubt it.
For those of you that missed it, Google bought YouTube for $1.65 billion. That's a lot of money, but since YouTube has managed to remain on top of the video sharing pile even with some serious competition, the YouTube brand/feature set/whatever has become very valuable.
Exactly why YouTube is valuable, though, is a mystery to me. The RIAA, MPAA et al must be licking their chops right now, thinking of the huge amount of money they can sue Google for. YouTube didn't used to be an attractive target for litigation because, frankly, there was little confidence that legal action would result in a payout.
Then there's the fact that YouTube is a big time money pit. It is speculated that YouTube's monthly loses on bandwidth alone now exceed several million dollars. YouTube employs 67 employees in a company that doesn't have a clear business model. Advertisers are wary of signing with YouTube because they don't want their brand to be associated with the vast amount of the (tasteless) content that exists on YouTube.
So YouTube is a liability legally and financially. What's more, because of the reason stated above as well as by the nature of the content YouTube serves, there's no clear way that YouTube's acquisition will actually help Google in the only way that really matters - selling ads. Adwords is the big money-maker for Google - "Ads Everywhere" is just as appropriate a motto for the company as "Don't be Evil." How is acquiring YouTube going to help Google serve better, more targeted search results and ads to its users?
Could it possibly be that Google is simply buying YouTube in order to take a competitor to its own video service off the acquisition market, increasing the cost for any other potential buyers (Disney, News Corp., Yahoo) to develop rival services? If so, is video content on the Internet, in the manner delivered by YouTube, that intrinsically valuable?
Google buying YouTube makes no sense. Then again, they're the gazillionnaires and I'm not - it's quite possible that I'm missing something critical here. Still, I doubt it.
For those of you that missed it, Google bought YouTube for $1.65 billion. That's a lot of money, but since YouTube has managed to remain on top of the video sharing pile even with some serious competition, the YouTube brand/feature set/whatever has become very valuable.
Exactly why YouTube is valuable, though, is a mystery to me. The RIAA, MPAA et al must be licking their chops right now, thinking of the huge amount of money they can sue Google for. YouTube didn't used to be an attractive target for litigation because, frankly, there was little confidence that legal action would result in a payout.
Then there's the fact that YouTube is a big time money pit. It is speculated that YouTube's monthly loses on bandwidth alone now exceed several million dollars. YouTube employs 67 employees in a company that doesn't have a clear business model. Advertisers are wary of signing with YouTube because they don't want their brand to be associated with the vast amount of the (tasteless) content that exists on YouTube.
So YouTube is a liability legally and financially. What's more, because of the reason stated above as well as by the nature of the content YouTube serves, there's no clear way that YouTube's acquisition will actually help Google in the only way that really matters - selling ads. Adwords is the big money-maker for Google - "Ads Everywhere" is just as appropriate a motto for the company as "Don't be Evil." How is acquiring YouTube going to help Google serve better, more targeted search results and ads to its users?
Could it possibly be that Google is simply buying YouTube in order to take a competitor to its own video service off the acquisition market, increasing the cost for any other potential buyers (Disney, News Corp., Yahoo) to develop rival services? If so, is video content on the Internet, in the manner delivered by YouTube, that intrinsically valuable?
Naughty Korea
Edit: Oops. I didn't read N's post below before posting this. That'll teach me.
The New York Times has an interesting article detailing the recent nuclear weapons test conducted by North Korea. Interesting to note that the weapon they tested was disappointing, yielding a destructive force of only a few kilotons. Only.
In the timeline provided in the article, North Korea is shown to have been breaking its agreements and promises since 1993. There are some who would expect North Korea, now that it has officially achieved its nuclear ambition, to become a reasonable regime. Can we really take that chance with such an assumption?
The mechanisms that created balance during the cold war - mutually assured destruction, the SALT treaties, reciprocal inspections - won't work with North Korea. Agreements imply that there are responsible people on both sides ready and willing to adhere to the agreements. North Korea won't adhere to anything - it's shown this time and time again.
The New York Times has an interesting article detailing the recent nuclear weapons test conducted by North Korea. Interesting to note that the weapon they tested was disappointing, yielding a destructive force of only a few kilotons. Only.
In the timeline provided in the article, North Korea is shown to have been breaking its agreements and promises since 1993. There are some who would expect North Korea, now that it has officially achieved its nuclear ambition, to become a reasonable regime. Can we really take that chance with such an assumption?
The mechanisms that created balance during the cold war - mutually assured destruction, the SALT treaties, reciprocal inspections - won't work with North Korea. Agreements imply that there are responsible people on both sides ready and willing to adhere to the agreements. North Korea won't adhere to anything - it's shown this time and time again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)