Thursday, September 07, 2006
The Environment-friendly McDonald
Well, at least it's hedgehog-friendly. McD has redesigned, i.e., narrowed the opening of the container of my favourite dessert: McFlurry so that hedgehog's head won't get stucked inside. The article is from London so I wonder if the new design in coming to the States too.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
The Kobe Experience
My wife took me to Alexander's Steakhouse in Cupertino on Saturday night for my b-day.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
She can't teach
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."
Who said so? Of course, not me. Paul said so. Which Paul? The apostle of Jesus. See Timothy 2:11-14.
And it is quoted by a pastor in his dismissal letter to a female Sunday school teacher in his church.
Maybe he has read too much bible?
Who said so? Of course, not me. Paul said so. Which Paul? The apostle of Jesus. See Timothy 2:11-14.
And it is quoted by a pastor in his dismissal letter to a female Sunday school teacher in his church.
Maybe he has read too much bible?
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Is this censorship?
By now every web surfer must have become familiar with Google's ubiquitous advertisement boxes. Many websites are supported by revenue from Google's ad these days.
My favorite free newspaper Easy Bay Express has this article: "Publishers vs. the Censorbot", about Google pulling ad when it sees sensitive keywords on the page where ad supposed to appear and thus indirectly censoring contents of websites using its ad program.
I'm all against censorship (see my previous posts) I have never been a fan of Google and enjoy reading every bit of criticism on its practice. However, in this case I think it's just a technology issue: while a news report about porn and a story which is porn share some keywords, there must be some that only appears on the latter but not the former. Google's filter is simply not good enough to identify them.
What I'm really curious about is now that my page has the keyword "porn," will Google pull its ad? (i.e., show "public service announcement" instead of revenue generating ad)
My favorite free newspaper Easy Bay Express has this article: "Publishers vs. the Censorbot", about Google pulling ad when it sees sensitive keywords on the page where ad supposed to appear and thus indirectly censoring contents of websites using its ad program.
I'm all against censorship (see my previous posts) I have never been a fan of Google and enjoy reading every bit of criticism on its practice. However, in this case I think it's just a technology issue: while a news report about porn and a story which is porn share some keywords, there must be some that only appears on the latter but not the former. Google's filter is simply not good enough to identify them.
What I'm really curious about is now that my page has the keyword "porn," will Google pull its ad? (i.e., show "public service announcement" instead of revenue generating ad)
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Hollywood vs. Censors
Hollywood studios and the Directors Guild of America sued Utah-based CleanFlicks, CleanFilms and Play It Clean Video, Arizona-based Family Flix USA and CleanFlicks of Colorado for providing "edited" copies of their movies on DVD. The "sanitized" copies are supposed to have scenes with sex, nudity, violence and profanity removed.
This is the type of fight that I hope both sides lose but of course one side must win.
And the winner is ...... Hollywood! Well, I guess I would be more upset if they lost (surprise surprise!) 'coz censorship is a worse enemy to our civilization. From an artist's point of view, I certainly don't want to see my work being altered and re-published in any way without my consent so that my artistic values won't be jeopardized.
Of course artistic values have nothing to do with why the censors lost. Remember MP3.com? They got sued and lost for providing "online digital locker of MP3" to users who already own the CDs. The moral of that story was: if any additional money is to be made from copyrighted work, the copyright holder would want it. Not only did the censors not seem to have learned this lesson, but also they gave away a free lesson to Hollywood: there's a market for "sanitized" copies of their movies!
This is the type of fight that I hope both sides lose but of course one side must win.
And the winner is ...... Hollywood! Well, I guess I would be more upset if they lost (surprise surprise!) 'coz censorship is a worse enemy to our civilization. From an artist's point of view, I certainly don't want to see my work being altered and re-published in any way without my consent so that my artistic values won't be jeopardized.
Of course artistic values have nothing to do with why the censors lost. Remember MP3.com? They got sued and lost for providing "online digital locker of MP3" to users who already own the CDs. The moral of that story was: if any additional money is to be made from copyrighted work, the copyright holder would want it. Not only did the censors not seem to have learned this lesson, but also they gave away a free lesson to Hollywood: there's a market for "sanitized" copies of their movies!
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Remember this: Homezone and U-verse
I'll make sure I remember NOT to signup for their services. Here's why: both of these video services are provided by AT&T and AT&T's new privacy policy says AT&T will collect "information about viewing, game, recording and other navigation choices that you and those in your household make when using Homezone or AT&T U-verse TV Services."
So AT&T is expecting me to pay them to spy on me? No thanks. Not even if it is free! After all, there are enough free video entertainment from YouTubes already.
So AT&T is expecting me to pay them to spy on me? No thanks. Not even if it is free! After all, there are enough free video entertainment from YouTubes already.
Friday, June 16, 2006
Blogger == Journalist? Not so fast
This became a heated topic because Apple's legal team claimed that bloggers are not "real" journalist and thus shouldn't allow to conceal the identities of their sources. This claim is refuted by the judge at the appeal court. And you could read about bloggers celebrating this "victory" everywhere.
Well, as Coach Corso, our friend at ESPN, would say, "Not so fast my friend." It's one thing that bloggers have the same legal rights as journalists but could we bloggers claim that most of our writing have journalistic values? I'm afraid not.
Even reputable blogs like BoingBoing.net publishes garbage some times. And it is quoted by The Digital Music Weblog. The article claims that "[Audio player maker] iRiver gives customers the choice of switching off DRM" but that's not what iRiver did! And I'm not the only one who sees how incorrect that is. Check out the comment by Vinny. He summed it up the best: the issue here is not DRM. iRiver's customers has the choice of listening to non-DRM-ed music all along. All iRiver's upgrade did is to give its users an alternative to Windows Media Player for transferring songs from computer to the device. (For those who cares for the technical details, the upgrade makes the device appear as a USB Mass Storage Device under Windows. So you could drag-and-drop using Explorer)
It's pathetic that most people who commented on blogs/forums like Digg and Slashdot never read the article they commented on. However, it's ridiculous that even the bloggers themselves do not research the subject they write about. The blogosphere seems to be ruled by sensationalism instead of rationalism. Well, maybe journalism is coming down to this level.
Well, as Coach Corso, our friend at ESPN, would say, "Not so fast my friend." It's one thing that bloggers have the same legal rights as journalists but could we bloggers claim that most of our writing have journalistic values? I'm afraid not.
Even reputable blogs like BoingBoing.net publishes garbage some times. And it is quoted by The Digital Music Weblog. The article claims that "[Audio player maker] iRiver gives customers the choice of switching off DRM" but that's not what iRiver did! And I'm not the only one who sees how incorrect that is. Check out the comment by Vinny. He summed it up the best: the issue here is not DRM. iRiver's customers has the choice of listening to non-DRM-ed music all along. All iRiver's upgrade did is to give its users an alternative to Windows Media Player for transferring songs from computer to the device. (For those who cares for the technical details, the upgrade makes the device appear as a USB Mass Storage Device under Windows. So you could drag-and-drop using Explorer)
It's pathetic that most people who commented on blogs/forums like Digg and Slashdot never read the article they commented on. However, it's ridiculous that even the bloggers themselves do not research the subject they write about. The blogosphere seems to be ruled by sensationalism instead of rationalism. Well, maybe journalism is coming down to this level.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Best Practice in Computer Science
What is it? Outsourcing of course!
Wall Street Journal reported some college students are hiring from Rent-A-Coder to do Com. Sci. homeworks for them.
Is there anything wrong with students practicing this "skill" early in college to prepare for their career? I'm sure these kids will do a good job managing offshored projects when they enter the industry!
[via Slashdot]
Wall Street Journal reported some college students are hiring from Rent-A-Coder to do Com. Sci. homeworks for them.
Is there anything wrong with students practicing this "skill" early in college to prepare for their career? I'm sure these kids will do a good job managing offshored projects when they enter the industry!
[via Slashdot]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)