Thursday, July 28, 2005
Lots o' Links!
First the friends:
Roxi's HomeStyle: A web page from my favorite cognitive scientist in training (and yes I actually do know more than one).
Behind Blue Eyes: A blog written by Tami, one of my co-workers at Universal Digital.
Next the funny:
The Filthy Critic: Bar none, my favorite movie critic of all time. He makes Jay Sherman's movie reviews sound like James Lipton's actor interviews.
I Don't Like You In That Way: A lot like The Superficial...fun at the expense of celebrity egos.
Finally the fun:
Letterboxing North America: A little nerdy but something that I was interested in as soon as I heard about it a few years ago. Roxi and I have gotten into searching for boxes and we've actually placed our own (The Ragin' Cajun Letterbox) and plan on placing a few more!
Enjoy the links...I do! Thanks for reading and feel free to give me any feedback.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Who Else Isn't Surprised By The Payola Story?
First of all, I am not surprised in the least by these payoffs. Seriously, I mean, who is really listening to J-Lo and Good Charlotte anyway except for a bunch of impressionable kids who buy whatever is playing most on the radio?
What really has me wondering is why did they do it? If Sony really felt the need to pay money to make an "artist" successful, why did they even invest any money in said "artist" in the first place? Don't get me wrong, I know that this is a business, but what was the sense in signing these people and spending so much money on producing and promoting a record if they had to spend even more to get it played? There is a difference between marketing and bribery. I just can't imagine this having that great of a monetary return.
But then again, I am a music purist who naively thinks that talent should separate the successful from the mediocre and worse. It is a sad state of affairs indeed when a company won't cut its losses and actually look for real talent. Why is there this inexplicable need to reward the untalented? If anyone knows, please comment because I am too young to be jaded.
Friday, July 22, 2005
Telemarketing A-Holes...
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Gotta Love Google!
As most people are familiar, Google will often change their logo to incorporate important events of the specific date. Well today, the Google logo has replaced the second "O" with the moon with a lunar lander sitting atop it and being viewed by "moon men" from atop the first "O." I clicked the logo to find out more and was directed to the Google Moon page.
This is Google's commemoration of the landing of Apollo 11 on the moon on July 20, 1969. Google has expanded the very cool Google Maps to include the surface of the moon highlighting the area where the Apollo missions landed. Each landing site has a marker which lists the name of the mission, the date of the landing and the crew. Plus you get a little surprise if you zoom to the highest level of detail. Enjoy!
Monday, July 18, 2005
Please Hollywood, Stop the Madness!!!!
Saturday, July 16, 2005
New Pixies Album!
Thursday, July 14, 2005
That must have been some kind of "tuck job!"
Samukeliso Sithole -- a triple jumper and runner who competed as a woman at several international sports events -- was convicted on charges of impersonation and offending the dignity of a woman athlete who undressed in his presence, unaware he was a man.What I find hardest to believe is that he was able to keep his "secret" in place while competing in the triple jump!
No word yet on whether he will be banned from athletic competition including the Olympic Games. However, it is unlikely that he will be banned from the Crying Games.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
If there were any question about Islamic fundamentalism...
Understanding? If there were any question about understanding the motivations of these or any other terrorist attacks, look no further than the second story that irritated me today. It concerns the man "suspected" of killing Theo Van Gogh last year. I say "suspect" because not only did he commit the murder in view of over 50 witnesses, he admitted in court that he did it and went on to say why.The BBC's guidelines state that its credibility is undermined by the "careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments".
Consequently, "the word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding" and its use should be "avoided", the guidelines say.
"I take complete responsibility for my actions. I acted purely in the name of my religion," 27-year-old Dutch-Moroccan national Mohammed Bouyeri told the court in Amsterdam on the final day of his trial.At the time of his murder, Van Gogh had recently released the film Submission which deals with culturally accepted violence against women in the Muslim world.
Is there really any question that there are fundamentalists in the Islamic world that would like nothing more than to destroy our way of life? Why are world news outlets like the BBC afraid to admit it? Is it because they are afraid of offending the archaic and medieval Muslim sentiments that women are second- or third-class citizens? How many more terrorist attacks will it take for people to realize that there really is a war going on and our side is not taking it seriously?"I can assure you that one day, should I be set free, I would do exactly the same, exactly the same," he said, speaking slowly in sometimes halted Dutch.
He said he felt an obligation to Van Gogh's mother Anneke, present in court, to speak, but offered no sympathy.
"I have to admit I do not feel for you, I do not feel your pain, I cannot -- I don't know what it is like to lose a child," he said as Van Gogh's family and friends looked on.
"I cannot feel for you ... because I believe you are an infidel," he added.
"I acted out of conviction -- not because I hated your son."
Van Gogh's mother listened quietly as Bouyeri, wearing a Palestinian black and white headscarf, spoke with a hint of admiration for her son.
"I cannot accuse your son of hypocrisy because he was not a hypocrite. He said things out of conviction," Bouyeri said of Van Gogh.
Thankfully, the BBC came to its senses and at least took the step of qualifying the bombings in London as terrorist activities. This is serious business and people need to treat it as such or it may come back to haunt us.
Monday, July 11, 2005
Paul McCartney is a Prick
In the recent Live 8 concerts, there was apparently plenty of ego to go around (strange since it was a charitable event, no?) but Paul may have taken the cake with his London show opening performance of "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band." Rather than reunite with Ringo Starr, the only other surviving Beatle, Paul chose to perform the song with the members of U2, a band whose lead singer has his own issues with the need for attention. Well Ringo has spoken and he is pissed.
It won't really matter much because Paul will erase any post-Beatles record of Ringo when he leaves this world. It's quite a sad state of affairs really.
Cool News About Saturn Not Involving A Crashing Space Probe
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Credit Bureaus Are Horrible
CEO Thomas Chapman called the legislation unconstitutional and un-American because it cuts into profits that Equifax and two rival credit reporting agencies -- Experian and TransUnion -- earn from selling credit reports and monitoring services. Equifax maintains credit data on 220 million Americans. The company earned $1.27 billion in revenue last year.Un-American? Do you know what I think is un-American? The notion that three companies have the personal information of most Americans and we have to pay them $30 every time we want to access it! That is un-American!
On top of that, the information is riddled with errors as was evident the one and only time I did a credit check last year. Experian had me confused with my father and even grandfather in some cases. There were inaccurate addresses and even social security numbers associated with my credit report. If these agencies can't do their sole job of monitoring and keep people's information accurate and correct, then why bother even trying to protect ourselves from identity theft?
Chapman said that viewing a credit report once a year wouldn't protect consumers against fraud.I think that we need to police the police in this case. If they are so concerned with people getting access to their credit histories once a year, then maybe there really is a problem. People would actually get to see how many errors there are on them not including any real fraud! Shouldn't we be allowed to make sure that the people that are in control of our financial existence are keeping our information correctly so that those of us who are trying hard to keep good credit can get that first home some day? Then again, that might be a moot point since any city government can take that away from you for other private economic developers to make a buck."That's like turning on the smoke alarm once a year," he said.