Saturday, January 10, 2009
This blog has been moved
And renamed, and retooled, and is now hosted by myself, so it's only on when I can afford it to be, but I coded everything myself and I'm super excited about that. http://gradysghost.doesntexist.com/blog
Monday, November 10, 2008
90's One-Hit Wonders
You may remember I posted this about six days ago, explaining my plan for using 90's one-hit wonders for a CD. I've decided on a handful of songs, and even though I haven't ordered them, I'm going to put them here.
I hope you enjoy this music as much as I am now and hope to in a couple years.
PS - I'm adding a song to this list: Plowed by Sponge. I just couldn't live without hearing this song once every couple years. I'm surprised I even forgot this in the first place.
- In the Meanwhile by Spacehog - This is such an awesome song, and you only hear it on the radio about once every three years. But it will never leave your head.
- Got You (Where I Want You) by The Flys - Simple, but quite powerful.
- What I Got by Sublime - Okay, so this technically is not a one-hit wonder. But it's one of the very few songs by Sublime that I like, and I've always gotten a very care-free vibe from it. Also, you don't hear it very often on the radio, and it fits with the theme of the CD.
- No Rain by Blind Melon - A pleasant if ironic little song about being happy sung by a guy who killed himself shortly after making the music.
- Mother Mother by Tracy BonhamShe was angry, so she wrote a cool little rock anthem.
- Possum Kingdom by The ToadiesI think that possibly only two other songs got as much radio play as this one in the 90's, and those were Black Hole Sun by Soundgarden and Smells Like Teen Spirit by Nirvana. Definitely a one-hit wonder, though, and so much fun to play on guitar.
- Closing Time by SemisonicVenturing into the pop world brings us hits like this which are simple, but amazingly easy to listen to.
- Sex and Candy by Marcy PlaygroundI think the common element here is simplicity. Also weird music videos.
- Seether and Volcano Girls by Seether - A two-hit wonder, for sure, and not the first of this list.
- Miserable and My Own Worst Enemy by Lit - This rock trio (I think) made these two songs immensely popular and then promptly disappeared. Another two-hit wonder.
- Touch, Peel, and Stand and Shelf in the Room by Days of the New - On the subject of two-hit wonders... The lead singer's voice is certainly unique. I'd recognize their brand of acoustic rock anywhere.
- Down by 311 - I can never figure out what to think of these guys. Still, there's no denying the awesomeness of this 90's rock/hip-hop infusion.
- Pepper by Butthole Surfers - For no good reason that I can conceive of, these guys had to change the original art for this album, Electriclarryland, in the name of censorship. The cartoon drawing of a person's head with a pencil stabbed through his ear was replaced with what would appear to be a gerbil or prarie dog. Dramatic B***H*** Surfers... Are dramatic!
- Bound for the Floor by Local H - Most times, if you ask someone the name of this song, they'll tell you it's "Born to Be Down," which it most certainly is not. Furthermore, ask them who sang it, and they'll stare at you blank-faced. The lead singer looks eerily like Patrick Fugit.
- Christian Woman by Type O-Negative - We always used to refer to the singer of Type O-Negative as Crackhead Steve. His voice is unnatural. This video is creepy and the lyrics are way more vulgar than the song's tone might let on.
- Cumbersome and Water's Edge by Seven Mary Three -
Both are powerful songs. The video for Water's Edge is exactly how I always imagined it would be, though I've never seen it until today. - Jenny Says by Cowboy Mouth - Is it possible to not like this song? Even after you've heard it dozens of times?
- Superman's Dead by Our Lady Peace - A band that's really quite good by all accounts really pinnacled with this song. Sure, most of it's unintelligible oooohs and aaaahs, but it's quite catchy. Life's a subway, by the way.
- Low by Cracker - I can only imagine this song is about drugs. But then, weren't most songs from the 90's?
I hope you enjoy this music as much as I am now and hope to in a couple years.
PS - I'm adding a song to this list: Plowed by Sponge. I just couldn't live without hearing this song once every couple years. I'm surprised I even forgot this in the first place.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Tweek City
I watched this very independent movie today called Tweek City. I must be the only person on the planet who liked this film. If you asked me what the point of it was, I couldn't tell you. I liked the mood of it, and I felt that the lead actor, Giuseppe Andrews, played it very well.
It's about a guy who's trying to get his life back together while undergoing withdrawals from speed. He has trouble doing so and falls back in with some friends who only lead him back to the drugs and the wild nightlife. He faces constant rejection and death everywhere he goes, and as he tries to seek out the meaning in his life, as he searches for his place in the crazy underworld he inhabits, the solutions he finds for himself are constantly shot down by everyone else. He descends into paranoia and fear and ultimately strips himself of everything he thought he might have been, both internally and externally, and is forced to face the things which he faults himself for.
It's a very intriguing character study without a whole lot of plot, but I feel it rises above its budgetary limitations quite well. It's a shame that more people don't like it. The general low scores tell me I probably shouldn't recommend it to anybody for fear that my credibility as a film recommender might come into question. The IMDb score for the movie at the time of this writing is 3.9 (real bad) after 106 votes. I should be #107 with my score being a 7. Nobody at Rotten Tomatoes has bothered to review it. It's a shame.
It's about a guy who's trying to get his life back together while undergoing withdrawals from speed. He has trouble doing so and falls back in with some friends who only lead him back to the drugs and the wild nightlife. He faces constant rejection and death everywhere he goes, and as he tries to seek out the meaning in his life, as he searches for his place in the crazy underworld he inhabits, the solutions he finds for himself are constantly shot down by everyone else. He descends into paranoia and fear and ultimately strips himself of everything he thought he might have been, both internally and externally, and is forced to face the things which he faults himself for.
It's a very intriguing character study without a whole lot of plot, but I feel it rises above its budgetary limitations quite well. It's a shame that more people don't like it. The general low scores tell me I probably shouldn't recommend it to anybody for fear that my credibility as a film recommender might come into question. The IMDb score for the movie at the time of this writing is 3.9 (real bad) after 106 votes. I should be #107 with my score being a 7. Nobody at Rotten Tomatoes has bothered to review it. It's a shame.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Microsoft's evil plan
I promised earlier to discuss something. Quoth myself:
The type of activity I'm getting at can also be seen in the world of broadcast television. You know how there are like, twelve ESPN channels, but only one of them shows anything worth a damn, and the second one is what you turn to during commercials just so you don't have to watch commercials? By that logic, nobody actually watches ESPN 7. That's actually true, for the most part. Pretty much the only people who watch ESPN 7 are the folks who care about the World Cup of Shuffleboard, Featherweight Division. And that's not anybody.
So how do the television studios continue to fund these channels that nobody watches? And if nobody watches them, why bother funding them? The answer to the second question is "advertising." But how the studios continue to get paid for advertisement slots is a little more complicated.
Have you ever decided to purchase a TV station, say Showtime, and discovered that you also wound up subscribing to things you didn't want along with it? You bought Showtime, but got Grapefruit TV and the Johnny Mathis Network with it against your will. So because you bought a subscription to a popular station, you also bought a subscription to a station that nobody will ever watch. You have to do this because the networks sell these TV stations to your local cable companies the same way. They really want to be able to offer Showtime to their customers, but they aren't allowed to do so unless they also offer Grapefruit TV and the Johnny Mathis Network to you.
Follow me here... If every customer who buys Showtime also buys Grapefruit TV, then the total number of customers who pay for Grapefruit TV is equal to the total number of customers who pay for Showtime. This way, the networks can say, "Sorry, we don't have that advertisement slot open on Showtime, but we've got the same time slot open on Grapefruit TV, which is in just as many homes and will reach just as wide an audience." Of course, there isn't an ounce of truth in that statement, but the statistics look great on paper. So they can keep selling the advertisements and keep rolling in the money, even when nobody's actually watching the advertisements.
It's unfair, and they're cheating their advertising customer base by stacking the statistics.
Ergo, when Microsoft forces you to create a Microsoft Live account, they're forcing you to sign up for a service you may not have wanted. It probably won't cost you anything, but that makes it seem harmless, and you sign up for it nonetheless. Ordinarily, you probably wouldn't even sign in to check your Windows Live Mail or chat with other people on Windows Live One Chat Center (or whatever ridiculous name they've given it). Ordinarily, you'd just use your computer the way you want to use your computer. But you're also being forced into signing into that account every time you log on to your computer and have an Internet connection.
So if Microsoft Windows 7 is in use on thirty percent of the nation's computers, then Microsoft can safely say that thirty percent of the nation's computer-owning population use their services. They can then sell advertisements or push their own adverts on you. It's unfair to you. You are a helpless user of Microsoft's software. You are paying $200 for a functional operating system, not paying $200 to help Microsoft fund themselves further. The money you pay for the OS then becomes money that Microsoft didn't have to spend on developing a sales strategy for advertisements or for OS licenses to people who might otherwise make a different purchase. You are essentially helping the spread of Microsoft, which is a company that doesn't need help spreading.
Trust me on that.
Windows 7 is now apparently ... requiring you to log into Windows Live services [when logging into the OS]. That's the same Windows Live that keeps getting blasted for sucking so much. Only it's no longer an option. At least that's the image given by CNet's video review of the Windows 7 Alpha. I will expound on how this is only a method to stack the usage statistics later on in another blog entry.
The type of activity I'm getting at can also be seen in the world of broadcast television. You know how there are like, twelve ESPN channels, but only one of them shows anything worth a damn, and the second one is what you turn to during commercials just so you don't have to watch commercials? By that logic, nobody actually watches ESPN 7. That's actually true, for the most part. Pretty much the only people who watch ESPN 7 are the folks who care about the World Cup of Shuffleboard, Featherweight Division. And that's not anybody.
So how do the television studios continue to fund these channels that nobody watches? And if nobody watches them, why bother funding them? The answer to the second question is "advertising." But how the studios continue to get paid for advertisement slots is a little more complicated.
Have you ever decided to purchase a TV station, say Showtime, and discovered that you also wound up subscribing to things you didn't want along with it? You bought Showtime, but got Grapefruit TV and the Johnny Mathis Network with it against your will. So because you bought a subscription to a popular station, you also bought a subscription to a station that nobody will ever watch. You have to do this because the networks sell these TV stations to your local cable companies the same way. They really want to be able to offer Showtime to their customers, but they aren't allowed to do so unless they also offer Grapefruit TV and the Johnny Mathis Network to you.
Follow me here... If every customer who buys Showtime also buys Grapefruit TV, then the total number of customers who pay for Grapefruit TV is equal to the total number of customers who pay for Showtime. This way, the networks can say, "Sorry, we don't have that advertisement slot open on Showtime, but we've got the same time slot open on Grapefruit TV, which is in just as many homes and will reach just as wide an audience." Of course, there isn't an ounce of truth in that statement, but the statistics look great on paper. So they can keep selling the advertisements and keep rolling in the money, even when nobody's actually watching the advertisements.
It's unfair, and they're cheating their advertising customer base by stacking the statistics.
Ergo, when Microsoft forces you to create a Microsoft Live account, they're forcing you to sign up for a service you may not have wanted. It probably won't cost you anything, but that makes it seem harmless, and you sign up for it nonetheless. Ordinarily, you probably wouldn't even sign in to check your Windows Live Mail or chat with other people on Windows Live One Chat Center (or whatever ridiculous name they've given it). Ordinarily, you'd just use your computer the way you want to use your computer. But you're also being forced into signing into that account every time you log on to your computer and have an Internet connection.
So if Microsoft Windows 7 is in use on thirty percent of the nation's computers, then Microsoft can safely say that thirty percent of the nation's computer-owning population use their services. They can then sell advertisements or push their own adverts on you. It's unfair to you. You are a helpless user of Microsoft's software. You are paying $200 for a functional operating system, not paying $200 to help Microsoft fund themselves further. The money you pay for the OS then becomes money that Microsoft didn't have to spend on developing a sales strategy for advertisements or for OS licenses to people who might otherwise make a different purchase. You are essentially helping the spread of Microsoft, which is a company that doesn't need help spreading.
Trust me on that.
Windows 7 so far...
I've now seen about a dozen Windows 7 demos, and I have to say that I'm unimpressed overall. The features they're raving about fall into three categories as far as I'm concerned:
Features that have been available in previous Windows releases, and also other operating systems before it
Microsoft is, of course, keeping the Vista's newish start menu with the built-in search. This is good, because it may have been the only worthwhile new feature in Vista. I wouldn't ever use it, because I know where I keep my files, and I usually use toolbars and shortcut keys to get to my programs faster, but for your average Windows user, this is a good thing to keep around. Too bad you have to keep a poorly-written, stodgy, resource-hogging Indexing Service running to get decent performance out of it. They'd be better off using a different filesystem that doesn't fragment files and keeps better track of files on its own. golfclap
In addition to this, they're keeping the Vista control panel with a couple small tweaks. This is where I start to dissent from the plusses. I hate the Vista control panel with the fiery passion of a billion fusion reactions. It doesn't need to stick around any longer. It needs total retooling, and all options for a particular action or category need to be organized better, and all in the same window. I'm tired of digging around aimlessly trying to find common settings. I don't care if this means that terminology for these settings needs to become more terse. If you're going to try to be in control of your computer, you might as well learn what your actions are actually called.
Another thing that's sticking around with one small change is User Account Control. I found this to be one of the biggest detractors of Vista, and proof of Microsoft's severe lack of understanding on the subject of security. Simply asking the user if it's okay for Vista to run virtually any program it encounters is not enough. Especially when a simple keystroke (Alt+C) skips straight past this. Also since disabling it is so easy. For Vista, they ripped this concept straight out of Linux operating systems where a superuser password is required to access administrative materials. The difference is that Vista does not require a password on every account the way Linux does, and so any hacker or bot program can easily get past this "feature" by sending a keystroke instead of having to crack passwords. It's not security. It's annoying.
They've changed it up a little bit. See, before, you could only disable it or enable it. There was no in between setting. So you were either constantly annoyed or less constantly annoyed, but never really any more secure than you would be without UAC at all. Now there are four settings - on, off, and two in betweens that let you choose how often, and for what purposes UAC should notify you that the program you are running is requesting administrative access. This is admittedly better than it used to be, but I'm afraid I have to point another bitter finger at the control panel, which presents this single option as a full window with a slider bar instead of the two checkboxes that it should occupy as a footnote to the security options. This is exactly the kind of dumbing-down that ruins the current control panel scheme as Microsoft would have it.
It looks like MS has done away with the Vista sidebar, but kept the gadgets. This is probably a step forward for them, but if they really want to copy Linux and Mac, they should put the gadgets on a separate layer that shows and hides when you press a predefined toggle key, or click a button. Instead, the gadgets are constantly taking up space on your desktop, and if things are as they were in Vista, they'll have a higher Z-order, so you won't be able to select desktop icons which are behind them. So they're crowding up precious desktop space.
Also, Windows 7 has taken the concept of a tool ribbon which has delighted very few users of Microsoft Office 2007 and redistributed it across every single program Windows has to offer! This has got to be the worst idea Microsoft has come up with yet. The people who like it say they like it for the better organization of functions and for the smaller screen real estate it consumes. However, Microsoft has implemented this in such programs as Paint and WordPad. Can somebody please clarify for me how it consumes less screen space and presents your options in a better way to put ribbons in simple programs like this instead of actually displaying ALL of your options at once? I just don't understand. We've gone from having small buttons for tools on the left and small squares for colors on the botton to having giant, lunky boxes taking up a third of the program's height, and ALL OF THE FUNCTIONS ARE OBSCURED!!! I don't get it. This doesn't make any sense. I hope somebody from Microsoft gets hit with a meteor because of this. Not because of some trivial rearrangement of buttons in a stupid program that nobody ever uses, but because of how obviously asinine they are to assume that there is always a one-size-fits-all solution to every problem. This is stupid, and a major reason for me not to use Windows 7 right now. For the record, I don't like it in Office, either.
Features that have not been in Windows before, but have been in other operating systems
It looks like they're trying to make Bluetooth easy to use. Good job, Microsoft. It's about time somebody took the initiative to turn the complication of the Bluetooth wireless "standard" into a point-and-click-and-be-done-with-it interface. Too bad Linux got there before you. In some distributions, like the very popular Ubuntu which has become the Messiah of the Linux users who want Linux to arrive in the mainstream, you don't even have to install software. There's not even a wizard like the one demonstrated in Windows 7. It takes two clicks and a bonding password, and you're done.
Somewhat original features that represent a more "Windowsey" approach to features that have made other operating systems famous
So Windows now has a different taskbar (or it will). Instead of showing you the names of the programs that are running, you only get icons. In this way, you cannot differentiate between shortcuts in your Quick Launch bar and programs that are already running. This is exactly the kind of change they need to make to get confused people to like the next Windows operating system. Also, the only two differences between this and Mac's dock are that Windows allows you to close programs when you're done with them, and Mac's version looks good.
</sarcasm>
The benefit here is that when you mouse over the icons for running programs, you get a preview of the window. Which... Wait... Okay, so Linux has been doing this for quite some time now, and Microsoft did it with Vista... So it's not really as original as it may seem. I guess the only thing original about this feature is that if you have, say, multiple documents open in Word, you'll get a preview for each document. Clicking on the preview opens the program directly to that document. That's pretty cool. I only hope that the two previews are clear enough and large enough for me to determine which of the documents I'm opening. I have never liked the taskbar grouping that's been around since XP, so I doubt I'm going to like this feature. Especially because it won't display words. Perhaps part of the desktop customization Microsoft is screaming about will allow me to disable this feature. I'm undecided on this feature as of right now, but I'm leaning toward "I don't like it."
Another thing that no operating system I've ever witnessed has ever done that Windows 7 is now apparently doing is requiring you to log into Windows Live services. That's the same Windows Live that keeps getting blasted for sucking so much. Only it's no longer an option. At least that's the image given by CNet's video review of the Windows 7 Alpha. I will expound on how this is only a method to stack the usage statistics later on in another blog entry. Suffice it to say it's unfair. Par for the course for Microsoft, in other words.
Conclusion
I know we're still years away from Windows 7 being a public threat, but in all seriousness, if this is all Microsoft has changed, if this is all Windows 7 can offer, then I don't know why anyone should bother. I mean, sure, Microsoft has contracts that ensure that the OS will get used on every single PC purchased until they decide it should be a different version of the same old crap. But this doesn't help them in any new way. If Microsoft wants to sell more units, they need to get folks to upgrade. What I've seen so far is not a reason to upgrade. If anything, it's a reason to stick with the tried and true, or venture into Linuxland where these issues are not a problem.
The point is, so far, I have not seen an upgrade. I have seen an update. I have to fall back on my precious Ubuntu here to point out that more positive changes are made to that operating system with each six-month version than Microsoft has ever made between versions, even when they've had years to work on it. I'll say right now that I'm not sold, and that it's going to be a tough sell for me. I'll stick with XP for the occasions that I need Windows, and I won't be changing until Microsoft produces, at bare minimum, a multiple virtual desktop environment.
- Features that have been available in previous Windows releases, and also other operating systems before it
- Features that have not been in Windows before, but have been in other operating systems, and
- Somewhat original features that represent a more "Windowsey" approach to features that have made other operating systems famous
Features that have been available in previous Windows releases, and also other operating systems before it
Microsoft is, of course, keeping the Vista's newish start menu with the built-in search. This is good, because it may have been the only worthwhile new feature in Vista. I wouldn't ever use it, because I know where I keep my files, and I usually use toolbars and shortcut keys to get to my programs faster, but for your average Windows user, this is a good thing to keep around. Too bad you have to keep a poorly-written, stodgy, resource-hogging Indexing Service running to get decent performance out of it. They'd be better off using a different filesystem that doesn't fragment files and keeps better track of files on its own. golfclap
In addition to this, they're keeping the Vista control panel with a couple small tweaks. This is where I start to dissent from the plusses. I hate the Vista control panel with the fiery passion of a billion fusion reactions. It doesn't need to stick around any longer. It needs total retooling, and all options for a particular action or category need to be organized better, and all in the same window. I'm tired of digging around aimlessly trying to find common settings. I don't care if this means that terminology for these settings needs to become more terse. If you're going to try to be in control of your computer, you might as well learn what your actions are actually called.
Another thing that's sticking around with one small change is User Account Control. I found this to be one of the biggest detractors of Vista, and proof of Microsoft's severe lack of understanding on the subject of security. Simply asking the user if it's okay for Vista to run virtually any program it encounters is not enough. Especially when a simple keystroke (Alt+C) skips straight past this. Also since disabling it is so easy. For Vista, they ripped this concept straight out of Linux operating systems where a superuser password is required to access administrative materials. The difference is that Vista does not require a password on every account the way Linux does, and so any hacker or bot program can easily get past this "feature" by sending a keystroke instead of having to crack passwords. It's not security. It's annoying.
They've changed it up a little bit. See, before, you could only disable it or enable it. There was no in between setting. So you were either constantly annoyed or less constantly annoyed, but never really any more secure than you would be without UAC at all. Now there are four settings - on, off, and two in betweens that let you choose how often, and for what purposes UAC should notify you that the program you are running is requesting administrative access. This is admittedly better than it used to be, but I'm afraid I have to point another bitter finger at the control panel, which presents this single option as a full window with a slider bar instead of the two checkboxes that it should occupy as a footnote to the security options. This is exactly the kind of dumbing-down that ruins the current control panel scheme as Microsoft would have it.
It looks like MS has done away with the Vista sidebar, but kept the gadgets. This is probably a step forward for them, but if they really want to copy Linux and Mac, they should put the gadgets on a separate layer that shows and hides when you press a predefined toggle key, or click a button. Instead, the gadgets are constantly taking up space on your desktop, and if things are as they were in Vista, they'll have a higher Z-order, so you won't be able to select desktop icons which are behind them. So they're crowding up precious desktop space.
Also, Windows 7 has taken the concept of a tool ribbon which has delighted very few users of Microsoft Office 2007 and redistributed it across every single program Windows has to offer! This has got to be the worst idea Microsoft has come up with yet. The people who like it say they like it for the better organization of functions and for the smaller screen real estate it consumes. However, Microsoft has implemented this in such programs as Paint and WordPad. Can somebody please clarify for me how it consumes less screen space and presents your options in a better way to put ribbons in simple programs like this instead of actually displaying ALL of your options at once? I just don't understand. We've gone from having small buttons for tools on the left and small squares for colors on the botton to having giant, lunky boxes taking up a third of the program's height, and ALL OF THE FUNCTIONS ARE OBSCURED!!! I don't get it. This doesn't make any sense. I hope somebody from Microsoft gets hit with a meteor because of this. Not because of some trivial rearrangement of buttons in a stupid program that nobody ever uses, but because of how obviously asinine they are to assume that there is always a one-size-fits-all solution to every problem. This is stupid, and a major reason for me not to use Windows 7 right now. For the record, I don't like it in Office, either.
Features that have not been in Windows before, but have been in other operating systems
It looks like they're trying to make Bluetooth easy to use. Good job, Microsoft. It's about time somebody took the initiative to turn the complication of the Bluetooth wireless "standard" into a point-and-click-and-be-done-with-it interface. Too bad Linux got there before you. In some distributions, like the very popular Ubuntu which has become the Messiah of the Linux users who want Linux to arrive in the mainstream, you don't even have to install software. There's not even a wizard like the one demonstrated in Windows 7. It takes two clicks and a bonding password, and you're done.
Somewhat original features that represent a more "Windowsey" approach to features that have made other operating systems famous
So Windows now has a different taskbar (or it will). Instead of showing you the names of the programs that are running, you only get icons. In this way, you cannot differentiate between shortcuts in your Quick Launch bar and programs that are already running. This is exactly the kind of change they need to make to get confused people to like the next Windows operating system. Also, the only two differences between this and Mac's dock are that Windows allows you to close programs when you're done with them, and Mac's version looks good.
</sarcasm>
The benefit here is that when you mouse over the icons for running programs, you get a preview of the window. Which... Wait... Okay, so Linux has been doing this for quite some time now, and Microsoft did it with Vista... So it's not really as original as it may seem. I guess the only thing original about this feature is that if you have, say, multiple documents open in Word, you'll get a preview for each document. Clicking on the preview opens the program directly to that document. That's pretty cool. I only hope that the two previews are clear enough and large enough for me to determine which of the documents I'm opening. I have never liked the taskbar grouping that's been around since XP, so I doubt I'm going to like this feature. Especially because it won't display words. Perhaps part of the desktop customization Microsoft is screaming about will allow me to disable this feature. I'm undecided on this feature as of right now, but I'm leaning toward "I don't like it."
Another thing that no operating system I've ever witnessed has ever done that Windows 7 is now apparently doing is requiring you to log into Windows Live services. That's the same Windows Live that keeps getting blasted for sucking so much. Only it's no longer an option. At least that's the image given by CNet's video review of the Windows 7 Alpha. I will expound on how this is only a method to stack the usage statistics later on in another blog entry. Suffice it to say it's unfair. Par for the course for Microsoft, in other words.
Conclusion
I know we're still years away from Windows 7 being a public threat, but in all seriousness, if this is all Microsoft has changed, if this is all Windows 7 can offer, then I don't know why anyone should bother. I mean, sure, Microsoft has contracts that ensure that the OS will get used on every single PC purchased until they decide it should be a different version of the same old crap. But this doesn't help them in any new way. If Microsoft wants to sell more units, they need to get folks to upgrade. What I've seen so far is not a reason to upgrade. If anything, it's a reason to stick with the tried and true, or venture into Linuxland where these issues are not a problem.
The point is, so far, I have not seen an upgrade. I have seen an update. I have to fall back on my precious Ubuntu here to point out that more positive changes are made to that operating system with each six-month version than Microsoft has ever made between versions, even when they've had years to work on it. I'll say right now that I'm not sold, and that it's going to be a tough sell for me. I'll stick with XP for the occasions that I need Windows, and I won't be changing until Microsoft produces, at bare minimum, a multiple virtual desktop environment.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Songs You Haven't Heard In Fucking Forever
I've made an important decision today.
I'm going to make a mix CD. It has to be a CD for this to work properly. The plan doesn't have the same effect if it's a playlist or something like that.
I'm going to make a mix CD and fill it with one hit wonders from the nineties and other songs that you just don't hear much on the radio anymore, music that I don't listen to on a normal basis because I don't have the full album. We're talking stuff like "Got You Where I Want You" by The Flys. "Christian Woman" by Type O-Negative. "What I Got" by Sublime. Stuff like that. I'm going to grab a Sharpie and label it, "Songs You Haven't Heard In Fucking Forever." I'm going to put the CD in a player and listen to it once.
And then I'm going to throw it someplace hard to find where I would never look for it. And I'm going to leave it there until I forget that it's there at all. So then, two years later, when I'm emptying out some closet looking for my long lost something-or-other, I'll accidentally find it. And I'll see the label that says, "Songs You Haven't Heard In Fucking Forever" and I will not remember ever having made this mix CD.
So I'll pop it in a CD player and listen to the songs, and when they say,
my heart will fill with joy.
I'm going to make a mix CD. It has to be a CD for this to work properly. The plan doesn't have the same effect if it's a playlist or something like that.
I'm going to make a mix CD and fill it with one hit wonders from the nineties and other songs that you just don't hear much on the radio anymore, music that I don't listen to on a normal basis because I don't have the full album. We're talking stuff like "Got You Where I Want You" by The Flys. "Christian Woman" by Type O-Negative. "What I Got" by Sublime. Stuff like that. I'm going to grab a Sharpie and label it, "Songs You Haven't Heard In Fucking Forever." I'm going to put the CD in a player and listen to it once.
And then I'm going to throw it someplace hard to find where I would never look for it. And I'm going to leave it there until I forget that it's there at all. So then, two years later, when I'm emptying out some closet looking for my long lost something-or-other, I'll accidentally find it. And I'll see the label that says, "Songs You Haven't Heard In Fucking Forever" and I will not remember ever having made this mix CD.
So I'll pop it in a CD player and listen to the songs, and when they say,
I've got a dalmation.
I can still get high.
And I can play the guitar like a
Motherfuckin' riot.
my heart will fill with joy.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Floola
Ladies and gentlemen, I've been becoming more and more exasperated with my inability to have full iPod functionality under Linux. Sure, Rhythmbox is great for music, and so is Amarok, and both of these are really quite popular solutions, but nothing compares to what I've just come across.
Floola.
Seriously. It's for Linux, Mac, and Windows. I don't know about the Mac or Windows versions, but under Linux, it's a single, pre-compiled executable file. I had to install one package, but that was very easy to do, and well worth the extra work. This is the best non-iTunes iPod interface I've ever seen.
Floola.
Seriously. It's for Linux, Mac, and Windows. I don't know about the Mac or Windows versions, but under Linux, it's a single, pre-compiled executable file. I had to install one package, but that was very easy to do, and well worth the extra work. This is the best non-iTunes iPod interface I've ever seen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
