14 Sep 2006
by ryanin Politics, Rants, Signs of the Horsemen
I have to ‘fess up; I got snookered, hoodwinked, and down-right tricked. My previous post about the Humane Society of the US (Don’t We Have More Important Things to Do) was, in short, wrong.
Thanks to Dan for pointing out my ironic reaction to that false report about Wayne Pacelle’s statements; the Animal Agriculture Alliance apparently either placed comments out of context or made them up completely. Dan’s right when he says “They’ve got plenty of reasons to be mocked, but the use of the silly “canine American” term ain’t one of ‘em.” So true. So, sorry for the mis-info, I was wrong.
That said, my comments about animal activists still stand. Reading Mr. Pacelle’s Statement of Beliefs gave me pause. The euphemism-laden statement is a bleach-faded version of more radical activist propaganda. His profile in the Washington Post (linked by many vegan sites) shows a more radical side to Mr. Pacelle, including his agenda to “ban hunting, species by species, state by state, and the use of animals in research”. Check out some other (older) quotes from Mr. Pacelle. Google returns many interesting articles about Mr. Pacelle; I encourage you to check him out.
However, the statements I ranted about earlier were taken out of context and I bit. Hard. For that I apologize to Mr. Pacelle and anyone who I may have offended. But, if Mr. Pacelle continues on the road he has been on since his college days, I don’t think a similar statement is too far off and will be met with the same reaction as before. And for that I will not apologize.
12 Sep 2006
by ryanin Rants, Signs of the Horsemen
UPDATE: Welcome Googlers. Check out the follow-up post before you flame this one.
Remember kids, if you want to advance your cause, personalize the subject and rev up your logical fallacies. Today’s example: they’re not dogs, they’re “Canine Americans”. No joke.
And animal-rights groups wonder why we don’t take them seriously. I’m not advocating random acts of brutality against dogs, cats, or rodents, but are we so confused about this issue that we have to anthropomorphize our pets?
I love my dog, he’s the closest I ever hope to having a child. But even I know that, at the end of the day, he’s a dog. Yes, he has feelings and emotions and desires, but he also has no opposable thumbs, would run away at the first chance you gave him, and would knock down a door to get peanut butter. I am responsible for that animal, but that doesn’t make him anything more than that, an animal. He has primal instincts and motivations that, with education, I have been able to use to train him.
However, he is not an “American” anymore than I’m an executive by virtue of sitting in a high-back chair. That identity is meaningless simply because it is based on convenient accoutrement of my present situation. If my dog is moved to Canada, does he lose his “American” rights? What about a country where it’s customary to eat dogs?
If my dog has any rights, he has the right to be happy and free from abuse, rights which are my duty to ensure. I am constantly disgusted by these moral bigots and busy-bodies who think they have the burden of telling me how awful I am for using certain words. I’m not a pet “owner”, I’m a pet “parent”. He’s not a dog, he’s a canine American. Oh, please.
We have laws to punish those who mistreat animals; enforce them. Instead of these idiotic agendas–which cost millions of dollars to create, market, and legislate–how about tossing some money to the people who are protecting animals? Animals are not people. I’ll say it again. Animals are not people. As much as I love my dog, I would save a person over him. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t miss him terribly. That doesn’t mean I hate dogs. And it doesn’t make me unworthy of being a pet “parent”. It means that I am able to distinguish between people and animals, something that groups like the Humane Society of the United States have apparently ceased to be able to do.
23 Aug 2006
by ryanin General, Rants, Signs of the Horsemen
As J– said, must be a slow news day.
ABC News has just learned that Republicans have sex. In fact, they have so much of it, they’re out-producing Democrats and creating a “Baby Gap”. Like that? Baby Gap.. get it? It’s like the store. Oh, and want a little trivia with your slow news day? Paul Pressler, President and CEO for Gap, Inc. since Sep 2002, joined the Gap, Inc. board after leaving.. anyone.. anyone? That’s right, The Walt Disney Company, which owns.. anyone? If you said ABC News, you’d be smarter than the average American.
But, back to the real news.. baby gaps *snicker* in political groups. If you can get through the blatant stereotyping (Democrats have cats not kids, Republicans are Puritan abstainers) and rhetoric (“‘They’re for abortion policy, they’re for same-sex marriage, they’re for many of the agenda items that eventually mean you probably don’t have children in the household,’ [conservative pollster Kellyanne] Conway said”).. hmm.. there’s actually only one meaningful fact in the entire story.
Studying numbers from the General Social Survey — a government survey of social trends — [Syracuse University professor Arthur] Brooks found that 100 unrelated liberal adults have 147 children, while 100 unrelated conservatives have 208 kids.
This, apparently, constitutes news.
Oh, by the way ABC News, there’s a couple countries threatening to toss nukes around, a major US city is still in ruin a year after a natural disaster, and the federal government is taking its first steps to a Gattaca-esque world.
Maybe you could send one of your “reporters” out to cover some of that.
21 Aug 2006
by ryanin NOLA, Politics, Rants
As the anniversary of Katrina rolls over us, everyone is scrambling to do something “meaningful” to commemorate the event.
Like TalkLeft. Their brilliant idea?
Help water the bushes for the anniversary of Katrina.
Please send a bottle of water to:
President George Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Put your return address as:
Ernest N. Morial Convention Center
900 Convention Center Boulevard
New Orleans, LA 70130
Har Har! Get it? Water the bushes? Yes, send your bottle of water to Washington, that’ll really help the hundreds of thousands of people still waiting for work to begin on their homes in New Orleans. Send your bottle of water and wallow in your sense of self satisfaction and wittiness. Send your bottle of water and then go back to concentrating on mid-term election analysis.
Someone else will pick up your slack. Do-nothing, feel-good, blogging; yeah!
21 Aug 2006
by ryanin Rants, Technology
I’m thoroughly disappointed. My Microsoft Ergonomic 4000 keyboard, for which, I might add, I paid over $50 for, just crapped out on me in under 8 months of use. I’ve had nothing but love for Microsoft keyboards in the past, pounding Ergonomic Pros into the ground for over 6 years.
But I’ve never had a keyboard flat out die on me after less than a year. At first I thought had some driver corruption or a, god forbid, a virus. Hitting “x” resulted in nothing, pressing “s” 3 times opened the help for the application I was working in, hitting “\” printed out some machine code. After installing the Intellitype software and the keyboard on J–’s computer, however, and seeing the same thing, we knew the keyboard was toast.
I have a spare POS keyboard that came with J–’s computer, but it’s straight and small, so I’ll be running to get a new keyboard when I get some time. But the frustration of having only a few hours of our own over the weekend was compounded by the frustration of not being able to even type. Thank god the weather was bookmarked.
Maybe it’s time to get a Logitech keyboard.
09 Aug 2006
by ryanin Gaming, Politics, Rants
Expert: 40 Percent of World of Warcraft Players Addicted | TwitchGuru
Ah, yes, another “Games are The Ruin of Society” expert. In this week’s episode, the good Dr. Maressa Orzack. Dr. Orzack is the founder of Computer Addiction Services, which in no way compromises her objectiveness. She is “swamped” with addicted gamers coming into her addicted gamer treatment center, which is a hell of a coincidence.
World of Warcraft takes center-stage in this interview with TwitchGuru, a shocking turn for the press as it finally shifts its focus from the glamorous world of Hello Kitty console games and handheld, stand-alone Yahtzee units. Shining a dim light on the underbelly of the gaming world, Dr. Orzack absolves the gamer and places the blame squarely where it belongs; on the game company.
They design these MMOs to keep people in the game. I do think the problem is tied in with other things like family issues, but the games themselves are inherently addictive. That’s ultimately the cause of the problem. [emphasis mine]
Those poor victims of Blizzard’s dastardly plan to rule the world via subscription. Ah, then we get to my favorite part of the show; the numbers.
Well, let’s take World of Warcraft as an example. Let’s say there are around 6 million subscribers for the game. I’d say that 40 percent of the players are addicted.
Wow, 40%? 2.4 million people are addicted to World of Warcraft? Can any other drug, game, or activity claim a 40% addiction rate (besides the crack they are apparently handing out to researchers)? And how did she arrive at this statistic? We have no idea. There are no citations, no studies mentioned, just some number plucked from the air by a doctor with much to gain by propagating the idea of widespread, highly-contagious addiction to an entertainment media.
Now, do I think people can be addicted to video games? Sure, why not. People are addicted to the oddest things: food, gambling, spray paint. But, do I think that 40% of WoW players are addicts. Hell no. Of course the game is designed to pull you in, that’s its purpose. No one would pay $15 a month to play something that wasn’t compelling. But, at it’s heart, it’s a game and if you can’t let go of the game, the problem is you, not the game.
04 Aug 2006
by ryanin Rants, Spot the Sarcasm
This post is in a new category, “Spot the Sarcasm”; guess why.
Windows has a wonderful feature for Internet Explorer users called Trusted sites. Trusted sites are described as “Web sites that you trust not to damage your computer or data.” Pretty straightforward, right?
But, as they say, the devil is in the details. Let’s say you have a web application that lives at www.webapp.edu. www.webapp.edu uses a central single-signon service for authentication; let’s call that www.signon.edu. Both www.webapp.edu and www.signon.edu are listed in the Trusted sites zone for Internet Explorer.
If you now attempt to log into www.webapp.edu via www.signon.edu, you get a security warning.
Considering it’s Microsoft, I let a little slide. But this rates as one of the stupidest security errors I can think of. Let’s break it down.
Both sites listed are on my Trusted sites list, a list I had to manually edit to add the sites. That means I spent time and effort to verify that the sites were trusted, find the zone, and then enter the sites. The warning states “If you don’t trust the current Web page, choose No.” Why would I ever choose No? Both sites have already been trusted. Both sites are obviously known to me. Why am I even given this dialog box?
Then, let’s look at the dialog box. For “security”, the focus is defaulted to No, the option I don’t want 999,999 out of 1,000,000 times. It’s also lacking, for security, a basic of standard dialog boxes: hotkeys. This one? No way. I have to either click Yes or arrow over to Yes. Dismissing the dialog results in.. ? Anyone, anyone? That’s right, a 404 error; very intuitive to the average Internet Explorer user.
But let’s think about what sites go on a Trusted site list, since Microsoft did not. It’s highly likely that sites manually added to that list are put there because I a) trust them and b) go to them a lot. I want them on that list because that security zone is more open, allows more browsing freedom, maybe requires it for functionality (yes, Web apps use pop-ups). Why do I have to confirm every single visit to a “trusted” site, but not to any other random site not listed as a trusted site? Logically, if I don’t trust a site, shouldn’t I need to verify that I do, in fact, want to go there? (Note to IE team, please, for the love of God, don’t implement this hypothetical.)
And, the best part of all? It is not optional for me or my team to use either IE or have our sites listed as Trusted sites. Our division administrators have placed both www.webapp.edu and www.signon.edu in the Trusted sites list and Webapp requires IE for certain administrative functions.
To all our users, Firefox is supported (thank goodness); I would recommend it for you. To Microsoft, please hire more user experience engineers. When you see posts like “Deleting a Shortcut In Windows Vista Takes How Many Steps?” on Gizmodo, you have issues.
25 Jul 2006
by ryanin General, Rants
5. Neil Young. Not for his latest album (which actually sounded good until he started singing), but because he’s Neil Bloody Young. Seriously, could anyone be more overrated? (save the flames; you’re not going to change my mind.)
4. Uber-Web-Design Guy. You know what, this site doesn’t validate. Neither does the web app I work on. And guess what; they both function just the same. Take your XHTML, CSS, and W3C standards and shove it.
3. Jason Calacanis – Sold out to AOL and wonders why people laugh at him now. If I never have to hear that voice on a podcast again, it’ll be too soon. And, yes, you cloned Digg; just confess and drift away.
2. Second Life players. Please, stop. What exactly do you do?
1. Steve Wozniak. Yes, you were famous. Yes, you’re very, very rich. Yes, you are doing great work in funding commercial space programs. But I’m so unbelievably sick of hearing about every time you get a new laser, ride a Segway, or comment on a company you no longer work for. Aren’t you overdue to build a plane that won’t fly?
11 Jul 2006
by ryanin General, Made Me Laugh, Politics, Rants, Signs of the Horsemen, Uhm... yeah
Some anti-abortion zealot (Pete) decided to saddle up his high-horse and take down an evil, vile, pro-abortion advocate (Caroline) on his blog (and I use those terms purposefully; you’re not pro-life or pro-choice).
Sorry ma’am, if you hadn’t had sex you wouldn’t have gotten pregnant, it’s not the HMO’s fault for not supporting your promiscuity while not married.
One small problem though; Pete is an idiot. The article in question was on, say it with me, The Onion. Missing moutains of satire and deftly proving the point of the original article, Pete goes on to call Caroline a “murderer” and graciously offers to pray “for the suffering which you will endure when you realize what you have done.” That’s right, he’s going to pray for her suffering, not to lessen that suffering, but just to ask God to make sure she gets what she deserves, apparently.
He then leaves his readers with a call to action.
Speak out against abortion. Don’t just complain about it.
Consider that done, Pete. I’m not complaining, I am speaking out. Against you. You’re an idiot. You represent all that is wrong with your side of the debate; you’re a man, you’re too emotional to process basic forms of communication, and you use religion as a weapon, not a a tool. Abortion is not a black and white issue. Abortion is something that requires deep philosphical debate. Abortion is something that is deeply, deeply personnal.
It’s also something you need to let go because you obvisouly don’t have the mental faculties to participate in the discussion.
You can read the entire, mind-numbingly idiotic post at March Together For Life: Murder without conscience. I highly recommend reading the comments.
31 Mar 2006
by ryanin Rants
This is a rant about, well, about being a hick at heart. I grew up in the country (ish). My family still lives in small-town America; quiet streets, nothing taller than 4 stories, weird laws about alcohol. It’s NASCAR country.
I say “NASCAR country” in a nice way as most people (read: anyone who lives on the West coast or on the Atlantic seaboard North of, say, Jersey) just don’t get it. And, by get it, I mean of course that they a) haven’t taken the time to think about it and b) mock it.
Take, for example (and the catalyst for this post) this continuously updated post on BoingBoing about NASCAR-branded [[insert product]]. They lead off with NASCAR-branded meats. Ok, even I thought it was a little weird, but I’ll go with the whole “Grill during the race” thing. But, as the days roll on, the comments that are being tacked onto the post are along the lines of “look at what those silly hicks also buy! Isn’t that cute!” You can almost taste the condescending attitude through your monitor (note, please don’t lick your monitor).
But, as Darren Barefoot points out, fully 1/3 of North Americans doesn’t use the Internet. Those people who are yucking it up over NASCAR branded items are also laughing themselves out of one of the fastest growing audiences in this hemisphere. Ignore for a moment the roots of NASCAR. The modern incarnation of NASCAR is a marketers wet-dream; a solid, rabid fan-base that chooses a heroic character (the driver/team) and buys a shit-ton of their merchandise. How many NASCAR-themed bumper stickers or hats have you seen this week? A dozen? Three dozen? More? You don’t get that kind of brand loyalty and repeat business with computers.
The limit of technology branding (often) is who you can drag into your home/office/car to see what you bought. The Internet has obviously expanded that audience, but still misses the nearly 33% of the population not online. NASCAR gear goes everywhere. Hats, jackets, stickers, and shirts are all the traditional avenues that drive around town, go to dinner, show up on casual Friday. NASCAR has been able to extend their brand to places technology can never go. You will never see Apple-branded fruit (ironic as it would be). You will never see Yahoo! chainsaws. Technology branding is limited to what can be shown on television or to the technical elite, most of whom have decided about a product long before it ever officially gets marketed. What, you thought Engadget and Gizmodo and their ilk were enthusiast sites?
BoingBoing readers may think they’re having a good laugh at us hick’s expense, but they’re missing the larger point. I may be taking it personally at a certain level, but I’m also able to step back and see the forest for the trees. NASCAR meat, which I’ll grant leaves an odd first impression, isn’t idiotic, it’s brilliant. Missing the point on that is truly backwards thinking if I ever saw it. Yah here?
Sidenote: For humorous commentary to many BoingBoing related posts, see Xenisucks.com.
Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries
RSS
Twitter