Back in 2003/2004, when I was running this blog under Blosxom, I had a weekly trivia feature every Tuesday. It was one of the few features that seemed to get responses. I suppose everyone likes to show off what they know, huh? ;)
I'm not really sure how this is going to work this time, since I've deliberately turned off comments (thanks to pr0n spammers). Backlinks still work, however, so if you have a blog that supports backlinks you can play along on your own blog. For those of you who don't have blogs that support backlinks, or blogs even, you can send your best guess/answer to me via email (my address is in my profile).
Enough already-- let's get to the trivia! I'm thinking of a science fiction movie released in 2000; it is based (albeit loosely) on a story by Isaac Asimov called "Nightfall." Name the movie.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
Sunday, February 25, 2007
COPA (the Child Online Protection Act), the First Amendment, and the expectation of privacy
It's times like these that I wish I'd gone to law school instead of learning about computers.
See, I saw this story on my local news channel the other night, and it's kind of stuck in my brain. Apparently, if someone goes out in public and does something egregiously stupid and/or obnoxious (for example, taking up two spaces in the parking lot of a busy public complex) . . . and I decide to take a picture of that stupid/obnoxious act with my cell phone so I can publish it on my blog later with commentary, then I'm somehow "violating" that person's privacy.
Never mind that I didn't even take a picture of that person. I don't even know who that person is, so it's not like I said, "Brad Kelly of 1234 Main Street is so stupid he can't even park between two lines." The mere act of publishing a picture of a double-parked car with the license plate unobscured is apparently considered a violation of privacy.
Here's the part I don't get. The Supreme Court has refused to enforce the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) on more than one occasion due to a concern that it would have an "chilling impact on free speech." In other words, protecting the First Amendment is more important than keeping minors from viewing or being depicted in online pornography-- but, at the same time, this ill-defined expectation of "having personal privacy when out in public" trumps a blogger's First Amendment rights?
Does anyone else consider that to be a peculiar double standard?
See, I saw this story on my local news channel the other night, and it's kind of stuck in my brain. Apparently, if someone goes out in public and does something egregiously stupid and/or obnoxious (for example, taking up two spaces in the parking lot of a busy public complex) . . . and I decide to take a picture of that stupid/obnoxious act with my cell phone so I can publish it on my blog later with commentary, then I'm somehow "violating" that person's privacy.
Never mind that I didn't even take a picture of that person. I don't even know who that person is, so it's not like I said, "Brad Kelly of 1234 Main Street is so stupid he can't even park between two lines." The mere act of publishing a picture of a double-parked car with the license plate unobscured is apparently considered a violation of privacy.
Here's the part I don't get. The Supreme Court has refused to enforce the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) on more than one occasion due to a concern that it would have an "chilling impact on free speech." In other words, protecting the First Amendment is more important than keeping minors from viewing or being depicted in online pornography-- but, at the same time, this ill-defined expectation of "having personal privacy when out in public" trumps a blogger's First Amendment rights?
Does anyone else consider that to be a peculiar double standard?
Why I am of two minds about the medical establishment
I don't hate medical professionals, but I don't blindly trust them, either.
When I was a teenager, I developed a chronic illness. The doctors were more than happy to help me with the symptoms, but never seemed to be able to do anything about the root cause itself. So, basically, I was on this treadmill of maintenance medications, dietary restrictions, annual follow up examinations and so on . . . all of which cost money. In the end, I was still sick, but the symptoms were "under control."
Then, in 1998, after more than twelve years of living my life this way, I did something crazy. I "fired" my doctors, stopped taking my meds and found a way for me to address the root cause of my illness. I can't say this was all part of a plan on my part-- it was more motivated by frustration than wisdom. But the important point is, I was able to accomplish for myself what more than one member of the medical establishment had not been able (???) to do.
Astute readers are probably wondering why I put those question marks in the middle of that last sentence. I do it to indicate the doubt and conflict I have about the overall state of medicine in the United States today. I do believe that there are many individual practitioners who believe in the Hippocratic Oath and do their best everyday to help their patients. At the same time, I see many instances where insurance companies suddenly deny people access to the treatments that had proven effective and forced people to resort to unproven generics, or in some cases, completely different drugs that are over the counter. For example: I've taken Allegra for my allergy symptoms for years and it made a tremendous difference with my allergies.
Suddenly, my allergist switches me from Allegra (a subscription drug) to Claritin (an over the counter drug). I should mention that Claritin is NOT a generic equivalent for Allegra and that the active ingredients are entirely different. The original explanation I was given for this change was that long term use of Allegra could possibly put me at risk for kidney problems, as I recall. So, I tried the Claritin for a few weeks, but it just wasn't as effective as the Allegra. When I tried to discuss my dissatisfaction with the medication on a follow up visit with that doctor, I got a scope shoved up my nose for my trouble and an extra bill for the procedure. (Rather hard to talk or complain when there is a flexible tube jammed up your nostril, isn't it?)
See, I've talked with other people who also have allergies and who also suddenly found their doctors switching them from Allegra to over the counter medications. The timing is so coincidental as to be amazing. I suppose it is always possible that there was some long term study about Allegra that just completed . . . and maybe the results showed some reason for concern . . . and maybe all these doctors heard about this study and its results all at the same time, and were just extra vigilant about getting their customers on to "safer" meds ASAP. I haven't, for the record, heard of any such study or indicated results, but to be fair, I don't read every single medical journal that is out there either.
The other possibility that occurs to me is that insurance companies are tired of paying for prescription medications and have set up a campaign to cut back or perhaps even eliminate entirely that expense. If I am paying out $1 million per year on presription medicines and I can find a way to get even ten percent of those people on an over the counter equivalent instead, then I've just "made" (well, saved actually) $100 thousand dollars. Of course, I'm just pulling those example numbers entirely out of the air. Given the volume of people in the United States who are on prescription medications, the real numbers are bound to be much higher.
And before someone objects that the insurance companies are separate from the medical profession, I'd like to point out that the insurance companies insinuated themselves into the medical industry years ago. It's the insurance companies that force doctors and patients to choose cheaper procedures with higher degrees of risk, such as gastric bypass, while forsaking safer treatment alternatives that are more expensive, such as the laparoscopic band.
To paraphrase William Gibson's famous quote: "The future (of medical technology) is already here. It's just not evenly distributed (because someone you've never met has an economic interest in making sure you can't get it) yet."
I really hope I'm wrong about that. Unfortunately, I have this feeling that we are going to see an investigation of insurance companies and medical practices that reveals a scandal comparable to that of Enron within the next decade.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to find a new allergist.
When I was a teenager, I developed a chronic illness. The doctors were more than happy to help me with the symptoms, but never seemed to be able to do anything about the root cause itself. So, basically, I was on this treadmill of maintenance medications, dietary restrictions, annual follow up examinations and so on . . . all of which cost money. In the end, I was still sick, but the symptoms were "under control."
Then, in 1998, after more than twelve years of living my life this way, I did something crazy. I "fired" my doctors, stopped taking my meds and found a way for me to address the root cause of my illness. I can't say this was all part of a plan on my part-- it was more motivated by frustration than wisdom. But the important point is, I was able to accomplish for myself what more than one member of the medical establishment had not been able (???) to do.
Astute readers are probably wondering why I put those question marks in the middle of that last sentence. I do it to indicate the doubt and conflict I have about the overall state of medicine in the United States today. I do believe that there are many individual practitioners who believe in the Hippocratic Oath and do their best everyday to help their patients. At the same time, I see many instances where insurance companies suddenly deny people access to the treatments that had proven effective and forced people to resort to unproven generics, or in some cases, completely different drugs that are over the counter. For example: I've taken Allegra for my allergy symptoms for years and it made a tremendous difference with my allergies.
Suddenly, my allergist switches me from Allegra (a subscription drug) to Claritin (an over the counter drug). I should mention that Claritin is NOT a generic equivalent for Allegra and that the active ingredients are entirely different. The original explanation I was given for this change was that long term use of Allegra could possibly put me at risk for kidney problems, as I recall. So, I tried the Claritin for a few weeks, but it just wasn't as effective as the Allegra. When I tried to discuss my dissatisfaction with the medication on a follow up visit with that doctor, I got a scope shoved up my nose for my trouble and an extra bill for the procedure. (Rather hard to talk or complain when there is a flexible tube jammed up your nostril, isn't it?)
See, I've talked with other people who also have allergies and who also suddenly found their doctors switching them from Allegra to over the counter medications. The timing is so coincidental as to be amazing. I suppose it is always possible that there was some long term study about Allegra that just completed . . . and maybe the results showed some reason for concern . . . and maybe all these doctors heard about this study and its results all at the same time, and were just extra vigilant about getting their customers on to "safer" meds ASAP. I haven't, for the record, heard of any such study or indicated results, but to be fair, I don't read every single medical journal that is out there either.
The other possibility that occurs to me is that insurance companies are tired of paying for prescription medications and have set up a campaign to cut back or perhaps even eliminate entirely that expense. If I am paying out $1 million per year on presription medicines and I can find a way to get even ten percent of those people on an over the counter equivalent instead, then I've just "made" (well, saved actually) $100 thousand dollars. Of course, I'm just pulling those example numbers entirely out of the air. Given the volume of people in the United States who are on prescription medications, the real numbers are bound to be much higher.
And before someone objects that the insurance companies are separate from the medical profession, I'd like to point out that the insurance companies insinuated themselves into the medical industry years ago. It's the insurance companies that force doctors and patients to choose cheaper procedures with higher degrees of risk, such as gastric bypass, while forsaking safer treatment alternatives that are more expensive, such as the laparoscopic band.
To paraphrase William Gibson's famous quote: "The future (of medical technology) is already here. It's just not evenly distributed (because someone you've never met has an economic interest in making sure you can't get it) yet."
I really hope I'm wrong about that. Unfortunately, I have this feeling that we are going to see an investigation of insurance companies and medical practices that reveals a scandal comparable to that of Enron within the next decade.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to find a new allergist.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Conversation I'd love to hear some day
Fashionista: my new cell phone plays MP3 files, takes gorgeous pictures, has Wifi access, is only 7 millimeters thick, and color coordinates with my accessories. What can your phone do?
Geek: Not much . . . except summon an elite ninja death squad to your GPS coordinates with one SMS message.
Damn straight.
Geek: Not much . . . except summon an elite ninja death squad to your GPS coordinates with one SMS message.
Damn straight.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
The Four Best Ways to Sit at Your Computer
So I'm sitting on my exercise ball, browsing through my Bloglines feed, when I stumbled across this entry over at Jon's Blog at zaads.com (tip of the hat) and nearly fell off my perch!
The Four Best Ways to Sit at Your Computer
You would not believe how much s*** I used to catch from co-workers at my previous job for wanting to sit on an exercise ball instead of the office chair they provided. Turns out the uber-brainy folks at Google have been doing it all this time. Guess I'm Google material in a world full of Yahoos.
The Four Best Ways to Sit at Your Computer
You would not believe how much s*** I used to catch from co-workers at my previous job for wanting to sit on an exercise ball instead of the office chair they provided. Turns out the uber-brainy folks at Google have been doing it all this time. Guess I'm Google material in a world full of Yahoos.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Don't you trust me?
I am simultaneously fascinated and appalled at how casually people throw around the word "trust" these days. Someone asks me the question, "What's the matter-- don't you trust me?" as if they have every right to demand carte blanche trust in all things.
There is no such thing as carte blanche trust. Nor should there be.
Trust is context specific and it has to be earned. Just because you can trust someone with your money, for instance, it doesn't automatically follow that you should also trust them with your children.
There is no such thing as carte blanche trust. Nor should there be.
Trust is context specific and it has to be earned. Just because you can trust someone with your money, for instance, it doesn't automatically follow that you should also trust them with your children.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Words, words, words. Hamlet, 2. 2
- Friend
- Faithful
- Farsighted
- Futurist
- Focused
- Frown(ing?)
- Freethinker
- Funky
- Frustrated
- Feta
Today's entry was brought to you by the letter B. ;)
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Neologism: cocknosente
Main entry: cocknosente
Pronunciation: 'käk-nO-sen(t)s (cock no sense)
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural cocknosentes
Etymology: neologism/modern slang
: an "expert" whose decision making process is ruled by his sense of masculinity rather than his intellect. : MACHISMO
Pronunciation: 'käk-nO-sen(t)s (cock no sense)
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural cocknosentes
Etymology: neologism/modern slang
: an "expert" whose decision making process is ruled by his sense of masculinity rather than his intellect. : MACHISMO
Friday, February 16, 2007
Good bye, Fizzle (fo' Shizzle)
I rely on RSS a lot.
I keep track of updates on 30+ blogs/websites using RSS, which is a heck of a lot easier than manually checking every site each day to see what has changed. I started off with live bookmarks in Firefox, and that was all right for a while . . . except you could only see the post titles, not the full content. Some bloggers (myself included) don't make great, meaningful use of titles to describe what their entry is about. You need to read the first few sentences to figure out what they are writing about, and then to decide whether you are interested in it or not.
That's when I discovered a Firefox plugin called "Fizzle." (Seems like an odd, inappropriate name to me from a marketing standpoint, but what the heck do I know?) Basically, this plugin turns Firefox into a full blown RSS reader like AmphetaDesk, etc. I was really impressed with it and used it for several months.
Now, all of the sudden, Fizzle seems to choke on Engadget's RSS feed and causes Firefox to crash. Could be something new in Engadget's feed, or maybe something in a recent Firefox update breaks Fizzle. I don't know, and to be honest, I don't exactly have a lot of time and energy to spend investigating and resolving the issue.
So, a few days ago, I switched from Fizzle to Bloglines. I had to figure out how to export all my Live Bookmarks into an OPML file (Firefox has a wonderful little plugin for that too, turns out) that I could import into Bloglines, but other than that, it's been a remarkably smooth transition. I'm still learning some of the shortcut keyboard commands, but at least I can peruse my RSS feeds from any web enabled computer now.
I keep track of updates on 30+ blogs/websites using RSS, which is a heck of a lot easier than manually checking every site each day to see what has changed. I started off with live bookmarks in Firefox, and that was all right for a while . . . except you could only see the post titles, not the full content. Some bloggers (myself included) don't make great, meaningful use of titles to describe what their entry is about. You need to read the first few sentences to figure out what they are writing about, and then to decide whether you are interested in it or not.
That's when I discovered a Firefox plugin called "Fizzle." (Seems like an odd, inappropriate name to me from a marketing standpoint, but what the heck do I know?) Basically, this plugin turns Firefox into a full blown RSS reader like AmphetaDesk, etc. I was really impressed with it and used it for several months.
Now, all of the sudden, Fizzle seems to choke on Engadget's RSS feed and causes Firefox to crash. Could be something new in Engadget's feed, or maybe something in a recent Firefox update breaks Fizzle. I don't know, and to be honest, I don't exactly have a lot of time and energy to spend investigating and resolving the issue.
So, a few days ago, I switched from Fizzle to Bloglines. I had to figure out how to export all my Live Bookmarks into an OPML file (Firefox has a wonderful little plugin for that too, turns out) that I could import into Bloglines, but other than that, it's been a remarkably smooth transition. I'm still learning some of the shortcut keyboard commands, but at least I can peruse my RSS feeds from any web enabled computer now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)