Back during football season last fall, I griped about not being able to watch the college football game I wanted to see. The way the TV deals are structured between the NCAA and the TV broadcasters (mostly ABC and ESPN, both owned by Disney), people in certain parts of the country are able to watch only pre-defined regional coverage. Even if I wanted to watch other football games, I would be unable to do so without paying for a monthly subscription package plus the College GamePlan from DirecTV. Or I could go out to a sports bar and spend a lot more money than I would like. Watching games over the Internet is not an option where I live, since ESPN360 is not brought into our area.
Contrast that limited availability of content, much less customizable content, with the current NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament coverage. I've been watching games on CBS, the primary carrier for the coverage. Not only does CBS have the ability (which they frequently use) to switch between games to keep up with the most compelling action, but they also stream all the games live on the Internet on the website www.NCAA.com. Using a standard cable broadband connection, I can pick and choose my own game from whichever games are being played right at that moment. I am in control! When CBS's over the air coverage focused on Xavier and Wisconsin, I switched over to the Internet to catch the Oklahoma State game against Pitt.
Sure, they show ads during the online coverage, but they are no more or less intrusive than watching the games on regular TV. They seem to be the same ads. The in-studio team of commentators who provide halftime analysis of the games is clearly the "not quite ready for primetime players," to borrow from the early days of SNL. But they aren't bad, and they do provide decent analysis of the in-game matchups.
I'm just thrilled to be able to watch the game I want online, streaming live as it happens. That is simply wonderful!!! If the technology exists to make this happen, then certainly college football games need to be 'unlocked' like this as well.
I read that the epic Ohio State - USC rematch this fall at the 'Shoe in Columbus, OH will be broadcast on ESPN only. Obviously, that does NOT make me happy! To watch what will be one of the best early-season games next fall, I'm going to have to go to a sports bar. You can bet I'll keep an eye on NCAA.com next fall, but I'm not getting my hopes up that they will be streaming football games being carried by other networks.
It's just sad that such a double-standard exists for network coverage of men's basketball and football.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
A Bad Hair Day for Lance Armstrong
I saw this news item today on Yahoo! It shows that the French anti-doping agency AFLD is willing to go above and beyond the legal limits imposed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in its pursuit of any evidence showing Lance Armstrong guilty of using performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs). Keep in mind the article very clearly states:
I always go back to the fundamental truth that you can never prove a negative. A person can claim that pink and purple polka-dotted rabbits exist in the wild, and no one can prove that person wrong. You cannot prove that something does not exist; only that something does exist. There are many examples of suspected but not yet 'discovered' particles in theoretical physics, of which the Higgs boson is one.
The simple fact that Armstrong has passed, and continues to pass, every single in season, out of season, in competition, random, pre-scheduled, unannounced, and expected drug test does nothing to exonerate him in the eyes of those who believe he's guilty of doping. People might point to an athlete like Marion Jones, who never failed a drug test, but her example should not be used to cast a shadow of suspicion over Armstrong. They are two different individuals, two different athletes in two different sports, unrelated to one another.
Sadly, the suspicion of Armstrong continues to haunt his every move in cycling. It doesn't have to be that way, but the French won't let it go. What now happens if the hair sample tests positive for anything? It's an unsanctioned test. The WADA spokesperson said there is a significant risk of outside contamination for hair samples. A false positive could keep Armstrong out of this year's Tour de France, depending on how quickly his legal team could mount appeals.
The better question would be what impact a false positive would have on Armstrong's stated goal of raising worldwide awareness (and funding) for his cancer fighting foundation through his return to competitive cycling. Armstrong never needed to return to cycling, to expose himself to the repeated and invasive drug testing procedures that strip away any sense of privacy, but he did so anyway. Why would he risk his own reputation and that of the Lance Armstrong Foundation if he were not riding clean?
Just try convincing the French of that.
Testing of hair samples is allowed under French law, but is not recognized by the World Anti-Doping Agency or cycling's governing body UCI.It also seems the only logical explanation for this action by AFLD is because they suspect Armstrong of using DHEA, "a banned substance that can boost testosterone levels." That is the only PED that can be detected in a hair sample that would not typically show in a blood or urine sample. Otherwise, why conduct a test that isn't sanctioned by either the WADA or the UCI?
International doping controls are based on urine and blood tests.
I always go back to the fundamental truth that you can never prove a negative. A person can claim that pink and purple polka-dotted rabbits exist in the wild, and no one can prove that person wrong. You cannot prove that something does not exist; only that something does exist. There are many examples of suspected but not yet 'discovered' particles in theoretical physics, of which the Higgs boson is one.
The simple fact that Armstrong has passed, and continues to pass, every single in season, out of season, in competition, random, pre-scheduled, unannounced, and expected drug test does nothing to exonerate him in the eyes of those who believe he's guilty of doping. People might point to an athlete like Marion Jones, who never failed a drug test, but her example should not be used to cast a shadow of suspicion over Armstrong. They are two different individuals, two different athletes in two different sports, unrelated to one another.
Sadly, the suspicion of Armstrong continues to haunt his every move in cycling. It doesn't have to be that way, but the French won't let it go. What now happens if the hair sample tests positive for anything? It's an unsanctioned test. The WADA spokesperson said there is a significant risk of outside contamination for hair samples. A false positive could keep Armstrong out of this year's Tour de France, depending on how quickly his legal team could mount appeals.
The better question would be what impact a false positive would have on Armstrong's stated goal of raising worldwide awareness (and funding) for his cancer fighting foundation through his return to competitive cycling. Armstrong never needed to return to cycling, to expose himself to the repeated and invasive drug testing procedures that strip away any sense of privacy, but he did so anyway. Why would he risk his own reputation and that of the Lance Armstrong Foundation if he were not riding clean?
Just try convincing the French of that.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Trouble From Browns Camp
You may recall that, not very long ago, I was singing the praises of the new General Manager and head coach of my beloved Cleveland Browns. At the time, they were not very active in picking up high-priced free agents, which I maintain is a smart practice.
Well, since the beginning of March, the level of activity originating from Berea has picked up. A LOT!
Given that most of these new hires are guys familiar to Eric Mangini (the new head coach), there could be some method to his madness. He might just be grabbing the guys he knows can help the Browns win in 2009. Mangini might even be smart to let the hot free agents go early to teams willing to overpay for their services, and then pick up the retreads no one else wants for not much money. Since the New York J-E-T-S! JETS! JETS! JETS!!! were 9-7 in 2008, I can't imagine these guys were in high demand. That winning record belies the fact the Jets crumbled down the stretch, losing four of their last five games, after starting 8-3 and leading their Division through week 12.
Having read about some of the other moves being made by Mangini lately, it's hard to imagine he will have any more success coaching the Browns than he had coaching the Jets. His lifetime record as a head coach in the NFL: 23-26 (including one loss in the postseason).
So are the recent player personnel moves an indication that Mangini knows what he's doing, or not? We won't really know if Mangini deserves the nickname Man-Genius or something much less flattering until they start playing the games in September.
Well, since the beginning of March, the level of activity originating from Berea has picked up. A LOT!
Given that most of these new hires are guys familiar to Eric Mangini (the new head coach), there could be some method to his madness. He might just be grabbing the guys he knows can help the Browns win in 2009. Mangini might even be smart to let the hot free agents go early to teams willing to overpay for their services, and then pick up the retreads no one else wants for not much money. Since the New York J-E-T-S! JETS! JETS! JETS!!! were 9-7 in 2008, I can't imagine these guys were in high demand. That winning record belies the fact the Jets crumbled down the stretch, losing four of their last five games, after starting 8-3 and leading their Division through week 12.
Having read about some of the other moves being made by Mangini lately, it's hard to imagine he will have any more success coaching the Browns than he had coaching the Jets. His lifetime record as a head coach in the NFL: 23-26 (including one loss in the postseason).
So are the recent player personnel moves an indication that Mangini knows what he's doing, or not? We won't really know if Mangini deserves the nickname Man-Genius or something much less flattering until they start playing the games in September.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
The TSA's Full Body Scanner
I am disappointed. Sorely, sorely disappointed.
Today, I had the opportunity to pass through the Tulsa International Airport (three letter ICAO ID: TUL) on my way back to Illinois. Why was I in Tulsa today? I drove with my family this weekend down to Tractor Grandpa and Grandma B's house in Stillwater, OK, then flew back so I could work while they renovate Amy's grandparents' house to get it ready for sale.
Coming back, I knew that the Tulsa Airport was the test bed for the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) new full-body scanners. Why Tulsa, and not someplace else? Good question. The early results from the full-body scanners seem to be decent, with most passengers not minding the intrusiveness of the scan. I'm guessing the TSA wanted to use a smaller airport like Tulsa's for its testing, since installing these scanners is expensive ($170,000 apiece), and they do take slightly longer to scan a person than does a normal metal detector.
It could be the TSA also wanted to pick a fairly conservative region of the country for this initial test. Why would that be important? The imaging technology used in the full-body scanner actually shows just about everything under a person's clothes, including the outline of the body. The TSA has had to defend the new scanner from attacks by privacy-minded groups ever since the announcement that they were going to use this technology. Conducting the first test bed in Tulsa allowed the TSA to introduce people to the scanners in a part of the country where people generally favor security and doing the right thing more so than defending a person's right to privacy over all other concerns.
Having been through the scanner, I have to say I was disappointed. Introducing new technology, a new way of scanning a person for potential hazards to flight, should either simplify or streamline the screening process. If the new scanner was searching for metal objects, then it should be an improvement over the current metal detectors, right? Instead, I actually had to remove more things from my pockets, including anything that would not set off a metal detector, in order to pass through the new full-body scanner. I had to remove my belt, which normally would not set off a metal detector. I still had to remove my shoes to pass through the scanner. On a personal hassle basis, the new scanner was no better, and in some ways worse, than walking through the normal metal detector.
Another way the new scanner is worse than a metal detector is that, with the full-body scanner, it actually forces the person being scanned to stop completely, hold his or her hands above the head, and wait until getting clearance to proceed through the exit. In a normal metal detector, of course, the person continues walking, as long as the detector does not beep while in the middle of the detector. I also thought it strange that I had to hold my hands above my head, which is not something you normally do with a metal detector. I joked that it was like an electronic frisking, which elicited a laugh from the TSA agent (thankfully!).
I also found the current test bed in Tulsa was very selective. Only one or two of the new scanners were installed at the airport, with the majority of travelers passing through lanes that used the traditional metal detectors. I had to choose a lane that processed people through the new full-body scanner in order to see what it was like. The TSA agents manning that lane were almost apologetic about the delay and the hassle involved in passing through the new scanner.
Overall, will these new scanners make air travel safer in America? That's hard to say at this point. The full-body scanners are coming to more airports around America, so more air passengers will get a chance to experience them. Having been through one once, I am disappointed. Before going through the scanner, I half-expected (and really hoped!) that I would not have to remove my shoes or completely empty my pockets, and that was not the case. Personally, I can get through a metal detector with less fuss and in less time, so that will be my preferred option in the future.
Today, I had the opportunity to pass through the Tulsa International Airport (three letter ICAO ID: TUL) on my way back to Illinois. Why was I in Tulsa today? I drove with my family this weekend down to Tractor Grandpa and Grandma B's house in Stillwater, OK, then flew back so I could work while they renovate Amy's grandparents' house to get it ready for sale.
Coming back, I knew that the Tulsa Airport was the test bed for the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) new full-body scanners. Why Tulsa, and not someplace else? Good question. The early results from the full-body scanners seem to be decent, with most passengers not minding the intrusiveness of the scan. I'm guessing the TSA wanted to use a smaller airport like Tulsa's for its testing, since installing these scanners is expensive ($170,000 apiece), and they do take slightly longer to scan a person than does a normal metal detector.
It could be the TSA also wanted to pick a fairly conservative region of the country for this initial test. Why would that be important? The imaging technology used in the full-body scanner actually shows just about everything under a person's clothes, including the outline of the body. The TSA has had to defend the new scanner from attacks by privacy-minded groups ever since the announcement that they were going to use this technology. Conducting the first test bed in Tulsa allowed the TSA to introduce people to the scanners in a part of the country where people generally favor security and doing the right thing more so than defending a person's right to privacy over all other concerns.
Having been through the scanner, I have to say I was disappointed. Introducing new technology, a new way of scanning a person for potential hazards to flight, should either simplify or streamline the screening process. If the new scanner was searching for metal objects, then it should be an improvement over the current metal detectors, right? Instead, I actually had to remove more things from my pockets, including anything that would not set off a metal detector, in order to pass through the new full-body scanner. I had to remove my belt, which normally would not set off a metal detector. I still had to remove my shoes to pass through the scanner. On a personal hassle basis, the new scanner was no better, and in some ways worse, than walking through the normal metal detector.
Another way the new scanner is worse than a metal detector is that, with the full-body scanner, it actually forces the person being scanned to stop completely, hold his or her hands above the head, and wait until getting clearance to proceed through the exit. In a normal metal detector, of course, the person continues walking, as long as the detector does not beep while in the middle of the detector. I also thought it strange that I had to hold my hands above my head, which is not something you normally do with a metal detector. I joked that it was like an electronic frisking, which elicited a laugh from the TSA agent (thankfully!).
I also found the current test bed in Tulsa was very selective. Only one or two of the new scanners were installed at the airport, with the majority of travelers passing through lanes that used the traditional metal detectors. I had to choose a lane that processed people through the new full-body scanner in order to see what it was like. The TSA agents manning that lane were almost apologetic about the delay and the hassle involved in passing through the new scanner.
Overall, will these new scanners make air travel safer in America? That's hard to say at this point. The full-body scanners are coming to more airports around America, so more air passengers will get a chance to experience them. Having been through one once, I am disappointed. Before going through the scanner, I half-expected (and really hoped!) that I would not have to remove my shoes or completely empty my pockets, and that was not the case. Personally, I can get through a metal detector with less fuss and in less time, so that will be my preferred option in the future.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Lincoln - Douglas Debate
As many people know (hopefully, the number of people who know is larger than the number of people who don't), 2009 marks the 200th anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln's birth. When he was a young candidate for the office of U.S. Senator from the state of Illinois, Lincoln engaged in a series of debates against another great orator named Stephen A. Douglas. The seven debates were held during the 1858 campaign, and they primarily focused on the topic of slavery, although they touched on other subjects, as well.
When I was in high school, I belonged to the NFL. Obviously, not the National Football League! The National Forensic League is the body that generally sets the rules and governs the various styles of public speaking contests that make up the format of high school debate. The type of debate known as Lincoln-Douglas Debate posed two speakers, one against the other, to argue for or against a given position. The key difference between Lincoln-Douglas and other forms of team debate is that in Lincoln-Douglas, the speakers offer primarily value-driven arguments, rather than policy-driven arguments. I remember having to take the pro-abortion side in one practice argument, trying to make the value of the mother (whose own life very well could depend on having a successful abortion, in some cases) outweigh the value of the unborn baby. I was unsuccessful.
I bring this up today, because President Obama lifted the Bush 43 ban on federal funding for stem cell research. That made me think about how I would argue either for or against such a move. What is the greatest value proposition we could make in the debate over federal funding on stem cell research?
Most Americans, if you believe the polls, place a higher value on the medical research potential offered by stem cell research. A 2001 poll offered by ABC News found a 60-40 split in Americans, with the majority favoring stem cell research, so the support has been fairly steady throughout the years. What that support for stem cell research effectively means is that most people in America place a higher value on potential future gains in medical treatments for any number of ailments than they place on the embryos that must be destroyed for their cells to be harvested. It's an either-or value proposition.
I'm not quite sure where I stand on this issue. On the one hand, I see value in helping people lead better lives. If we can find the cures for paralysis, blindness, Parkinson's Syndrome and other neurological disorders, then we should make every attempt possible, right? People live longer and longer these days, and why shouldn't those adults be able to live better?
I'm actually reminded of a similar value proposition I've heard circulated by means of explaining the culture clash between America and China. Say a father, his mother, and his only child are involved in a car crash, and both the mother and the child are hurt badly. He has to decide which person to save, and he can save only one. Does he save his mother, who already lived a full life, with grandchildren? Or does he save his only child? In America, we almost always opt for saving the life of the child. In China, with their greater respect for their elders, the man chooses to save his mother.
In effect, we are making the same type of choice when it comes to stem cell research. Do we value our elders' lives higher than we value our children's lives? We already have medical advances and treatments that offer much longer life expectancy than existed in America 30 years ago. People understand the need to exercise and eat right. Americans nearing retirement today can expect to live almost as many years out of the workforce as they spent toiling in it. That's remarkable!
The real question during the Bush 43 administration was whether the Federal Government would spend its dollars to finance public or private stem cell research. Bush decided he would take a stand, and he forbade the use of taxpayer dollars on the research. Private funding still was available, but many research labs depend on Federal grants and other government funding for their studies. Not very many breakthroughs were reported during the past eight years. That was the value choice that Bush decided to make.
Obama today made the opposite value decision, which is his right. Again, the majority of Americans tend to support his value choice, and our notions of democracy tend to abide by the idea that the majority should rule.
My own value choice? If we're going to commit millions or billions of taxpayer dollars on the research, we'd better get some nifty new medical treatments out of it.
When I was in high school, I belonged to the NFL. Obviously, not the National Football League! The National Forensic League is the body that generally sets the rules and governs the various styles of public speaking contests that make up the format of high school debate. The type of debate known as Lincoln-Douglas Debate posed two speakers, one against the other, to argue for or against a given position. The key difference between Lincoln-Douglas and other forms of team debate is that in Lincoln-Douglas, the speakers offer primarily value-driven arguments, rather than policy-driven arguments. I remember having to take the pro-abortion side in one practice argument, trying to make the value of the mother (whose own life very well could depend on having a successful abortion, in some cases) outweigh the value of the unborn baby. I was unsuccessful.
I bring this up today, because President Obama lifted the Bush 43 ban on federal funding for stem cell research. That made me think about how I would argue either for or against such a move. What is the greatest value proposition we could make in the debate over federal funding on stem cell research?
Most Americans, if you believe the polls, place a higher value on the medical research potential offered by stem cell research. A 2001 poll offered by ABC News found a 60-40 split in Americans, with the majority favoring stem cell research, so the support has been fairly steady throughout the years. What that support for stem cell research effectively means is that most people in America place a higher value on potential future gains in medical treatments for any number of ailments than they place on the embryos that must be destroyed for their cells to be harvested. It's an either-or value proposition.
Do we destroy life before it is born in the hopes that current humans can live their lives better in the future?
I'm not quite sure where I stand on this issue. On the one hand, I see value in helping people lead better lives. If we can find the cures for paralysis, blindness, Parkinson's Syndrome and other neurological disorders, then we should make every attempt possible, right? People live longer and longer these days, and why shouldn't those adults be able to live better?
I'm actually reminded of a similar value proposition I've heard circulated by means of explaining the culture clash between America and China. Say a father, his mother, and his only child are involved in a car crash, and both the mother and the child are hurt badly. He has to decide which person to save, and he can save only one. Does he save his mother, who already lived a full life, with grandchildren? Or does he save his only child? In America, we almost always opt for saving the life of the child. In China, with their greater respect for their elders, the man chooses to save his mother.
In effect, we are making the same type of choice when it comes to stem cell research. Do we value our elders' lives higher than we value our children's lives? We already have medical advances and treatments that offer much longer life expectancy than existed in America 30 years ago. People understand the need to exercise and eat right. Americans nearing retirement today can expect to live almost as many years out of the workforce as they spent toiling in it. That's remarkable!
The real question during the Bush 43 administration was whether the Federal Government would spend its dollars to finance public or private stem cell research. Bush decided he would take a stand, and he forbade the use of taxpayer dollars on the research. Private funding still was available, but many research labs depend on Federal grants and other government funding for their studies. Not very many breakthroughs were reported during the past eight years. That was the value choice that Bush decided to make.
Obama today made the opposite value decision, which is his right. Again, the majority of Americans tend to support his value choice, and our notions of democracy tend to abide by the idea that the majority should rule.
My own value choice? If we're going to commit millions or billions of taxpayer dollars on the research, we'd better get some nifty new medical treatments out of it.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Three Thoughts for a Tuesday
Darn it all, I really should write this on Thursday. The alliteration would be much nicer! ...three thoughts for a Thursday...
I really don't like doing this, but I've had such a hard time finding time to blog over the past few weeks between work at work and work at home, I now feel the need to combine three completely unrelated topics into one post. Here we go, and in no particular order:
1. As a Browns fan, I am quite happy to see that the new GM, George Kokinis, is NOT making very many trades or free-agent pickups in the current player market. Let me repeat: NOT making player personnel moves in the days immediately following when veterans become free agents in the NFL can be a good thing. All too often, teams adopt a "Try to win it all this season" approach, and it only hurts their long-term prospects. The Browns tried that last year, after going 10-6 but missing the playoffs the previous season.
Perhaps the previous GM, Phil Savage, thought he only needed a few key free agent pickups to go far in the playoffs in 2008. He made two key trades, for former GB DL Corey Williams and former DET DL Shaun Rogers, which when combined with the previous trade of a draft pick to move up in 2007 to grab QB Brady Quinn, meant the Brownies had ZERO draft picks in the first four rounds of the 2008 draft. Talk about sacrificing the future for a win-now mentality!
Smart NFL GMs tend to put their money on younger players who later grow into top-notch free agents. The important thing (some would say the most important thing!) is to not overpay for previous performance. Think the Patriots really wanted to pay Matt Cassel over $14M after slapping the franchise tag on him at the end of last year? They might have not gotten enough value in return (a second round draft pick from the Chiefs) for Cassel and soon-to-be 34 year old Mike Vrabel... ...but then again, maybe they did.
2. I was saddened to see that the Rocky Mountain News went under after its last published edition last Friday. While I was a freshman (AKA Doolie, Smack, 4 smoke, etc.) at USAFA, we all had to subscribe to a newspaper in order to have three news stories memorized for the breakfast table. Woe to the 4 smokes who all subscribed to USA Today! I actually subscribed to the C. Springs Gazette-Telegraph as a freshman, and then switched to the RMN as an upperclassman. Not many cadets continued to subscribe to any newspaper after the freshman year, which was just indicative of the broader societal trend towards other sources of news and away from print media. And this was six years before the first GUI-based browser made surfing the Internet practical!
At any rate, I feel sad for the loss of the RMN, which was a great paper for two reasons: it was published in tabloid format (which made it easier to flip through), and they had a terrific comics section! Hardly anyone still reads the comics these days, I've noticed. I went out of my way to place a subscription with Comics.com, which delivers 36 different daily comic strips to my Google Reader account. Who does that?!
Other, much more well-established pundits already covered the loss of the RMN, of course. Joe Posnanski had his own thoughts on its demise, made more poignant by the fact he wanted to work there way back when. I was more shocked to hear that San Francisco might be the first major U.S. city to be completely without a major daily newspaper if a buyer for the Chronicle cannot be found.
On the one hand, I fully understand and support the move away from traditional broadcast print media like newspapers. People can and do get their news from other sources these days, right? All too often, small daily papers like the one in our town become news aggregators for sources like the AP; if I've already read those stories online, then why pay for something I have to deal with and recycle later?
On the other hand, I do wonder just where all these newly unemployed reporters will go. Think about it: without the fine investigative reporters being paid by the SF Chronicle, we wouldn't have the BALCO investigation and what we know of the story on Barry Bonds. How many reporters can the AP really absorb, anyway? And don't we want independent views of local news? There should be a way to make local reporting work outside the printed newspaper, but no one has invented it yet. The invariably poor quality of local newspaper and TV station websites is so darn depressing, they aren't worth mentioning.
3. Am I the last person on Earth without a smart phone? My sister dropped their landline and went strictly CrackBerry and cell phone. I see them everywhere, and it really is amazing to see all the things the different apps on the iPhone can do. We were driving back from The Beef House in Indiana two weekends ago, and the person driving let me check out his iPhone. While driving on the highway, I was able to check out the GPS application, put in the path for our route, and even pulled up live weather reporting (including a live radar picture!) for the local area. It's phenomenal! Even the college student working a minimum-wage job "guarding" the lobby for the building where I work has an iPhone.
And yet, I can't really see paying all that money for the monthly service plan for voice, data, Internet access, text, etc., etc. It has to be over $100 per month once you add in all the service charges and network fees, right? Plus, to get the iPhone, you either have to be happy with AT&T (NOT!), or you have to perform delicate and unsanctioned geek surgery to break it loose from the AT&T network. Not gonna happen.
Maybe we're just old-fashioned. We're contemplating swapping our landline at home (still a traditional, hard-wired landline) and two cell phones for one iPhone. The payments would roughly equal each other, since we do pay about $50 per month for our landline and $50 per month for our portion of the family cell phone plan we share with Amy's family. But then I would be without a cell phone, and we still would buy something like an Xlink BT Bluetooth cell phone gateway in order to transfer the phone calls throughout the house.
I just hate the idea of paying additional monthly service fees above and beyond what we already pay. We don't pay for cable TV service, primarily because I don't want to pay over $100 per month for high-definition TV. We do pay for the cable broadband Internet access -- the $42 we pay per month is well worth the cost to not be stuck on dial-up! We don't have an Xbox 360, primarily because I know I would want to also subscribe to the Xbox Live online community, if for no other reason than to be able to play Grifball! Tell me that doesn't look like fun! But I can't really stomach the thought of another monthly service fee. We pay for Netflix every month, but that subscription provides a great value for the price. We don't pay for a TiVO box, since that would be another monthly subscription fee. I feel like I've reached my limit when it comes to monthly subscription fees.
Even with drawing the line where I do, I know that Henry David Thoreau would be aghast at our daily lives these days. There's something to be said for the thought: "Simplify, simplify, simplify."
I really don't like doing this, but I've had such a hard time finding time to blog over the past few weeks between work at work and work at home, I now feel the need to combine three completely unrelated topics into one post. Here we go, and in no particular order:
1. As a Browns fan, I am quite happy to see that the new GM, George Kokinis, is NOT making very many trades or free-agent pickups in the current player market. Let me repeat: NOT making player personnel moves in the days immediately following when veterans become free agents in the NFL can be a good thing. All too often, teams adopt a "Try to win it all this season" approach, and it only hurts their long-term prospects. The Browns tried that last year, after going 10-6 but missing the playoffs the previous season.
Perhaps the previous GM, Phil Savage, thought he only needed a few key free agent pickups to go far in the playoffs in 2008. He made two key trades, for former GB DL Corey Williams and former DET DL Shaun Rogers, which when combined with the previous trade of a draft pick to move up in 2007 to grab QB Brady Quinn, meant the Brownies had ZERO draft picks in the first four rounds of the 2008 draft. Talk about sacrificing the future for a win-now mentality!
Smart NFL GMs tend to put their money on younger players who later grow into top-notch free agents. The important thing (some would say the most important thing!) is to not overpay for previous performance. Think the Patriots really wanted to pay Matt Cassel over $14M after slapping the franchise tag on him at the end of last year? They might have not gotten enough value in return (a second round draft pick from the Chiefs) for Cassel and soon-to-be 34 year old Mike Vrabel... ...but then again, maybe they did.
2. I was saddened to see that the Rocky Mountain News went under after its last published edition last Friday. While I was a freshman (AKA Doolie, Smack, 4 smoke, etc.) at USAFA, we all had to subscribe to a newspaper in order to have three news stories memorized for the breakfast table. Woe to the 4 smokes who all subscribed to USA Today! I actually subscribed to the C. Springs Gazette-Telegraph as a freshman, and then switched to the RMN as an upperclassman. Not many cadets continued to subscribe to any newspaper after the freshman year, which was just indicative of the broader societal trend towards other sources of news and away from print media. And this was six years before the first GUI-based browser made surfing the Internet practical!
At any rate, I feel sad for the loss of the RMN, which was a great paper for two reasons: it was published in tabloid format (which made it easier to flip through), and they had a terrific comics section! Hardly anyone still reads the comics these days, I've noticed. I went out of my way to place a subscription with Comics.com, which delivers 36 different daily comic strips to my Google Reader account. Who does that?!
Other, much more well-established pundits already covered the loss of the RMN, of course. Joe Posnanski had his own thoughts on its demise, made more poignant by the fact he wanted to work there way back when. I was more shocked to hear that San Francisco might be the first major U.S. city to be completely without a major daily newspaper if a buyer for the Chronicle cannot be found.
On the one hand, I fully understand and support the move away from traditional broadcast print media like newspapers. People can and do get their news from other sources these days, right? All too often, small daily papers like the one in our town become news aggregators for sources like the AP; if I've already read those stories online, then why pay for something I have to deal with and recycle later?
On the other hand, I do wonder just where all these newly unemployed reporters will go. Think about it: without the fine investigative reporters being paid by the SF Chronicle, we wouldn't have the BALCO investigation and what we know of the story on Barry Bonds. How many reporters can the AP really absorb, anyway? And don't we want independent views of local news? There should be a way to make local reporting work outside the printed newspaper, but no one has invented it yet. The invariably poor quality of local newspaper and TV station websites is so darn depressing, they aren't worth mentioning.
3. Am I the last person on Earth without a smart phone? My sister dropped their landline and went strictly CrackBerry and cell phone. I see them everywhere, and it really is amazing to see all the things the different apps on the iPhone can do. We were driving back from The Beef House in Indiana two weekends ago, and the person driving let me check out his iPhone. While driving on the highway, I was able to check out the GPS application, put in the path for our route, and even pulled up live weather reporting (including a live radar picture!) for the local area. It's phenomenal! Even the college student working a minimum-wage job "guarding" the lobby for the building where I work has an iPhone.
And yet, I can't really see paying all that money for the monthly service plan for voice, data, Internet access, text, etc., etc. It has to be over $100 per month once you add in all the service charges and network fees, right? Plus, to get the iPhone, you either have to be happy with AT&T (NOT!), or you have to perform delicate and unsanctioned geek surgery to break it loose from the AT&T network. Not gonna happen.
Maybe we're just old-fashioned. We're contemplating swapping our landline at home (still a traditional, hard-wired landline) and two cell phones for one iPhone. The payments would roughly equal each other, since we do pay about $50 per month for our landline and $50 per month for our portion of the family cell phone plan we share with Amy's family. But then I would be without a cell phone, and we still would buy something like an Xlink BT Bluetooth cell phone gateway in order to transfer the phone calls throughout the house.
I just hate the idea of paying additional monthly service fees above and beyond what we already pay. We don't pay for cable TV service, primarily because I don't want to pay over $100 per month for high-definition TV. We do pay for the cable broadband Internet access -- the $42 we pay per month is well worth the cost to not be stuck on dial-up! We don't have an Xbox 360, primarily because I know I would want to also subscribe to the Xbox Live online community, if for no other reason than to be able to play Grifball! Tell me that doesn't look like fun! But I can't really stomach the thought of another monthly service fee. We pay for Netflix every month, but that subscription provides a great value for the price. We don't pay for a TiVO box, since that would be another monthly subscription fee. I feel like I've reached my limit when it comes to monthly subscription fees.
Even with drawing the line where I do, I know that Henry David Thoreau would be aghast at our daily lives these days. There's something to be said for the thought: "Simplify, simplify, simplify."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
