Well, Yast has just informed me that lame is NOT an MP3 player. It's an educational tool for teaching people how to make MP3s.
That's really beside the point. 'Cuz the new I-Tunes TV show feature IS lame. Really, really lame.
Consider this:
I've become a big fan of the new show Lost. Before season two came out, I caught up on season one thanks to Bittorrent. Sure, downloads can sometimes take a whole day, but I'm pretty satisfied with Bram's little invention.
Point is, I was all caught up by the time of the season premier. Sure, I saw it about 18 hours after the rest of the folks who saw it on TV did, but, for being in Italy, only a 1 day delay is more than acceptable. And usually the audio and video are of good to superior quality, even watching it in full screen mode.
So, I-Tunes now sells episodes of Lost about a day after the episode airs. I thought I'd give it a shot.
Well, let me tell you, Pat, I-Tunes' performance was much lamer than the episode, no matter how much you think it sucked.
Sure, it downloaded in a few minutes, as opposed to a few hours with Bittorrent. But that's about the ONLY good thing about it. The video quality was HORRIBLE (unless of course you watch it in Quicktime's thumbnail-size "normal" window). Oh, and since I refuse to pay for Quicktime, I couldn't watch it fullscreen.
So, I must admit, I feel just a little bit ripped off by Steve Jobs.
Now back to figuring out how to listen to MP3s on SUSE 10.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
The Cherry Master
So I just got this message on my Skype account:
[13/09/2005 10.09.54] Dan Gaddum writes :is this the matt hancock that is known as the cherry master?
[10.00.44] Matt Hancock writes: Sorry. I am not the "cherry master."
Too bad he wasn't looking for the key master.
[13/09/2005 10.09.54] Dan Gaddum writes :is this the matt hancock that is known as the cherry master?
[10.00.44] Matt Hancock writes: Sorry. I am not the "cherry master."
Too bad he wasn't looking for the key master.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
War on Poverty, or War on the Poor?
Crime rates are down, and the prison population is way up. Last year 1 out of every 138 US residents was behind bars. That's 900 new inmates a week. 2.1 million total. That's four times the number of inmates in 1980 and more than any other country in the world.
Many of these people are non-violent drug-offenders. Because of "get tough on crime" laws passed in the '80s and '90s they are thrown in jail, and not into re-hab.
Don't get me wrong, violent criminals, murderers, rapists and the like should be behind bars. But that's clearly not the case here.
But if you think about it, could things be any different?
For the last thirty years the economy, in terms of GDP, productivity and employment has grown at a snail's pace compared to the post-war boom that continued into the early 1970s. Not counting the 2.1 million behind bars and those who have stopped looking for work, official unemployment is still at 5.2% More and more people are falling into poverty each day. Despite relatively minor fulctuations, the number of Americans in poverty has climbed steadily since the 1970s.
It's no coincidence that alongside poor economic performance and increasing poverty we've seen an increase in the number of people behind bars. In the absence of an effective education and welfare system and a healthy, expanding economy capable of providing good jobs for all who want to work, the government has turned to the US prison system to keep the under- and unemployed from getting out of hand. Rather than a war on poverty, we have a war on the poor.
Many of these people are non-violent drug-offenders. Because of "get tough on crime" laws passed in the '80s and '90s they are thrown in jail, and not into re-hab.
Don't get me wrong, violent criminals, murderers, rapists and the like should be behind bars. But that's clearly not the case here.
But if you think about it, could things be any different?
For the last thirty years the economy, in terms of GDP, productivity and employment has grown at a snail's pace compared to the post-war boom that continued into the early 1970s. Not counting the 2.1 million behind bars and those who have stopped looking for work, official unemployment is still at 5.2% More and more people are falling into poverty each day. Despite relatively minor fulctuations, the number of Americans in poverty has climbed steadily since the 1970s.
It's no coincidence that alongside poor economic performance and increasing poverty we've seen an increase in the number of people behind bars. In the absence of an effective education and welfare system and a healthy, expanding economy capable of providing good jobs for all who want to work, the government has turned to the US prison system to keep the under- and unemployed from getting out of hand. Rather than a war on poverty, we have a war on the poor.
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Are You F***in' Kidding Me?!
Apparently no.
Apparently this is for real.
I'm getting this, not from The Onion, but from the Seattle Times, which I believe is a reputable newspaper. (Putting the word "Times" in the title tends to have that effect, while using a term like "Sun" generally has the opposite effect. You'd expect good reporting form a New York Times, whereas you'd expect to read about how the campaign to "Save Jordan's Giant Jugs" is "taking off around the world" from someone like The Sun.)
Anyhow, While doing my daily scan of Google News this caught my eye:
Wendy's offers $100,000 reward for "chili finger's" original owner
So this lady bites into a finger while eating a bowl of Chili at a Wendy's in San Jose, California. She sues Wendy's, but then drops the case once it comes out that she has a history of bogus law suits against corporations.
Of course the bad publicity causes a drop in sales for Wendy's.
Wendy's, in the meantime, has hired a private investigator and set up a hotline to try and find out who the finger belongs to. They've even offered $100,000 "for information leading to the finger's original owner." Why they put the word "original" in there is a mystery to me.
Anyway, looks like they've got a lead from Pahrump, Nevada. Get this: it's a woman who recently had her middle finger bitten off by a spotted leapord, "one of several exotic pets she kept around her mobile home."
What the hell!?
Anyway, doctors said they couldn't put the finger back on because of risk of infection. So Sandy Allman, now missing one middle finger, decided to leave the digit behind. "What would I want it for?" she asked.
They haven't been able to confirm whether the Wendy's finger is hers yet. The local police are waiting for prints on the Wendy's finger to be sent from San Jose to Pahrump. They'll then match it up with her finger prints which are, conveniently, already on file because of past charges related to, "a spate of pet thefts." (Charges were later dropped.)
Despite big losses for Wendy's, it seems that the locals have not lost their wits, or their loyalty to Wendy's. As longtime customer Ralph Woodman, 81, put it: "How the hell would you get a finger into the pot without seeing it in there when you're stirring it? It had to be some sort of screwball ruse."
Thank you, Ralph, for a little bit of sanity.
Apparently this is for real.
I'm getting this, not from The Onion, but from the Seattle Times, which I believe is a reputable newspaper. (Putting the word "Times" in the title tends to have that effect, while using a term like "Sun" generally has the opposite effect. You'd expect good reporting form a New York Times, whereas you'd expect to read about how the campaign to "Save Jordan's Giant Jugs" is "taking off around the world" from someone like The Sun.)
Anyhow, While doing my daily scan of Google News this caught my eye:
Wendy's offers $100,000 reward for "chili finger's" original owner
So this lady bites into a finger while eating a bowl of Chili at a Wendy's in San Jose, California. She sues Wendy's, but then drops the case once it comes out that she has a history of bogus law suits against corporations.
Of course the bad publicity causes a drop in sales for Wendy's.
Wendy's, in the meantime, has hired a private investigator and set up a hotline to try and find out who the finger belongs to. They've even offered $100,000 "for information leading to the finger's original owner." Why they put the word "original" in there is a mystery to me.
Anyway, looks like they've got a lead from Pahrump, Nevada. Get this: it's a woman who recently had her middle finger bitten off by a spotted leapord, "one of several exotic pets she kept around her mobile home."
What the hell!?
Anyway, doctors said they couldn't put the finger back on because of risk of infection. So Sandy Allman, now missing one middle finger, decided to leave the digit behind. "What would I want it for?" she asked.
They haven't been able to confirm whether the Wendy's finger is hers yet. The local police are waiting for prints on the Wendy's finger to be sent from San Jose to Pahrump. They'll then match it up with her finger prints which are, conveniently, already on file because of past charges related to, "a spate of pet thefts." (Charges were later dropped.)
Despite big losses for Wendy's, it seems that the locals have not lost their wits, or their loyalty to Wendy's. As longtime customer Ralph Woodman, 81, put it: "How the hell would you get a finger into the pot without seeing it in there when you're stirring it? It had to be some sort of screwball ruse."
Thank you, Ralph, for a little bit of sanity.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
The Presidential iPod
Curious as to what our President is listening too? Check this out.
A Rolling Stone reporter summed up his playlist like this:
"One thing that's interesting is that the president likes artists who don't like him."
This may explain why Bush is pushing so hard to get recording artist Michael Bolton approved as ambassador to the UN. He may be one of the few artists who do not actively oppose the President.
(Thanks to Pat for the article and letting me steal his joke.)
A Rolling Stone reporter summed up his playlist like this:
"One thing that's interesting is that the president likes artists who don't like him."
This may explain why Bush is pushing so hard to get recording artist Michael Bolton approved as ambassador to the UN. He may be one of the few artists who do not actively oppose the President.
(Thanks to Pat for the article and letting me steal his joke.)
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Ridiculous.
RIAA launches new round of lawsuits
More NYU students targeted for illegal file sharing
As many as 25 NYU students could be sued by the Recording Industry Association of America for allegedly using a high-speed version of the internet for illegal file sharing, industry officials said yesterday.
by Kira Peikoff
Full Text
More NYU students targeted for illegal file sharing
As many as 25 NYU students could be sued by the Recording Industry Association of America for allegedly using a high-speed version of the internet for illegal file sharing, industry officials said yesterday.
by Kira Peikoff
Full Text
Advice From Rush Limbaugh
Well, no one can accuse me of being sectarian. I'm at work right now listening to Rush Limbaugh speeches. (I would be listening to his show, but I'd have to pay for that and become a "Rush 24/7 Member.")
Anyway, I think folks on the Left should listen to Rush frequently. He's a great speaker, and you can understand exactly why he's able to connect with so many people, especially working class people, despite the fact that he represents a reactionary agenda that is counter to the interests of the great majority of his fans.
But what I really like is the great advice he gives to the Left:
"And you know, I'll tell you what, there's one thing about the left that worries me. If they would ever figure that all they'd have to do is say, 'Yep, we're liberals, we've got an agenda and we hate Bush and the purpose of our newspaper, our newscast is to destroy them,' they would have credibility because then they're being honest. "
You can listen to the whole speech here, if you like.
Anyway, I think folks on the Left should listen to Rush frequently. He's a great speaker, and you can understand exactly why he's able to connect with so many people, especially working class people, despite the fact that he represents a reactionary agenda that is counter to the interests of the great majority of his fans.
But what I really like is the great advice he gives to the Left:
"And you know, I'll tell you what, there's one thing about the left that worries me. If they would ever figure that all they'd have to do is say, 'Yep, we're liberals, we've got an agenda and we hate Bush and the purpose of our newspaper, our newscast is to destroy them,' they would have credibility because then they're being honest. "
You can listen to the whole speech here, if you like.
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
I Know Where I'll Be...
Monday, April 11, 2005
Adjuncts of the World: Unite!
Here's an article on the elections for the local adjunct union at NYU. Dave was on the winner's campaign staff.
Congratulations!
Congratulations!
Killer Coke!
Since the beginning of his Freshman year at NYU's Gallatin School my brother Dave has been a leader in the national Killer Coke campaign.
In a nutshell, Coke's subsidiaries in Columbia have been accused of working with para-military groups to block efforts to unionize the bottling plants. According to the Killer Coke website, union-busting tactics have included murder, torture and kidnapping.
The Killer Coke campaign's goal is to get Coca Cola to agree to an independent investigation of the human rights abuses.
Coca Cola refuses.
So in order to put pressure on the company, students have now taken to calling for their universities to cancel contracts with Coke.
Coca Cola seems scared... they even sent a rep. from Atlanta to debate my brother at the end of last semester.
NYU stopped short of banning Coke from campus. Instead they recently sent a letter to Coke requesting that they work with the Worker Rights Consortium to address the allegations.
What's the next step for NYU's Killer Coke ativists? Stay tuned (or maybe Dave will update us using the "comment" feature). In the meantime, check out the latest article on the Killer Coke campaign from NYU's Washington Square News.
In a nutshell, Coke's subsidiaries in Columbia have been accused of working with para-military groups to block efforts to unionize the bottling plants. According to the Killer Coke website, union-busting tactics have included murder, torture and kidnapping.
The Killer Coke campaign's goal is to get Coca Cola to agree to an independent investigation of the human rights abuses.
Coca Cola refuses.
So in order to put pressure on the company, students have now taken to calling for their universities to cancel contracts with Coke.
Coca Cola seems scared... they even sent a rep. from Atlanta to debate my brother at the end of last semester.
NYU stopped short of banning Coke from campus. Instead they recently sent a letter to Coke requesting that they work with the Worker Rights Consortium to address the allegations.
What's the next step for NYU's Killer Coke ativists? Stay tuned (or maybe Dave will update us using the "comment" feature). In the meantime, check out the latest article on the Killer Coke campaign from NYU's Washington Square News.
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Here's a recent IM conversation I had about the latest episode of 24 with my friend, associate and sometimes partner in crime (that's right Catone, eat it!) Pat. In the interest of not having to spend too much time on this post, I have not edited the conversation. MWHancock is me, Matt. I know that confuses people sometimes...
MWHancock: Am I wrong, or was the stock footage a little less terrible this episode?
TwistedView: Not nearly as bad.
TwistedView: And they hide it a little with the split-screen box things...
MWHancock: Yeah, that's true.
MWHancock: I'm not sure how I feel about this episode though.
TwistedView: Is it over already?
MWHancock: Yeah.
MWHancock: Remember, I see it without commercials.
TwistedView: Are we watching the same episode?
MWHancock: I think?
TwistedView: Ummm, Airforce One??
MWHancock: Maybe I just don't identify with Air Force one all that much.
TwistedView: That be some cold shit.
MWHancock: Well, here's the thing:
MWHancock: You hate the current president right off the bat because he turned against Palmer last season.
MWHancock: This season, the writers have done nothing to warm you up to him.
MWHancock: If Palmer was in danger you cared 'cuz it was Palmer, and not "the President."
MWHancock: For me, without Palmer inside, Air Force One is just another Boeing.
TwistedView: I think I'm viewing it more from the perspective outside of the show... more on the "wow, 24 has the biggest balls ever."
TwistedView: This brings it back to your "most subversive show on television" standing.
TwistedView: But yes, it would have been better had anyone given a shit about the president at all.
TwistedView: Or his son. Which was kind of gay.
MWHancock: Well, the son was just kinda "generic, vanilla, college, white kid."
MWHancock: And I do pronounce vanilla "vanella."
MWHancock: But, subservsive?
MWHancock: I don't think so...
MWHancock: The good guys are still the good guys.
MWHancock: Where's the shadow government that's subservient to corporate interests?
MWHancock: Where's that Muslim guy who you think is a terrorist and gets killed by his white girlfriend?
MWHancock: Where's that guy in the skyscraper on the cell phone with that hot girl?
MWHancock: Where are the people who paid Nina?
TwistedView: Well, shit.
MWHancock: Don't get me wrong. This season still has me on the edge of my seat. All I'm saying is that, as fans, can we hold 24 up to any standard other than its own best moments?
TwistedView: I trust you're putting all of this in an email?
MWHancock: Well, I thought this might be the next post to my blog.
TwistedView: That works too.
TwistedView: You're probably one of the only people in Italy blogging about this season.
TwistedView: To the victor go the spoils.
TwistedView: I have no idea what that means.
MWHancock: The die is cast!
MWHancock: (It seemed in line with what you said)
MWHancock: (at first I thought: who's Victor?)
TwistedView: (spoils.)
MWHancock: Huh?
TwistedView: Have you read the recent messages now?
TwistedView: And found out about Kevin
TwistedView: 's unhealthy fascination with that chick?
MWHancock: Well, she was hot, right?
MWHancock: Am I wrong, or was the stock footage a little less terrible this episode?
TwistedView: Not nearly as bad.
TwistedView: And they hide it a little with the split-screen box things...
MWHancock: Yeah, that's true.
MWHancock: I'm not sure how I feel about this episode though.
TwistedView: Is it over already?
MWHancock: Yeah.
MWHancock: Remember, I see it without commercials.
TwistedView: Are we watching the same episode?
MWHancock: I think?
TwistedView: Ummm, Airforce One??
MWHancock: Maybe I just don't identify with Air Force one all that much.
TwistedView: That be some cold shit.
MWHancock: Well, here's the thing:
MWHancock: You hate the current president right off the bat because he turned against Palmer last season.
MWHancock: This season, the writers have done nothing to warm you up to him.
MWHancock: If Palmer was in danger you cared 'cuz it was Palmer, and not "the President."
MWHancock: For me, without Palmer inside, Air Force One is just another Boeing.
TwistedView: I think I'm viewing it more from the perspective outside of the show... more on the "wow, 24 has the biggest balls ever."
TwistedView: This brings it back to your "most subversive show on television" standing.
TwistedView: But yes, it would have been better had anyone given a shit about the president at all.
TwistedView: Or his son. Which was kind of gay.
MWHancock: Well, the son was just kinda "generic, vanilla, college, white kid."
MWHancock: And I do pronounce vanilla "vanella."
MWHancock: But, subservsive?
MWHancock: I don't think so...
MWHancock: The good guys are still the good guys.
MWHancock: Where's the shadow government that's subservient to corporate interests?
MWHancock: Where's that Muslim guy who you think is a terrorist and gets killed by his white girlfriend?
MWHancock: Where's that guy in the skyscraper on the cell phone with that hot girl?
MWHancock: Where are the people who paid Nina?
TwistedView: Well, shit.
MWHancock: Don't get me wrong. This season still has me on the edge of my seat. All I'm saying is that, as fans, can we hold 24 up to any standard other than its own best moments?
TwistedView: I trust you're putting all of this in an email?
MWHancock: Well, I thought this might be the next post to my blog.
TwistedView: That works too.
TwistedView: You're probably one of the only people in Italy blogging about this season.
TwistedView: To the victor go the spoils.
TwistedView: I have no idea what that means.
MWHancock: The die is cast!
MWHancock: (It seemed in line with what you said)
MWHancock: (at first I thought: who's Victor?)
TwistedView: (spoils.)
MWHancock: Huh?
TwistedView: Have you read the recent messages now?
TwistedView: And found out about Kevin
TwistedView: 's unhealthy fascination with that chick?
MWHancock: Well, she was hot, right?
Sunday, April 03, 2005
Sin City... Geek-tastic!
Check out this interview with Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez by Kevin Smith.
Now, the big question is: will this movie ever come out in Italy? Or will I be forced to download it with Bittorrent (which I love) and watch it on my laptop.
Eitherway, this movie seems, in a word, awesome.
You can see a couple of good trailers here.
Now, the big question is: will this movie ever come out in Italy? Or will I be forced to download it with Bittorrent (which I love) and watch it on my laptop.
Eitherway, this movie seems, in a word, awesome.
You can see a couple of good trailers here.
Saturday, April 02, 2005
**BREAKING NEWS**
This just in.
My Blog has changed slightly in the last five minutes.
While the title remains, brilliantly, simply, "Matt Hancock's Blog" I've made a slight change to the subtitle that will revolutionize my Blog (and by that I mean I will post to it more frequently). As you can see the subtitle now includes "... and anything else that he feels like posting."
You see, when it was only a political commentary Blog I was under enormous pressure from my publisher to produce... political commentary. So if I didn't have something nice and polished to put up, I just wouldn't post.
But now, now all that has changed. Of course, you'll still find political commentary, but you'll also find much much more. I could post, I dunno, recipes for example. Or just write whatever's on my mind. Or put up pictures.
I can't wait.
My Blog has changed slightly in the last five minutes.
While the title remains, brilliantly, simply, "Matt Hancock's Blog" I've made a slight change to the subtitle that will revolutionize my Blog (and by that I mean I will post to it more frequently). As you can see the subtitle now includes "... and anything else that he feels like posting."
You see, when it was only a political commentary Blog I was under enormous pressure from my publisher to produce... political commentary. So if I didn't have something nice and polished to put up, I just wouldn't post.
But now, now all that has changed. Of course, you'll still find political commentary, but you'll also find much much more. I could post, I dunno, recipes for example. Or just write whatever's on my mind. Or put up pictures.
I can't wait.
Terri Schiavo and Civics 101
The Terri Schiavo case is deeply disturbing.
Mainstream, right wing, and left wing media and the foreign press have all focused on either the human story, or the fact that politicians opportunistically seized on the case for political gain. News reports focused on the drama of a husband pitted against his wife's parents; on the left and right, pundits drew the connection between the Schiavo case and the battle over abortion rights (see Katha Pollit in The Nation); George Bush urged erring on the side of caution when life was at stake. Democrats argued it just wasn't their job to intervene.
But what almost everyone has missed is the not-too-subtle attack on one of the foundations of the US political system--indeed the foundations of liberal democracy: the independent judiciary.
While everyone in the media (center, left and right) was focusing on the Schiavo case (should they pull the plug? who should decide? right to life etc.) Congress and the President directly intervened in the judicial system because they didn't like the way things were going. But to my knowledge, except for one article on CBS News online, no one has gone beyond the specific case to ask what the implications for democracy in the US are.
Everyone knows (it's the first thing kids are taught in school about the US government) that one of the foundations of our system is the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. The judiciary is above partisan politics, the interpreter of the Constitution and the ultimate check on both Congress and the White House.
So when Congress and the White House passed special legislation dictating that a federal circuit court had to hear the case, this was a major attack on judicial autonomy. This is in fact what the conservative Judge Birch wrote in his decision:
"... it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people - our Constitution."
He concluded that, "the Act invades the province of the judiciary and violates the seperation of powers principle."
Whether or not Congress and President Bush acted the way they did for "altruistic" reasons, or to undermine the judiciary, what's important is that they did. Taken in the context of the Bush administration's attacks on civil liberties with the passage of the PATRIOT act and the deliberate erosion of the separation between church and state, the right's intervention in the Schiavo case should not be taken lightly.
Mainstream, right wing, and left wing media and the foreign press have all focused on either the human story, or the fact that politicians opportunistically seized on the case for political gain. News reports focused on the drama of a husband pitted against his wife's parents; on the left and right, pundits drew the connection between the Schiavo case and the battle over abortion rights (see Katha Pollit in The Nation); George Bush urged erring on the side of caution when life was at stake. Democrats argued it just wasn't their job to intervene.
But what almost everyone has missed is the not-too-subtle attack on one of the foundations of the US political system--indeed the foundations of liberal democracy: the independent judiciary.
While everyone in the media (center, left and right) was focusing on the Schiavo case (should they pull the plug? who should decide? right to life etc.) Congress and the President directly intervened in the judicial system because they didn't like the way things were going. But to my knowledge, except for one article on CBS News online, no one has gone beyond the specific case to ask what the implications for democracy in the US are.
Everyone knows (it's the first thing kids are taught in school about the US government) that one of the foundations of our system is the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. The judiciary is above partisan politics, the interpreter of the Constitution and the ultimate check on both Congress and the White House.
So when Congress and the White House passed special legislation dictating that a federal circuit court had to hear the case, this was a major attack on judicial autonomy. This is in fact what the conservative Judge Birch wrote in his decision:
"... it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people - our Constitution."
He concluded that, "the Act invades the province of the judiciary and violates the seperation of powers principle."
Whether or not Congress and President Bush acted the way they did for "altruistic" reasons, or to undermine the judiciary, what's important is that they did. Taken in the context of the Bush administration's attacks on civil liberties with the passage of the PATRIOT act and the deliberate erosion of the separation between church and state, the right's intervention in the Schiavo case should not be taken lightly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)