PEAK OIL ENTERS THE MAINSTREAM

I was recently digging through a directory of old bookmarks and stumbled across [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4077802.stm|a link to an article from June 10, 2005] at News.BBC.co.uk about peak oil and how more than just obscure geologists and conspiracy theorists are talking about it. Here's an excerpt:

Is global oil production reaching a peak?

A few years ago only a handful of geologists and academics were considering such a possibility.

But now it appears even governments are taking a serious look at the subject.

The question is occupying more and more minds around the world.

It could happen soon.

A French government report on the global oil industry forecasts a possible peak in world production as early as 2013.

That's funny, [http://thepete.com/2-years-until-oil-begins-to-run-out|I heard it was going to happen earlier than 2013] (try as early as this year according to some analysts). Still, it's nice to see that some media around the world (and businesses and governments) are starting to talk about what could be as world changing as the Internet, only in a very bad way.

Now if we could just get the US media to start telling us about it.

$100 LAPTOP FOR DEVELOPING NATIONS

This guy from MIT called Nicholas Negroponte is developing a laptop that will cost $100 to make. That's right--$100. The idea is to build a practical laptop for people in developing nations that would be so cheap that even they could afford it and if they couldn't, rich folks like you and me wouldn't mind donating to help pay for them.

Pretty cool idea, huh?

You can read more about it at Negroponte's project website: http://laptop.media.mit.edu/

The design for these puppies is actually pretty cool--so much so that I wouldn't mind picking one up for myself sometime. Sadly, they won't be for sale to people in developed nations, though I don't know why not. Hell, mark the thing up to $200 and you'll make plenty of profit and I'll still get a linux laptop for what I consider to be cheap.

That's right--it'll probably be a Linux laptop because they're going ultra cheap. Steve Jobs offered the Mac OS for free, but Negroponte wants to only use open source software on his LT.

What an awesome guy!!

FREEDOM OF SPEECH TAKES A HIT

Well, here's a little reminder for us that despite the social laws we break by saying things like "Bush is a criminal" there are no actual laws in the US stopping us from saying things like "the holocaust didn't happen" and "here's a red star on my shirt because I'm a commie" even though both things are going to be disagreeable to people.

Of course, I'm not trying to deny the holocaust--but there shouldn't be anything illegal about being ignorant or stupid or even wrong. I'm jumping ahead a bit. According to [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111700583_pf.html|an article] at WaPo a British historian called David Irving was arrested in Austria recently for breaking their "Holocaust Denial" law. Seriously--it's illegal to deny the holocaust in Austria.

Meanwhile, an article from Reuters.com over at CNN.Netscape.CNN.com (don't blame me, it's their URL) reports on a guy in Hungary who wore a red star on his person to a political demonstration two years ago. He was tried and convicted of wearing the star which was banned as a communist symbol after Hungary "threw off" communism back in 1989.

Now, I'm no commie nor am I a holocaust denier--but do you know how many people you'd have to arrest for these types of crimes in the US? Loads of people still believe (as stupid as it is) that the Holocaust was trumped up, made up, or simply overblown. In America, we believe that it's their right to be as dumb as you want to be.

I mean, think about what would happen if Austrians took the "Holocaust Denial" to the next degree. Suddenly, being wrong or being an idiot would be illegal. Where would we draw the line then? Being wrong or being stupid? While in theory, banning both sounds like a great idea, who decides who's right and wrong? Smart and stupid? It's got positively Orwellian ramifications. There's also the religious aspect of laws that ban certain themes of speech.

If you're Christian you believe that God gave ever human on Earth free will. By legislating things like swastikas, red stars and words like "I deny the holocaust happened" we take away our right as humans to truly exercise that free will.

Really, what's the strength in doing the right thing if you're going to go to jail for doing the wrong thing? Sure, certain things like murder and theft need these kinds of threats to stop people from going totally sociopathic but simple acts of what you express? We, in America, are supposed to believe that we can say almost anything we want and not have to suffer for it. Despite the things I usually write about, this is still the case--well, socially, this isn't, but that's for another blog post.

However, there is some freedom of expression I don't think is cool. This is the right of freedom of speech guaranteed corporations. Whether you're Christian or not, I think it's generally safe to say that you probably agree that corporations are not living beings. Therefore it's safe to say that God did not give them free will. So why does the law of many different lands grant corporations many (if not all) of the same rights as individual humans?

The list of examples of how corporations abuse this "right" would go on for a very long time. However, I am reminded of this type of abuse by two recent stories in the news.

First, there's AOL's attempt to "advertise" their new chatbots on their instant messaging service. [http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/1700AP_AOL_IM_Buddies.html|an article] from AP.org available at SeattlePI.com reports on how AIM upon signing in to their AIM accounts, users were greeted with a notification about these new chatbots that will give you movie listings, gift ideas, and more. However, that wasn't all they did--AOL added these chatbots to your buddy list automatically. The catch? Everyone got these messages and everyone had the 'bots added to their buddy list--there was no way to opt out and what was worse was that you got them more than once.

I got the message twice even after I deleted them from my buddy list. Why is this an abuse of the freedom of speech? Well, basically because we didn't ask to be contacted about these services. We sign up to chat with our friends--not get services. There's the rest of the Web for that.

Granted, this isn't much of a big time abuse, but it's still an example of it--so don't accuse me of making a mountain out of a mole hill. I'm just sayin'...

[http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1321756|Another article] from AP.org, this one available at ABCNews.com reports on how DishTV has essentially bought a town for ten years. That's right, you can now visit Dish, Texas.

In exchange for a decade of free DishTV, Clark, Texas has renamed itself Dish. Now, sure, the legal voters who live in the 55 homes in Dish, Texas, all voted on this and all agreed to do it--and that's fine. But this smacks of corporatism--the game corrupt governments play where they let corporations get their way. The line between state and corporations should stay just as pronounced as the line between church and state. After all, corporations are not human beings and should not have the same access to government that individuals do.

At least, that's my opinion.

So, while I think it's fine for an individual human to have an incorrect belief or even a blatantly offensive belief, I don't think it's right to allow corporations to do the same. They are not people and have infinitely larger resources than just about any single human.

So, like [http://thepete.com/prussian-blue-cute-young-blond-girls-sing-about-racist-hate-in-a-bad-way/#comment-21417|those little blond girls who sing (poorly) about how superior the white race is], I think Irving should be allowed to be blatantly, patently wrong if he chooses to be.

I have no problem with people disagree with me until it effects the rights of myself or others.

Well, I may not think what your expressing is a great idea and I might be critical of your point, but ultimately, each human on this planet is entitled to their opinion. Even as an Atheist, I believe that.

Star Trek Communicator Cell Phone? Yep!

One of the things I've always wanted to see as a reformed Trekkie is a cell phone designed to look like the classic Trek communicator. The idea that these jobbies predated the practical cell phone by several decades make me want one all the more.

Finally, someone has come up with one. While [http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27659|it's not going to be available until 2006] (according to TheInquirer.net), it's nice to see that Trekkies are still a respected market--almost. There's always an "almost" when it comes to respecting fanboys.

Why an "almost"? Well, first off, look at that pic (which I stoll from engadget.com's [http://engadget.com/entry/1234000137067872/|post on the delay of this phone]). Sure, it's probably just concept art, but take a good look at it. Now, take a look at an official replica:

Does the cell phone look like the replica? I don't think so. Also, when the phone rings, Commander Worf tells you about it. COMMANDER WORF?? This makes no sense at all. It should just beep politely at you like the classic communicator politely beeped at Kirk, Spock and McCoy.

To top it off, the faux-Trek phone's display will mimmic the look of the control panels aboard the Next Generation-era starships!! Pardon my geekiness, but, WTF???

Unless they do a serious redesign (like at least let us choose our own ringtone), I think I'll pass on this one, folks.

However, if you're a less discerning fanboy than I, feel free to check out [http://www.sonamobile.com/themephones/main.asp|the official product page].

USMil IN IRAQ RUNS OUT OF BULLETS, MUST IMPORT FROM ISRAEL

I think there's some serious depressing irony in this story.

Here's something from September 25, 2005 that I stumbled across but never got around to blogging about, [http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article314944.ece|an article] from Independent.co.uk that reports on how the USMil in Iraq are shooting so many bullets at insurgents American bullet makers can't keep up.

Is anyone really surprised?

Here's an excerpt from the article with a few salient facts:

US forces have fired so many bullets in Iraq and Afghanistan - an estimated 250,000 for every insurgent killed - that American ammunition-makers cannot keep up with demand. As a result the US is having to import supplies from Israel.

A government report says that US forces are now using 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition a year. The total has more than doubled in five years, largely as a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as changes in military doctrine.

250,000 bullets for every single insurgent killed? That's a seriously shitty score on Galaga. Hell, if my shot-to-kill ratio was ever that low, I stop blowing quarters on the Galaga/Ms. Pac-Man game at the arcade down in Westwood Village and just stick to solitaire.

Solitaire sounds like a great idea for Bush--after all, we all know he doesn't play well with others.

But seriously--that's a lot of shooting!

[ThePhlog] 11/16/2005 10:45:09 PM

--
Posted by ThePete to ThePhlog at 11/16/2005 10:45:09 PM

FDA LET POLITICS GET IN THE WAY OF DAY-AFTER-PILL

Wow, if true, this is more proof of how completely screwed up the United States Government is. MarketWatch.com is [http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7BB4015271-892F-48A8-975F-E460B2FAD4A1%7D&siteid=google|reporting] that the US Food and Drug Administration behaved unusually in rejecting Plan B, the morning-after-you-have-sex-but-don't-want-to-have-sex pill. Here are a few selections from the above-linked article:

While the agency followed its general procedures for considering Barr Laboratories Inc.'s application to approve its "Plan B" pill for over-the-counter sales, aspects of its review process were "unusual," the Government Accountability Office, which serves as Congress' investigative arm, said in its report.

FDA's scientific advisors in 2003 overwhelmingly urged approval of the OTC application. The agency typically follows the recommendations of its advisory panel. But FDA in May 2004 rejected the application, citing worries about use of the pill by young teens without a doctor's supervision.

Barr reapplied to sell Plan B without a prescription to women 16 and older, while requiring prescriptions for those under 16. The FDA in August indefinitely postponed a decision on the application, citing uncertainty about its ability to enforce age limits.

The GAO probe found that high-level FDA officials were more involved than is usually the case in decisions to approve drugs for over-the-counter use. Also, investigators found conflicting accounts as to whether the decision to reject the application for OTC use was made before the agency's reviews were finished, the report said.

How many contradictions can you find?

I love how the FDA says that they couldn't guarantee that under-age kids would use Plan B--what about cigarettes? Plan B prevents life from occuring while cigarettes prevent life from continuing. That's the most absurd argument I've heard in a while--OK, it really isn't--what absurd argument could hold a candle to "we've got to stay the course in Iraq because if we pull out, the terrorists win."

Regardless, it's just as stupid and simplistic an argument.

What the Plan B rejection really boils down to are these faux-morals these faux-Christians in DC are going on about. They get all up in the faces of so-called "activist judges" when they say things like "the use of the word 'God' in the Pledge of Allegience is unconstitutional" yet it's totally cool for a bunch of Washington Republicans to try and change Florida law so that one woman in a vegetative state isn't put out of her misery.

So, here we have the FDA rejecting a pill that some might call "an instant abortion." Well, I happen to not be cool with abortions myself--however, I'm all about the freedom to do what I want with my own body and if I had a womb I'd expect to have ultimate control over what I let grow in it. However, those damn hypocritical Republicans in DC are too busy killing Iraqis and USGIs to realize that killing unborn babies isn't anywhere near as bad as killing Iraqis and USGIs.

Isn't that funny? Those damn Republicans are all about the sanctity of 1) marriage, 2) life and 3) the White House, yet we get to deal with the following:

1) When gays want to get married, they're second-class citizens.

2) When 2000 American lives are lost in Iraq and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives are lost, they say (effectively) plenty more will have to die or the terrorists win.

3) When Bush says there are WMD in Iraq, a threat to America in Iraq, that he'd get Osama dead or alive, and is wrong on all counts, we are told mistakes happen. On The Colbert Report last Monday night former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey reminded us that Clinton was impeached over a lie about sex. How many more things does Bush have to get wrong before he gets impeached?

Ah, you Republicans. It's nice to hear that, according to NYT [http://nytimes.com/2005/11/15/politics/15cong.html?ei=5094&en=1b0f7720627f5fd3&hp=&ex=1132117200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print|you want to push Bush to come up with an exit strategy from Iraq] but this is not enough to regain the trust of this American citizen.

I'd feel this way regardless of what person was in the White House. If Gore had pulled this crap I'd be ranting about him, instead. This isn't about right or left, this is about laws and justice. When are you Republicans (and you lazy-ass Democrats) going to do something about how you're all going to look in the eyes of history? What am I saying? History is written by the winners--even if they are a bunch of losers.

Awesome DIY Mini-MP3 Player Kit

A few days ago, HackADay.com [http://hackaday.com/entry/1234000397067512/|blogged on this great Do-It-Yourself mini-mp3 player]. It's probably the simplest, most basic player ever built, so simple, [http://www.walrus.com/%7Eraphael/html/mp3.html|its designer, Raphael Abrams, says all you need to build it are the parts and a soldering iron]--no fleet of Asian conveyor belt workers or anything, pretty cool. Here's a pic:

Perhaps I am slightly mistaken, you do need Abrams' programming and a compact flash card, but the former comes with [http://www.walrus.com/%7Eraphael/html/kits.html|a kit he is now selling from his site for $123]. Too steep for you? Well, Abrams says the project is intermediate-level, so if you're comfy with a PIC programmer you can really DIY.

Or, just stick with your iPod shuffle, which ever...

Recent Pics from The Minicam

I'm a gadget-man--NO!! I don't say!!

I usually keep with me a little camera that I simply refer to as my minicam. You can see it there to the left. It's a cheap little guy--$100 about two years ago at Best Buy. It takes stills and video. It's got a whopping 2x digital zoom for the still pictures and can record up to about an hour straight of video without conking out. That's with the 1GB compact flash card in there. Without it, the minicam can only grab about 3 minutes of video.

Anyway, I used to take loads of pictures with my camera phone, but I got tired of spending $10 a month just to upload pictures. So, I cancelled Sprint Vision and I'm back to uploading manually. No real big deal, it's just a matter of me finding the time to do it. So, here's the time.

First up we have:

That's me in front of the Beard Papa sign at the Hollywood and Highland Complex in Hollywood. Beard Papa happens to sell amazing cream puffs. If you're into sweets and pastries, check them out! They're apparently very popular in Japan and I first learned about them from fellow Angelenos over at [http://franklinavenue.blogspot.com/|FranklinAvenue.net] (man, that's a great blog--I get sucked in there every time I visit!). That pic was taken by TheWife back on October 28, the night some members of my family came to see my show. Man, I should have taken some pics of them, huh?

A bit earlier in October TheWife and I were at the Arclight, or as I like to call it, the Cinerama Dome, to see [http://pocketreviews.net/index.php?p=2516|Wallace and Gromit and the Curse of the Were-Rabbit] and noticed they had some cool stuff in one of their window displays. Here are the two pics I took:

It's a comparison of all of the different film formats. Pretty cool for a film geek (and projectionist) like me. Click the pic for a version large enough to read what each format is.

Here's a pic of a reel of 70mm film--I remember the first time I saw a reel of 35mm film. I thought that was huge--70mm is truly massive.

Next up we have:

Super Muerto!! This I saw in the window of my favorite comic and toy shop in Hollywood, [http://meltcomics.com|Meltdown Comics]. They're doing [http://www.meltcomics.com/events/archives/00000077.html|a special event where they are selling Artemio Rodriguez prints until November 22, 2005]. So, if you're in the area and you dig art as cool as that, stop by Meltdown at 7522 Sunset Boulevard.

And finally we've got...

KITTIES!!

Those are our little fury ones, Ecks (l) and Zaphod (r) spooning in the cat tree.

Usually they're not that friendly (or gay ;) ). Literally, about 30 minutes before I took the above pics they were fighting like Kirk and Spock on the planet Vulcan. Dumb fuzz-balls...

BUT THEY'RE SO CUUUUUUTE!

AOL FINALLY DOES WHAT I THOUGHT THEY'D DO YEARS AGO

TVWeek.com is [http://www.tvweek.com/article.cms?articleId=28987|reporting] on AOL's new plan to offer streaming episodes of old Time-Warner TV shows. Here's an excerpt from the article:

In a groundbreaking deal, America Online is expected to announce today that it has bought 30 TV series from the Warner Bros. library to launch a free ad-supported broadband TV network, to be dubbed In2TV.

The AOL-Warner Bros. deal marks the first time traditional TV programming has been made available over the Internet on such a large scale, and it promises new opportunities and threats for advertisers, syndicators and competitors.The news comes on the heels of other industry-changing deals: Last month The Walt Disney Co. announced plans to sell ABC's hit shows to iPod owners via Apple Computer's iTunes. And last week CBS and NBC made deals to put some of their programming on-demand via Comcast and DirecTV, respectively.

This is cool--though, I wish they would allow for downloading and not just streaming. Sometimes people want to watch things without having access to a 'net connection. Can't stream without a connection. In fact, I'm a little confused about this hesitation to allow downloads.

I guess the paranoia is about people easily sharing downloaded shows so friends don't have to pay for the shows, themselves. The thing is, it's already pretty easy to share shows.

After all, it's a simple process for most of us these days to record something on our DVRs, transfer that something to our PC and then share it with friends. Hell, it's not that difficult to run a direct line to your PC to capture the show directly on your hard drive, making it available to others instantly. So, that excuse for not allowing downloading doesn't hold that much water.

The next excuse is that no one wants to download an entire show or movie right now. It takes too long and the quality is lousy.

First, I know maybe two people who actually care about picture quality. I don't get the business-world's obsession with picture and sound quality. Sure, color and stereo were obviously good ideas. But digital TV versus analog? I bet the average TV watcher couldn't tell the difference (and if they could, they wouldn't be willing to pay more for it). Dolby does sound great, but only home-theater fanatics bother with it. So, can we just cut the quality crap? I'd watch a TV show in black and white if it was well written and I think if the show is good, people don't mind a little pixelation. Enough with the quality excuse.

Second, if it takes so long to download a show, why have movie companies been freaking out for years about bootleggers? According to some industry estimates booters have been "robbing" the movie industry of millions of dollars. Sounds like there are plenty of people who are downloading movies. Hell, look what happened when Apple started offering legal music downloads. People actually bought them!

But here is the business world, dragging their feet (big surprise).

Years ago, when AOL first merged with Time-Warner, I thought this was going to be a great thing. I figured AOL would be streaming Real Media versions of Warner shows within the year. Nope! Now that downloading is practical, they're just now catching up to what they could have done in 2001.

Remember that old slogan of UPS? "Moving at the speed of business."

That's not something to brag about.

And for the record, the iTunes Music Store does not sell downloadable videos to iPod owners only--anyone can download videos from iTMS and then watch them on any device that Quicktime will run on. MAN, media people are fricken morons!!