Trigger Happy Much

Tonight on CBS Eyewitness news there was a piece that I couldn't believe! Check it out for yourself! A man lost his dog to a trigger happy cop in South San Francisco. The owner took his year old boxer to the park where it often played with other dogs. His dog and another began to play rough, at which point the owner of the other dog screamed. Her husband, an off-duty police officer, ran over and shot the boxer. I mean come on! Dogs play rough! The cop couldn't give the owner a chance to get his dog before he killed her? Dog fights aren't over within seconds; there is no need to take such drastic action so quickly. Not to mention they weren't fighting... I know we have had our dog problems in San Francisco, but these cases were due to negligent, stupid owners, who often trained their dogs to be aggressive. What about the lady who used to lock her son in the basement so the dogs wouldn't attack him, and then was shocked when the dogs killed her son. The woman was an idiot, a dog that displays that kind of aggression needs to be put down. Don't jump to conclusions about a breed or dogs in general because of the morons in the world. The owner of the boxer described the scene and could barely talk he was so upset. He said his dog had the other dog by the ear, which is one way a dog will play, (I have two that always tug on each others ears) if she had gone for the neck of the other dog it might be different. Once the officer shot the dog he described how she just went limp, and died. What a sad, ridiculous thing to happen. Anyone who has a pet knows how they become part of the family. To watch your dog get shot because she was playing...well there are no words. You would have to shoot me too in order to get me off the guy. That is some bull shit right there, and totally uncalled for. How infuriating!

Mercury News Comparison

As I was reading some posts about the differences between the newspaper and the internet version of the Mercury News I realized everyone did the same thing. They compared an article that could be found in both mediums, but no one was finding any conclusive differences. Some people said the articles online were more informative while others believed the newspaper had more information. It just depended on the article they chose to compare. So I decided I would compare the layout and access to the information. As a consumer of news, I think it is important to be able to access the information you want quickly and easily. The front page of the newspaper has the beginning of various articles they feel are particularly interesting, as well as a small index in the bottom corner to show which pages different sections begin on. The home page of the website serves a similar purpose; there is a lot of information that generally leads you to other sections and topics. The layout of both the front page of the newspaper and the home page of the website offer major sources of interest and are often cluttered, but once you navigate past the front page, the website becomes so much quicker and offers a lot more. If you go out to the site map navigation becomes incredibly simple. It is cleanly laid out, easy to read, and lets you get to a section of interest quickly. The broad topics let you find what you want fast, then helps direct you to countless subcategories beneath it. It doesn't matter what your looking for, it helps you narrow your search quickly and easily. Trying to find something in the newspaper can be tricky and incredibly awkward; the big cumbersome papers never seem to fold the way you want. I realize that most of the information can be accessed through the homepage, but the site map offered a cleaner layout to follow. If you do decide to navigate through the home page, it provides a lot of extras the newspaper couldn't possibly offer like, breaking news, videos, blogs, discussion boards and podcasts. There is access to the yellow pages, traffic reports, and a Bay Area calendar. The calendar is great; I wait for Thursday's newspaper because it has the "eye" in it. This is a section that reports upcoming events for that weekend and the week to follow. It is practically the whole reason I subscribe! With the website I can actually search the calendar for specific types of events and dates. How easy is that? As far as access to information, you can't beat the website. It provides quick access and a lot more small interest articles, as well as tons of extras. You can look back on archived information and search by topic. Newspapers are big, awkward and don't offer any extras. In this up-to-the-second world we live in, the paper just can't compare.

As a side note, and small pet peeve, I thought I would mention another thing about newspapers that I find very annoying. The fact that they'll print an article on two different pages, and we're not talking about page one and two! I don't want to start reading something on the front page and continue reading on page 4C (which is not even in the same section); I want to read the end of the article where I began the article. With the clumsiness of the newspaper, I hate having to peel it apart every time I start a new article. I realize everything can't go on the front page, but lets try to keep it in the same section!

Mommyblogger & Feminist Unite

I recently came across an article in the Metro, "Silicon Valley's Weekly Newspaper", about the blogging conference for women held in San Jose in July. After the success of the event, BlogHer was created as a way to connect to different women and search blogs by interest or topic. Their conference brought many different types of women, which no doubt led to conflict, and not so civil discussions. One woman, Sherri wanted to add her two cents about mommybloggers, "I've spent one evening in San Jose...near a handful of obnoxious 'mommybloggers' and I already want to rip their fucking ovaries out. I don't want to hear about how many times a day your retarded kid poops or stabs itself in the eye with its own foot. I don't want to hear about how it was extracted from your smelly, overstretched vagina." Wow Sherri, tell us how you really feel.


The feminists at the conference slam the stay-at-home moms for abandoning their career to be with their children. While, the moms argue that the whole point of feminism was for the right to make a choice. Yet, in another room, women who love to blog about sex get together. Even here, the women differ drastically. Young women who like to talk about their sexual escapades, and wives who question how much of their sex lives should be disclosed can find commonality in what they want to talk about. Despite all of these women's different ideas, values, and interests, they all came to generate more opportunities to get their blogs out there. Only 12% of the top blogs are written by women. (Technorati) The women at the conference hope to change this. They hope by getting together to find common communities in the blogosphere, they can create a more prominent place for women blogs. If you want to get involved in some of these conversations, you should check it out at BlogHer, just try to keep comments like Sherri's to a minimum.

The Race for California

We've all heard them; those annoying campaigns that run endlessly during elections. In fact, right now it is pretty hard not to see one. With the upcoming Governor election in California, Phil Angelides and Arnold Schwarzenegger are launching ads in full force. And just in case you have been hiding under a rock for the past couple of months, you can check out ads for Schwarzenegger and Angelides. Unfortunately the candidates aren't satisfied with simply promoting themselves. They all insist on running ads that smear their opponent in hopes that even if you don't like them, maybe you will consider them as the lesser of two evils. They all promise a better California and a brighter tomorrow, but with all the shit flinging and smoke they blow up your ass, who knows what the candidates really stand for. The latest ad by Phil Angelides reminds us of the evils of Bush and then follows up by showing Schwarzenegger repeatedly rooting for the President; seemingly trying to demonstrate that our current Governor advocates for corruption. The tagline is "Arnold Swarzenegger is for George W. Bush. Is he for you?" In reality, all of the opinions and "facts" in these campaigns are so slanted and taken out of context, it makes it impossible to make an informed decision. For once I would love to see a campaign that was actually based on the candidate's platform. It let you know what the candidate considered "the important issues", what he wanted to fix, and how he was going to do it; and not once would it mention the opponent or use smear tactics. That in itself would be reason enough for me to vote for someone. I want a Governor who can start his potential leadership position on a well communicated, mostly honest, and positive note.

Dinosaurs, Records, and Now Books...Nah

Are books following in the footsteps of the dinosaurs? Are we looking at the Ice Age for literature as we know it. I am not sure, but I would have a hard time believing people would let books be replaced without a fight. Who wants to sit at their computer to read? Even if I have to read and edit something as short as an article for my work newsletter, I print it out; I never read it off the screen. I have never used, or even heard of these readers for e-books, so I don't know how they work. They may be great, I don't know, but there is something about a book people love and want. I can just toss a book in my bag, but with an e-book I would have to make sure it is protected and secure before I could take it anywhere. Ok, I may be anal about my computer, but a book?!?! Do I really want that kind of responsibility over a story? What about the battery? I really don't want another thing that needs to be recharged; I already have enough electronics that need their battery life monitored. The great thing about a book is, even after my ipod dies, I still have something there to entertain me. I don't want to have to depend on a battery to read my story, or be tethered to a wall. And I don't want to have to scroll; I quite like turning pages, thank you. Here's a scenario we all know...You're lying in bed reading your book, when you come to the end of a chapter. It's a really good story, but it's getting late and you aren't quite sure if you should start a new chapter. You glance at your clock and flip ahead in your book to see how many pages you would have to read to find out what happens next. Is it going to get too late if I keep reading, or should I just put the book down now? You find out it is 20 pages to finish the next chapter, now chances are you know what 20 pages is, and about how long it takes you to read that; but do you have any idea what an inch on a scroll bar means? Probably not. Sure, it is convenient to able to check things quickly on a computer, maybe to reference an article, but if you truly want to read a magazine, you want the real thing. I know of a lot of companies which hoped to save money by stopping mailings and puting their newsletter online instead; but most of the time, the idea is put down by the readers who insist on having the paper in their hands. I know, I know, it has happened before; records were replaced with CD's...but that doesn't necessarily mean it will happen with books. Quality played a big part of that. People were willing to get rid of their records because the sound quality from a CD far surpassed what vinyl could provide. What significant improvement is an e-book going to have over a regular book? I can't see any. It isn't more convenient, it doesn't provide better quality, and it isn't easier to read. So why then, would I chose to change? I don't know about you, but it would take some real convincing to get me to read a book in an electronic version. And if there are enough people who feel the same way I do, then I don't believe we will see the extinction of books anytime in the near future.

Download This

If you really wanted to stop illegal downloading you would have to make lawsuits more common. The only reason someone is going to give up getting something for free is if there is a legitimate risk involved. In 2003 only 261 people were sued for sharing music; in proportion to how many people illegally download music, this number is very small. They need to do more than make an example of a small percentage of those who share files and warn that it could happen to you too. No one believes it will actually happen to them because it so rarely happens. People have to believe that if they share files, they will be prosecuted. It is expensive and difficult for the RIAA to go after people and monitor the internet, but if illegal downloading is making as much of a financial impact as they claim, they need to invest the money to try to stop it now so they don't lose even more money in the long run. File sharing needs to be associated with something that people feel is an actual crime, like theft; most people feel it is not really stealing.

The Piracy Deterrence and Education Act of 2004 was a bill that actually proposed jail time if it became a law. It allowed up to three years of jail time for people who shared more than 1,000 songs on P2P networks. I think the idea of going to jail would be a much stronger deterrent than paying fines. If they really wanted to stop people from file sharing, they should have thrown a lot of money and legal power at getting this bill passed.

Only after people are legitimately worried about the consequence of downloading would advertising be effective. It would serve simply as a visual reminder of what would happen if they went against the law. One ad could start with a guy sitting on a bed listening to his mp3 player, and as the shot pans out, you pass through some bars, and realize he is in jail. The message would be something to the effect of "Aren't you glad you downloaded that music now? You're going to need all the entertainment you can get in here." Another ad could compare a $15 CD with $250,000 fine, and ask if it was really worth it. I am not great with clever taglines, but I am sure someone could come up with some great ideas for a campaign like this. A campaign that reminds people that it is an actual crime with a serious and real punishment behind it.

Apple Picking

When life takes away your apple, it is impossible to make apple pie! I have been without my mac for 3 weeks now, and it makes me realize how much we truly depend on our computers. It's a machine that has become such a standard, required piece of equipment. Starting a new semester without a computer is becoming increasingly difficult. By the way, did I mention that one of my classes is Computer Application Basics for graphic design...a class that pretty much entails turning on a computer, clicking this and dragging that. This means I haven't been able to do the projects or participate in any classes yet this semester! Not good!

Then there is also this class...our daily posts have been considerably difficult. I can't just go home and let my thoughts slowly simmer and process for that night's blog. When you have to rely on friends' computers to do work, it is difficult to take any more time than necessary. As you can tell I haven't been able to take the time to create a blog role, add pictures or include any extras. It also makes me realize how much media I take in through my computer. I can't just sit down and explore my internet searches or check my favorite websites. I can't read my electronic newsletters or even check my email regularly. I have also lost the ability to access my absolute favorite form of media. How can you forget about the ipod? Without my computer I have no way update or more importantly charge my ipod. This means no music!! I realize they have electrical chargers but I am on a student's budget, and can't afford to go out and buy a charger right now. Thankfully, I have found a way to circumvent this last issue, but it is slow and inconvenient. I wish I could express how much I miss being connected, but suffice it to say, I feel totally handicapped without my comptuer.

Napster on Books

The demonstration of sharing media with friends led to an interesting discussion on the ethics of file sharing. As students swapped one CD for another the question was asked, "Is this ethically wrong?" Someone mentioned that this situation is no different than sharing books. I thought this was a very interesting point. No one has a problem when you get done with a book and let a friend borrow it. No one would say you're stealing literature, the publishing companies aren't up in arms about it, and no one can take legal action against you. Yet, isn't this even worse than sharing music? If you borrow a friends CD, and you love it, chances are, you're going to go out and buy a copy for yourself so you can listen to it whenever, and as much as you want. But how often do you read a book more than once? If your friend lends you their book, even if you really enjoyed it, you're probably not going to go out and buy a copy just so you can have it in your library. Think about all the money authors and publishing companies are losing; a CD usually costs $13, but what about a book? Most books cost $20 or more! Publishing companies end up losing more money per book that is shared than the music industry loses for CDs. Jason makes another great point; he reminded me that recording artists can benefit when their music is shared. They make a lot of money by touring, and if they can sell out concerts because of increasing popularity, they end up making money, not losing it. How does an author benefit by having their book shared? They don't; the only time they make money is when their book is actually purchased. Now, I can't say that I am not guilty of sharing books, but it makes you think doesn't it?