Global Warming

This has been bothering me for a while. There are 2 major things that worry me about Anthropogenic Global Warming. First, we are worried about the consensus of scientists (and those falsely so called) more than the facts. A consensus of scientists believed that we lived in a geocentric universe, that the world was flat, and that it was a good idea to bleed a sick individual. So much for the consensus. Show me facts and hard data. I don't care what "the majority" thinks. Second, Anthropogenic Global Warming is a plastic theory. No matter what the data indicates, it's proponents can twist the interpretation of them to "prove" their theory. This is the definition of bad science. A true theory needs to be expressed in such a way that it can be proved or disproved. When that key element is overlooked, the theory looses all it's value because it is impossible to test. I understand the global warming argument about colder than average years is that it's supposed to be the average temperature is increasing, but that we may actually see dips every once in a while. In light of that, it seems that a useful statistic to check would be the record highs. You would think that we would see an increase in the number of record highs set in a decade if the average temperature is increasing. Surprisingly, most of the records were set in the late nineteenth century, or early twentieth. On average, we see between 2 and 4 records broken each decade. Except for the last one. In this past decade (actually a couple years over a decade, but who's counting) we have seen exactly 0 high temperature marks set. Odd. Does this count as an inconvenient truth?

Death of a Medium

I've been meaning to write this post for a while. It is a bit of a divergence from my previous topics, but since I haven't really defined my blog as anything other than a soapbox for me to speak from, I guess that really doesn't matter!

I'm sure by now, you've all heard that Borders is going out of business. I know some have been waxing nostalgic about this, and bemoaning the fact that we have lost a great source for books, but I don't buy it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a bigger bibliophile than most. I love to read. I love to get lost in the depths of a great book. I love wandering through used book stores and finding buried treasure. The reason I don't feel sympathetic or nostalgic for Borders is because they tried to do business in a rapidly evolving industry, they were reluctant to embrace change (i.e. ebooks) and they simply made bad business decisions. I do respect them for not playing the "We're too big to fail" card and seeking government subsidies to stay in business. They played in the free market and they lost.

However, this post isn't about the Death of a Business.When I went to Borders for (likely) the last time a couple weeks ago, I was looking for some deals. I admit it. I was a materialistic vulture just like everyone else who was swarming the store. If we had shown a modicum of that same level of support to the store on a regular basis, it would not be circling the drain as I type. But as I perused the shelves, it became apparent to me why Borders had passed, and why all brick and mortar bookstores stand on the razor's edge of a similar precipice. There's one reason, and it's not ebooks. Amazon.com. Plain and simple. I can go to one website, find every item in that store, and find it for cheaper than they could dream of selling it, even going out of business. I have gazed into the future, and there are no bookstores. Used bookstores, yes. Places to go and buy new books and overpriced CD's? No. Enjoy them while you can. Take videos of your visit so you can show your kids, or at most, grandkids what it used to be like to buy books.

I apologize. I still have not made it to my point. As I said, this isn't about the Death of a Business Model. What do I mean by Death of a Medium? Simply, that as I was standing in Borders, I found a book I've been looking forward to. I had recently discovered Patrick Rothfuss' The Name of the Wind, and was eagerly looking forward to reading the second installment, The Wise Man's Fear. I eagerly scanned down the aisle. After a little perusal, I saw it. They still had stock! I swooped in for the kill, grabbing the book, flipping it over to see the price tag. Ouch. It's okay though, the sign says it's 25% off. Some quick calculations, and I realize, it's probably better than I could do on Amazon, or at least almost as good, but I don't have to pay shipping, and I have it in hand today. As I'm weighing these thoughts in my mind, holding the book, I can't help but notice that at 1008 pages, bound in hardcover, this book is rather heavy (shipping weight of 3lbs according to Amazon). It's also quite thick, meaning it's going to take up some serious shelf space at home, which is at a bit of a premium these days. The thing that killed it for me, though, was the fact that I could walk out of the store, pick up my iPad, and order the same book from the iBook store, and have it in hand in seconds. It wouldn't add any weight to my iPad, which at 1.5lbs is only half the weight of the book. It's not going to take up extra room in my house. I don't have to worry about pages getting ripped, torn or stained. And the kicker - it's still cheaper than the bargain basement, going out of business sale price of it's paper cousin. The arrival of convenient ebook readers, such as tablets, kindles, and others of that ilk are the extinction event that has marked the demise of the paper book. The market is rapidly heading that direction, and the benefits are beginning to seriously outweigh the disadvantages.

I know there are many who are resistant to this idea, and claim that they really enjoy holding that book in their hands. They like the tactile sensation of turning the pages. For me, it's more of a visual thing. I thought it would be tactile as well, but I have found that those apps on the iPad that appear to turn a page as I swipe my finger are nearly every bit as satisfying as holding the book. Besides which, I don't need to worry about loosing my place. I also love the ability to be able to select a word and look it up in the dictionary with a simple tap of my finger. It has significantly improved my reading experience, especially when it comes to the classics.

There are some items we need to get cleared up and sorted before people as a whole will be ready to take the plunge.

1. We will need digital bookshelves. I don't want my books tied only available through my login to the store's website. I want a centralized location that I can store all my books regardless of where they have been purchased.
2. Cross Platform compatibility and availability. I don't want to loose my library just because I decide to replace my iPad with a different tablet. I want to be able to go to my bookshelf using any device and read any of my books. I also want to be able to read them in any app I choose. I tend to like the visual features available in iBooks, as well as the lookup and notation options, however I'm not a fan of Apple's Draconian policies when it comes to what I can put onto my device. I also can not in good conscience stand idly by and watch as Apple robs authors and publishers by demanding a 30% cut.
3. Pricing. I shouldn't have to pay more for a digital book than I have to pay for one that is physically produced. I can understand paying the same price as a paperback for a digital book but only when it is new and hot off the presses
4. Ability to lend books. This to me is one of the most important items on this list. I should be able to authorize someone else to temporarily use my copy of a book. I would fully expect that my access to that book would be locked out while it was on loan, but I should be able to lend it out to whomever, whenever I want to, for however long I want to let them have it. I should also be able to have a reclaim button that allows me to decide when their time is up and lets me have the rights to the book again.

These are my thoughts on the issue. What do you think? Are we witnessing the death of not only a business model, but also a medium?

Freedom of Speech Redux

In my last post, I discussed the Freedom of Speech, and if states should be bound by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The incident that sparked the discussion was the debate whether "truck nuts" are protected by free speech.

On the one hand, we have a tasteless and vulgar display that some states have chosen to outlaw. When they try to enforce their laws, there is public outcry, claiming censorship and infringement of First Amendment rights, even though the First Amendment was originally never supposed to apply to states, and was initially intended to ensure that individuals could disagree, vocally, with government without fear of retribution.

















On the other hand, we have a store that is selling a politically charged gag item that an individual found offensive. In response to the displeasure, the store pulled the mints. Two similar situations, two very different outcomes. In both cases an item was on display that was offensive. In the first case, it was actually illegal (or could be interpreted to be illegal) under state law. Regardless of legality, it was clearly tasteless and vulgar, and not really the type of expression intended for protection under the First Amendment. (Don't get me wrong, even though I personally find this display to be tasteless and vulgar, when I say it is not the type of expression intended for protection under the First Amendment, I don't mean that it shouldn't be protected on a Federal level.) This case receives attention as an infringement of First Amendment rights.

In the second case, it was an admittedly tasteless, albeit perfectly legal display that expressed displeasure with the government. The kind of speech that the First Amendment was actually intended to protect.

Freedom of Speech

Have you seen this? Truck Nuts Free Speech Debate

First off, let me say, I'm sure the Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves right now, to think that we would be using the freedoms they fought and died for to display plastic animal genitalia on our vehicles. The freedom of speech they were referring to was the ability for a person to speak their mind and express an opinion that was diametrically opposed to the government's view with no fear of retribution from said government.

We see subtle examples every day of our true freedom of speech being eroded, such as when high ranking government officials refer to their opponents as terrorists merely for disagreeing with them. To his credit, Mr. Biden reportedly has backed off his supposed comments, however the fact remains that this situation is much closer to the type of speech that the Founding Fathers sought to protect.

But I digress. Back to the question at hand, which is, 'Does the First Amendment allow people to hang vulgar and tasteless ornamentation from the back of their vehicle?' The short answer is yes. The Federal Government is prohibited by the First Amendment from punishing or penalizing us for the simple act of expression. However, the caveat here is that the First Amendment applies to the Federal Government. Washington can't outlaw it. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were meant to define and limit the Federal Government, not the individual states. States were initially envisioned to have much greater rights and responsibilities. The reason for this is that if the majority of the duties of government are carried out on a state level, it will require greater participation by those being governed. It may be less efficient, but it demands that people remain involved in the majority of the decisions made by their government. It requires the general population to be engaged and aware of what is going on. It makes it much more difficult for a smooth talker to weasel their way into office, and if they do make it in, an engaged populace will quickly pick up on the inconsistencies and call them to task.

Unfortunately, an unintended consequence of the 14th Amendment is incorporation. Incorporation is the slow erosion of states' rights under the guise of the protection of individual's rights. However, rather than protecting individual's rights, it merely results in increased bloat of the Federal Government. As a result, we are left with states that should have the right to decide what they want to allow by way of tasteless and vulgar speech, but instead find their hands tied by restrictions that were never intended to be applied to them.

Does the First Amendment protect truck nuts? Not as originally intended, but as our government has slowly infiltrated our lives over the years, it now does. Pause with me and morn the passing of states' rights.

Let me close with a moment of silence now for good taste and common sense.