Friday, August 21, 2009

Wired Online - 7 reasons to avoid Windows 7

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/7-reasons-to-avoid-windows-7/

Yesterday, Wired Online published a piece of '10 Reasons to Upgrade to Windows 7,' which was a decent overview of the upgrades from XP or Vista. By no means was it a glorious profession of 'this is the greatest OS ever!' but it did make a good argument that people should seriously consider the upgrade. And why not? Vista, for as much as people hate it, was a significant upgrade to XP, and if used properly, was all-around better: faster, more secure, a bit flashier.

I have one problem with today's reasons to avoid Windows 7. All of the points made were very logical, from price to some of the installations. However, this stuck out:

"Snow Leopard Is Almost Here
Apple’s next-generation Snow Leopard is arriving September — a month before Windows 7. Apple is promising its OS will deliver on many of the improvements Microsoft highlights in Windows 7 — 64-bit addressing, improved efficiency with task management on multiple processors, and others. It’s undetermined which OS is better, but from my own perspective as a long-time Mac user, I will say I already prefer the current Mac OS X Leopard to Windows 7. If you’re looking (or willing) to switch to a radically different OS, then OS X Snow Leopard is an option to consider before committing to Windows 7."

Seriously? Wired, you should be ashamed. Brian X. Chen, "From my own experience as a long-time Mac user?" Why did you get a long-time, Mac user to write an article about the bad things in Windows? I understand that the person to best see the downside to Windows is a Mac person, but if this is the case, you need to find people who are BIOS (BI-OS, it's a pun, get it?) or tri-OS (throw Linux in there, AND DON'T TELL ME THAT MAC OS IS THE SAME AS LINUX!), and have them write an article. I use Mac and PC (though I am PC dominant, and use Linux second), but I could tell you what's wrong with Windows 7... and tell you what's good about it. I could tell you what's good about OS 10.5, and what's bad about it.

It might be time to start taking this blogging and freelance thing seriously...

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

What will the White Sox do?

How many questions can a team in the running still have? Carlos Quentin was activated from the DL yesterday, and Brian Anderson was optioned to Triple-A. But that was just the beginning for a team that currently sits one game out of the first in the AL Central. Optioning Anderson was a no-doubt: Scott Podsednik has been the boost the team needed in the outfield, and with Dye in right, there was only need for one additional outfielder, Wise (who is out of options). Anderson didn't perform poorly, given that three other youngsters on the team were playing at the same level, but he also has not taken advantage of the opportunities given to him. More on him later.

Bartolo Colon made his Triple-A rehab assignment and pitched horribly. Being lit up in the MLB is one thing, being lit up in AAA is another. I cannot envision his returning to the major leagues with the Sox. He was a cheap experiment, but one that has not panned out. Richard is pitching just as well (or poorly), and I would just as soon let him gain experience as a starter (if that is where he will ultimately end up), than bring back Colon. There was also the report that Freddy Garcia was working out in the minors, which certainly was news, in hopes of a late season call-up. There's the better option: let Colon go, start Richard, and if he falters, bring in Garcia. Worst case is they all pitch the same.

The Roy Halladay sweepstakes are interesting, and I'll mention that later.

In the in-field... too many young players, playing all the same positions. How many thirdbasemen do we now have? Fields (MLB bench), Beckham (MLB starter) and Viciedo (Minor League phenom). At second there is Getz and Nix, who are seemingly fighting for playing time. Someone has to go. Fields has great potential, and I think they were too quick to pull him (but things happen behind the scenes... maybe he was causing problems). Fields is a good replacement for Konerko on a day off, and his bat is dangerous, but we're still a couple years from Konerko going DH full-time. Beckham appears to be the long-term starter at 3rd, and Getz is the future at 2nd. Nix can play anywhere, so he isn't moving. Ramirez at SS... well, my opinion is use him as trade bait. He could be the start of a package for Halladay, though I'm fairly certain Ramirez is untouchable at this point. But think... Ramirez and Danks for Halladay. Beckham moves back to his comfortable SS position, and Fields and Viciendo fight out for 3rd. Or send Anderson in the package for Halladay. It can be done.

But what about next year? Dye is free agent, are they keeping Anderson around to move in when he leaves? Quentin to right field, Pods to left, and Wise and Anderson in CF? Or do they bring up their 1st round draft pick to play center? And what about Thome who will be a FA after the season? They won't resign him at the current contract, but with his production this year, they do not have a better option, other than using Fields, which would be a waste of a good talent.

It would be ridiculous to not sign AJ to a long contract at this point, even with two good prospects in the wings. AJ brings more to this team than most people want to admit.

This has gotten long, so I'll cut short now. Only time will tell what happens with my 312 Sox.

Monday, June 22, 2009

USA Soccer in Confederation Cup 2009

Sometimes you would rather be lucky than good. USA Soccer was thoroughly displaced by two juggernauts of football this past week in their draw at the Confed Cup, by losing to Italy and Brazil. The only possible way for them to advance to the next round was to beat a poor Egyptian team by three goals, and hope that Brazil would beat Italy by three goals. Miraculously, beyond description and among the most odd and weird things, it happened exactly that way, with 3-0 games in each, and America advancing.

And earlier this week, I predicted Egypt would win, 2-1. Now that I've eaten my words (not really, it was a good bet that USA would lose), I have to post (and laugh at) this quote from an American player and veteran:

"All of the critics in America who said we were no good after losing to Italy and Brazil, let's see what they say now," Michael Bradley said.

Here's what I say: "you're no good."

Come on. It's great that you have a little spirit, but simply because you (#14) beat a bad Egyptian (#40) team, and Italy (#4) played a horrible game against Brazil (#5), you advanced in a tournament to play the #1 team in the world, Spain. Do you really think you deserve to advance instead of Italy to whom you lost? Doesn't make sense, but tie-breakers rarely do. But this is exactly why you are fighting to earn a spot in the next World Cup 2010. It's not a guarantee that you will qualify. Michael Bradley, there won't be a Brazil to help you make it to the next round. And like so many Cups past, we'll see that once again, USA is no good at football.

Friday, June 12, 2009

Tom runs on Dunkin Donuts

To conclude a rather all-around frustrating week, I decided to go for comfort food for breakfast, and grab Dunkin Donuts at the only DD in Kansas (or west of the Mississippi River I think). Now anyone who knows me, knows that my weakness is pastries, specifically a good donut. Being raised in Chicago, DD's was a staple of every day life, continuing on into High School, where we would sit before track practice and devour a dozen. So Tom really does run on Dunkin.

But this morning was the best thing I had seen in a while, and might have just made up for the crappy week I've had. Imagine this: a very attractive mid-to-late 20's woman, blonde curly hair... not gorgeous, but very attractive. I'll refrain from going into great detail. Anyway, she's walking through the parking lot, and I'm walking about 15 feet behind her. Oh yeah, the funny part: she's wearing a very nice black dress, sleeveless, tight, and short, with black heels. It looks like she had gone out to the bars last night, and I immediately thought, "Has to be the walk of shame." The nightclub outfit, she's attractive, going to DD's for a hearty breakfast after either a great night, or disappointing night. However when I catch up to her at the door, I notice that her hair is wet, like she just got out of the shower. Then I hear her order FOUR DOZEN DONUTS, a two coffees! And I'm thinking, "Wow, this isn't the walk of shame... she either really likes this guy, and going to return to him and shower him with donuts, or she had a really, REALLY bad night and was going home." Either way... she gets an A+ in my book.

Of course, I'm not that simple. She's probably going to work and picked up donuts for the office on the way in. You can't judge a book by its cover.But it was a good way to start the day.

Monday, June 1, 2009

The problem with sports and parity

I'll start by saying that there is nothing wrong with parity. Yes, I know what the title says. Here's the beef: Take any major sport in America that relies on parity (NBA, MLB, NFL), and at the end of the season when a small-market team makes the finals, the league complains that the TV ratings are down. The management of these leagues believe that the big are getting too big and winning all the time, so they'll (rightly) institute parity, however the drawback to this is low TV ratings.

What is parity? For those of you who do not follow the sports, parity is a way of leveling the playing field. In most sports it is a salary cap, which if effective, means that no team can spend more than the other. It means that every team will play the same number of prime-time, 'game of the week' games on national television. In essence, every team is equal, which allows all teams to have a fighting chance to win.

So what's the problem? Nothing if you are a true fan of the sport. For me, I'll watch a baseball game between the Seattle and Minnesota (two smaller market teams) because it is a chance to see a handful of really great players, and the game is full of fundamentals. And if Tampa Bay meets Colorado in the World Series, I would probably catch a game or two, though I don't have any vested interest in either team, but simply because it could be a good game.

But how many true baseball fans are out there? Aside from me, my friends Boone and Phil and Peter Gammons, there are few fans of the game. If the Red Sox do not make the Series, how many people from Boston do you think would catch even an inning of one game? Same goes for the other major sports.

Now here's the rub: the sporting commissioners fought long and hard to level the playing field, the players' unions fight long and hard to get every dollar out of the teams. Parity is in place to make every team competitive (if they chose to be), but the leagues complain when their ratings tank. All of this is due to sports fans being loyal to their teams. There are no 'sports fans' out there anymore. There are Raiders fans, Yankees fans, Astros fans, Chiefs fans, Spurs fans... if their team isn't in it, then they don't care, and they aren't going to watch. Parity has made the games more interesting, and the season is more interesting, but when it comes to the playoffs, ratings shouldn't matter. A solution would be to only show the playoff games in the local market, but offer the games online (for free)to a multi-national market. You want to grow your sports again? Offer something free, and watch the people flock. You'll make new fans around the world, which increases your marketability, and gives you more money in the long run.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Possible Sox trade for Peavy...

as the Sox are being BLOWN out by the Twins, 20-1 in the 9th inning. What better way to say, 'Jake, come play for us!' than to be completely obliterated, at home, by an division rival? A couple errors which lead to at least 8 runs, that's exactly what a pitcher wants to see.

But in regards to the possible trade, I'm not sure what to make of it. He really wants to stay in the NL, which makes me think that he will have a very tough time pitching in the hitting-heavy AL. He's not going to be comfortable, so it makes me wonder how he will deal with that first big loss. It's also not clear which players will be traded, other than 4. Rumor has Richard and Poreda, which are two fairly large losses, being both very young and left-handed. Who are the other two? I won't have an official opinion until I know who that is.

This could be a decent trade though. The AL Central is weak, and the Sox do need another pitcher (or two actually, because Colon just threw up this afternoon for the second straight game). Peavy would be #2 on the staff, with Buehrle #1, Floyd #3 and Danks #4. Not too bad of a staff, if we could find a legit #5. More to come.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Giving up cable TV

So it's been about six months since we gave up cable TV, and so far, no one has gone crazy yet. The experiment is so far working! Seriously though, we do spend more time watching DVD's of old episodes, mainly Simpsons and Futurama. The only thing that I've been missing is Discovery, History and the random sports that ESPN2 aired. Otherwise, we watch everything on Hulu, or NBC. I listen to Bears and Blackhawks games online, and I purchased MLB.TV to watch Sox games (and other games as well). The only downside to any of this, is that we had to increase our bandwidth levels through the Lawrence monopoly. Has it been worth it? Yes... Olivia has watched a whole lot less TV, which I think is good for a four-year-old. We spend more time online (I'm an information whore, I read news sites all day), but we also spend more time together as a family.

It's not for everyone though. I couldn't imagine having several kids, and not having TV. And I do miss quite a bit: throwing on Discovery on a Saturday, or waking up early on Sunday's to watch the Samurai movies, and especially the James Bond marathons on TNT. Specifically, we did this for fiscal reasons, saving the $80 per month on digital hi-def TV, but now... I don't know when we will go back. The more and more I read, the more things are going toward online services anyway. Maybe we'll just wait it out.

Friday, March 20, 2009

Bracket Update: afternoon Day 2

Here's how I was doing during Day 1: According to the ESPN backets, there were over 4.6 million bracket entries.

Day 1 Low: 1.5 million
Day 1 high: 530,000

Day two has been much kinder.

Day 2 (before WVU loses): 418,129
Day 2 (After WVU loses): 510,105

NCAA Brackets 2009

I've filled out four brackets this year, because this is one of the most balanced tournaments I've ever seen. You look at the match-ups, and aside from the 1-16 and 2-15 match-ups, there aren't any real surprises that I would consider a huge upset. I definitely do not see a 'Cinderella' type team this year, because even if a 10 seed makes the Elite Eight, it wouldn't be shocking. With that said, I completed four brackets, each just slightly different than the rest. I will say this: my eventual champ will come out to be Louisville or Connecticut. Whoever wins that semifinal will win the tournament. For the most part, here's how I've picked 'em:

Teams from the Big Ten: I'm looking down on the Big Ten this year, because it has been a weak conference. However, I did pick Michigan to upset Clemson (Correct), but not get past the second round (still to be played). I did pick Michigan State to cruise into the Elite Eight in one bracket, and lose in the Sweet Sixteen in another. Other than that, I was hoping Illinois would not be the 12-5 upset (it happened last night) which ruined my brackets.

Teams from the Big 12: Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri are going deep, but the others will falter early.

ACC: Duke and UNC going far, the others are hit and miss

Big East: Power house. Pitt, Xavier, Villanova all going very deep.

Most of the mountain and west coast teams... they will struggle. This will be dominated by east coast and southern teams.

Anyway, I'll update on my brackets as the tournament goes on.

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Becoming a writer

What does it take to become a writer? Do I have to give up everything to obtain the level of professional writer? This thought comes to mind every now and again, whenever I wish I was writing for a career instead of whatever I'm currently doing (which currently, and for the last six years, has been an IT manager and an institution of higher education). And again today, while taking care of my daughter on a day when my fiance was working, we watched 'Moulin Rouge.' The thought of becoming the penniless writer, sacrificing everything to begin working on a novel, came to mind.

I don't think I could give up my current lifestyle in order to succeed as a writer. It's a sacrifice that I couldn't make at this point in my life. And yet, there are so many stories trapped in my mind that I want to put onto paper, that it's tearing at my heart and mind. Whenever I get an idea for a story I jot it down on the closest piece of paper, and set it on my desk for future reference. The problem is that my current life and lifestyle don't allow me to write any good prose. My career in the IT world completely drains all creativity from my soul, and life with a three-year-old daughter saps all energy that I would have to do anything creatively. When was the last time I picked up a guitar to play? It's been about nine months (part of that was due to a broken arm too). But with a child, there really is little time for personal agendas.

And so I look back to when I was a writer, or at least the closest thing to being a writer. My last year in college, when I was taking several writing classes, and was part of a writing community. I would spend several hours a night alone in a small bedroom, of a two bedroom apartment, computer in front of me, and a white bunny at my feet, with the words flowing easily from my mind to my fingers. Usually a glass of wine at my side. I wrote an entire chapter of 'The Canterbury Tales,' in perfect Rhyme Royale, in one night 500 lines, in just a couple hours. I wrote one of my best stories while sitting in a hallway in a notebook, with few revisions needed before it was accepted into a rather prestigious class. And now... even if I find a few spare moments to write (such as now, kid is asleep on the couch, Col is out), I write and in my mind, it feels like I'm writing at an elementary level. I don't consider this good. It's basically a waste of my time.

And so I sit and lament, and wonder what could have been, or what could be, if I would just sacrifice what I currently have. Could I be a good writer? Who reads stories or novels anymore? It seems that people write to make money, or make their stories into films. I wouldn't care. If I could keep my current lifestyle and career, but also be a best selling author who didn't make a dime of money, I would sign up today. I wouldn't write for money, I just want to be known as a writer. I want to go to readings, where scholars talk and debate on what I was thinking when I wrote it. I want to lecture at universities, and have undergrads grill my thought process.

But no one cares about the author anymore. It's a lost art. And so I sit in my living room, fireplace aglow, blackened TV across the room, kid asleep to the right, pint of stout to the left.

Friday, January 9, 2009

Burning the bridge - An employee's look back on a prevous job

(TP) Lawrence, Kansas. - How many times have you heard this? Employee starts out at company, pours hundreds of hours into new ideas, implementation and large projects, only to have the company turn its' back on the employee, and ultimately forget about them. Ah, how cruel the business world is. And yet, that is the normal response when employees (read: ex-employees) usually respond to these types of scenarios: it was a business decision.

However, in this case it wasn't. It was a slight, whether intentional or not. I was hired in the late 1990's as a 'web designer,' and put to menial tasks of daily updating for a few hours per morning. Thus began four years of being several titles, and ever expanding work responsibilities. Here's the short list of accomplishments: website viewing went from 1000 to nearly 10,000 per day, two national awards won for design, three complete site overhauls, new inventive ideas promoted and used, online revenue started (previously there was no income from web-based advertisements), the processes were streamlined, time and money saved.

In the last year I was employed, a scant six months before I ultimately left, a special publication was produced. Inside, nearly every department was thanked for their hard work and long hours. I seem to remember coming in every Saturday that year to upload the latest information, creating large slideshows of pictures long after photographers and artists left. Special web editions were created every week, and yet there wasn't one mention of my department (I was the only employee, so I took it very personally).

About this same time, I was approached by the head of the entire operation, to consider moving toward an all automated, no design needed, template and hosting, that a third-party company would handle. Easy, simple, no work needed. I was completely against it, for obvious personal and professional reasons. Yet these warnings went unheeded, and we migrated to the new system. I also learned that this company had a boss who was best friends from the old days with my boss. It was a forgone conclusion, that before my opinion was solicited, this was going to happen. I continued with my work, never grumbling, as professional as I always was.

I left a few months later after taking a job in another state. I left the website in decent hands, a person who I didn't pick, didn't mold, but had no objections to taking over, for in reality, a monkey with mental problems could have done the work. No longer was there a need for design or implementation, just simple cut and paste commands. This person left the position a few months later, however when he was on the way out, they offered him a position, a full-time position. Even when he said he was leaving the town for a city 2 hours away, they told him he could work remotely make extra cash on the side to update when needed. Never was such an offer made to me.

The final nail came earlier this summer. A reunion of sorts, celebrating the hundred years of operation, invitations went out to everyone who had worked at the organization. Obscure people from decades ago were invited. Some people there knew where to find me, as they had 'under the table' asked for my assistance a handful of times. I learned of this reunion roughly three days prior, when invitations had gone out several weeks earlier.

There had only been one web designer before me, and there has only been one since. No one had spent more years there than me. I was the designer, Lead Web Designer, Web Editor, Online Content Manager, during the height of the internet boom. I took that site from the depths of 'who cares about this place' to 'this is how we get information in the 21st century.' I pulled this site into the newest and best, latest possible design implementation. And what do I have to show for it? A coffee mug (won through a contest), a lousy t-shirt (stolen for me, when I was told to pay $9 for one) and a picture book without reference to the hard work and long hours I worked to produce the product.

The company is still moving along. There hasn't been any new web features since I left nearly half a dozen years ago. The newest aspects of the web have long passed this site, and the powers that be in the organization are finally coming to grips with the fact that they made a bad decision in moving toward this third-party hosting and design. Long ago I stopped feeling good about saying, 'I told you so,' because they are in an industry that needs, must, stay at the front of the web revolution, because their days are numbered otherwise. Their bread and butter will be gone in the next decade, probably less. Whereas I am now in a position where my future thinking and research is a bonus, they are crippled, a dinosaur in the modern world.

And so, while I still list my achievements on my resume, consider a choice few acquaintances and friends and still value many of the memories obtained through my work therein, I will no longer visit the website, nor care to hear about the demise since I left and pitifully shake my head at management gone bad and old. That's exactly what it is: management gone bad and management gone old.

Thoughts on the NY Yankees

I don't live in New York City, so you can count me as one of the 295 Million people who don't like the Yankees. How did I come up with that number? At the time of this post, the US Census listed 305 million people in the US, and I figure there are about 10 million living in NY, some who are Mets fans and don't like the Yankees, but those Mets fans are canceled out by those who are outside NY, and for some reason have jumped on the Yankee's bandwagon as their favorite team. Anyway, I don't like the Yankees, and I'm in the majority (did I jump the bandwagon? No, people just don't like the Yankees).

My love for baseball as a whole trumps my view of the Yankees. There is a problem here: the salary cap in baseball doesn't work. Is this the fault of the Yankees? No. They have the money and rightfully they should spend it to put the best team possible on the field. They can do it year after year, because they make money. MLB is to blame for this. Their solution? Tax the teams that go over the cap. Oh you can go over the cap, but you're going to have to pay for it, and then spread that tax around to the other teams. So what? If the Yankees spend the money, and win the World Series every year because they outspend the other teams, $20 million dollars that is shared between the other 31 teams is not going to do any good. That won't even pay for the signing bonus on a draft pick. The rule is the problem, not the Yankees spending.

Now, I do have a problem with the Yankees spending (listen up MLB... FIX THE RULE!) It creates a completely unbalanced league (what's the word... parity). The excuse is that the Yankees are putting the best team out there for their fans, at the same time, making anti-fans out of every other cities fans. And the argument goes: why don't the other teams spend that much? Two reasons: 1. Keep the cost of attending a game low (which doesn't affect Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs... a few others), 2. keeps teams from over spending on free agents, and making bad deals. Kansas City could go out and offer $100 million to one player... and then when no one shows up to the games, they lose money, can't sign other players, become AAA teams. It's a snowball effect. And it can't be done in one year. An owner can't come out, spend millions in one year, and expect the play-offs. It has to be sustained for several years, five at least, for the correct elements of a team to come together. That's why you see the smaller spending teams occasionally win: they invest in their farm systems, spend little money on youth, come through and win. But when that youth becomes too good, they have to part with them because they can't afford it, and that player gets bought up by.... the Yankees, or some other team that spends a lot. The original team has to go back to breeding their farm... it takes time.

So what does this mean? The rich get richer. We continue to hate teams like the Yankees and Red Sox (and Angles to an extent) because they horde the best players. We smile when they don't make the playoffs, and we laugh when they implode. When teams try to out-spend those teams, we shake our heads and feel pity (think the Giants and Barry Zito. They tried to outspend, and wound up with a bust, but at least they tried). But they shouldn't have had to do that, if a cap was in place, and the big teams couldn't make the bidding go that high.

And me? Well, I'm a White Sox fan. I don't hate the Cubs, but I don't cheer for them (unless they made the playoffs, not playing against the Sox. Then I might cheer for them). The White Sox develop a good farm system, they don't overpay for their free agents, and they build a good chemistry team.

And they got rid of Nick Swisher. Traded him to the Yankees. Who are now trying to trade him elsewhere. In their championship year, the Sox were using three other cast-offs from the Yankees (they didn't seem to perform in the bright lights of the big city). And yet... with those ex-Yankees, the Sox won the Series. Instant Karma is gonna get you...