there's more this time, so i didn't want to flood my blog with them this time, so instead i uploaded the pictures to flickr, where you can see all the thumbnails at once, and view the full-size ones too.
CLICK HERE TO SEE THE PICTURES
2006-01-31
2006-01-30
ATTENTION! I will be changing webhosts soon!
Since November, my site has experienced three multi-day outages and it is damn near impossible to contact the host and have these things resolved timely. I will be ditching filefarmer.com for greener pastures (with hopefully more up time and faster responses.)
So please bear with me, as I expect to have the funds to make the switch at either the end of this week, or the end of the next. Once I have a new hosting contract, I'll update here and on the forums what any planned outages will be so that I can make the move.
My new webhost has an uptime guarantee and 24/7 phone support - two things filefarmer.com could never do.
So please bear with me, as I expect to have the funds to make the switch at either the end of this week, or the end of the next. Once I have a new hosting contract, I'll update here and on the forums what any planned outages will be so that I can make the move.
My new webhost has an uptime guarantee and 24/7 phone support - two things filefarmer.com could never do.
2006-01-22
2006-01-21
THE BABY'S HERE!
Without further adieu, I introduce to you MYLES EDWIN DAVINCI. He was born on January 20th at 5:14pm and is 7 pounds 3 ounces and 20.5"... Both baby and mother are very healthy.
2006-01-19
an idea that could revolutionize privacy
In this internet age of instant connectivity and 24/7 data availability, we often times give alot of information about ourselves to various companies, and sometimes they pay for the data on you as well. It can be kinda scary to think that some internet company (lets take Yahoo for example) not only probably knows your name, age, address and telephone number, but they probably know what things you like to search for hence they know your preferences for foods, cars, readings, political slants and maybe what size shoe you wear.
Unfortunately, I see all this data mining these companies do as an ever-increasing extension into daily life and that the trend won't soon reverse itsself despite whateve ethical concerns there are about it. Therefore I propose the following solution. Why not have legislation crafted to allow regular joes to either get for free or buy for a small fee a report by these large companies so you can find out specifically what kind of information they have on you.
Now, the idea is only half-baked yet, but I'm hoping with some input we can turn this into something real. Here are my concerns: where do we draw the line on which businesses are forced to offer this? I think you want to draw economic and categorical lines here because not every small website or locally-owned business could easily comply.. I'm thinking more along the lines of the Googles and Yahoos of the world... even banks and advertisers too. Another concern is that of privacy. Contrary? No, not exactly - but people need to be protected from having Jane order Joe's "personal data collection report from XYZ company"... the recent problem where anyone can buy other peoples' cell phone records illustrates my point. I still think that these records are private and confidential and that companies should not be allowed to sell or release them to third parties without express consent.
In the end, this isn't going to change privacy or even give you more privacy or shelter from data collection methods, but at least you can see what companies know about you making the idea slightly less scary. Also, this "open disclosure" of records to individuals might have an added benefit of making companies not want to collect intimate details of a person's life and could make the companies who collect very little data on people more favorable for private people with which to do business.
Being somewhat of a privacy freak myself makes me wonder why we don't have more laws in place to protect our privacy, yet give us this access to data about us.
Unfortunately, I see all this data mining these companies do as an ever-increasing extension into daily life and that the trend won't soon reverse itsself despite whateve ethical concerns there are about it. Therefore I propose the following solution. Why not have legislation crafted to allow regular joes to either get for free or buy for a small fee a report by these large companies so you can find out specifically what kind of information they have on you.
Now, the idea is only half-baked yet, but I'm hoping with some input we can turn this into something real. Here are my concerns: where do we draw the line on which businesses are forced to offer this? I think you want to draw economic and categorical lines here because not every small website or locally-owned business could easily comply.. I'm thinking more along the lines of the Googles and Yahoos of the world... even banks and advertisers too. Another concern is that of privacy. Contrary? No, not exactly - but people need to be protected from having Jane order Joe's "personal data collection report from XYZ company"... the recent problem where anyone can buy other peoples' cell phone records illustrates my point. I still think that these records are private and confidential and that companies should not be allowed to sell or release them to third parties without express consent.
In the end, this isn't going to change privacy or even give you more privacy or shelter from data collection methods, but at least you can see what companies know about you making the idea slightly less scary. Also, this "open disclosure" of records to individuals might have an added benefit of making companies not want to collect intimate details of a person's life and could make the companies who collect very little data on people more favorable for private people with which to do business.
Being somewhat of a privacy freak myself makes me wonder why we don't have more laws in place to protect our privacy, yet give us this access to data about us.
2006-01-18
my apologies
Mabusland was offline from sometime last night to about 4pm EST today. My web host was slow to respond to my request to find out why i was offline.
I'm looking to switch hosting providers sometime soon to one that is more reliable, but alas, we're having a baby in two days which is obviously a higher priority for us. I do promise to have some pictures available and maybe some video as well.
I'm looking to switch hosting providers sometime soon to one that is more reliable, but alas, we're having a baby in two days which is obviously a higher priority for us. I do promise to have some pictures available and maybe some video as well.
2006-01-16
bittersweet season finale for arrested development on fox
According to an article at THE MYRTLE BEACH SUN-NEWS, Fox will air the final four episodes of the season in a 2-hour block on Friday, February 10th.
Why is this bittersweet? Two reasons - AD normally airs on Monday nights, why they shunted this into a Friday night is beyond me. The other reason is that the opening night for the Olympic Games will air on NBC that night. If you ask me, it sounds like Fox purposely found the absolute worst time on TV to air these episodes almost as if they were trying to blacklist AD so that no other networks would be interested in picking it up, despite the rumors surrounding Showtime's arousal over the series.
If it wasn't for the fact that the episodes are notoriously costly to produce and have a linear plot, it might almost do better in syndication.
Why is this bittersweet? Two reasons - AD normally airs on Monday nights, why they shunted this into a Friday night is beyond me. The other reason is that the opening night for the Olympic Games will air on NBC that night. If you ask me, it sounds like Fox purposely found the absolute worst time on TV to air these episodes almost as if they were trying to blacklist AD so that no other networks would be interested in picking it up, despite the rumors surrounding Showtime's arousal over the series.
If it wasn't for the fact that the episodes are notoriously costly to produce and have a linear plot, it might almost do better in syndication.
2006-01-15
yikes!
both the colts and bears lost today. it is a sad day indeed.
i can only hope that next weekend is better.... maybe a new baby will help the mabus clan feel a bit better after the travesties witnessed today.
i can only hope that next weekend is better.... maybe a new baby will help the mabus clan feel a bit better after the travesties witnessed today.
2006-01-14
indiana anti-muni broadband bill SB245 needs to be defeated!
Everyone deserves to have an affordable broadband connection these days, right? Internet access is becoming nearly as much a vital necessity as other utilities such as running water and electricity, especially as it relates to people and their ability to conduct commerce and banking activities over the internet. That being said, I am taking issue with SB245 in Indiana as it will de-regulate the telecom industry allowing the large providers (Verizon, SBC/at&t, Comcast, et. al.) to cherry pick and serve only the most profitable regions with broadband service.
As you may or may not know, save for the Indy metro area, Fort Wayne, South Bend/Elkhart and Lake County, the rest of the state is largely comprised of rural areas with many small towns scattered about. Only in those four metro areas can competing broadband services be commonly found while the rest of the state is left out to dry. In a large portion of the state, inadequate dial-up access is the ONLY option.
In these small towns, often times the local telcos and cable companies do not offer broadband simply because the infrastructure investment is not worth the return and doesn't look good to executives serving only to increase a company's stock price. Often times, it IS economically feasible for a small co-op or municipally offered, in fact there is a good white paper with case studies and sources HERE that provides much insight about the economics of this.
While I have no problem with competition to offer broadband services, I have a problem when telcos and cable companies lobby hard to get this type of anti-municipal legislation railroaded through state congresses. Heck, the de-regulation part of the bill doesn't even bother me, so long as there is still some oversight by the IURC.
If the industry gets their way, Indiana's small communities and rural areas will continue getting the shaft when it comes to broadband access as we fall further and further behind other nations in broadband deployment. If you agree with this, and are a Hoosier, please do call or write your local Senator and explain to them why they should vote down this bill, or at least push to have it re-written without the anti-muni broadband provisions in it. And for a little bit of a history lesson, a similar bill was introduced into the House last year and subsequently defeated.
Concerned citizens should make their voice heard to the Congress, because by golly the voices of the industry are certainly heard by them through lobbyists paid by the industry.
Just as an aside, so you know the score, Comcast's internet service (without cable tv) is $57.95 a month and Verizon's DSL service isn't even available without having landline service through them which is an extra cost. With a landline, the DSL cost is $39.95 a month currently.
Here is the link to the bill: http://www.state.in.us/legislative/bills/2006/IN/IN0245.1.html
Link to the Bill: http://www.state.in.us/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2006&session=1&request=getBill&doctype=SB&docno=0245
As you may or may not know, save for the Indy metro area, Fort Wayne, South Bend/Elkhart and Lake County, the rest of the state is largely comprised of rural areas with many small towns scattered about. Only in those four metro areas can competing broadband services be commonly found while the rest of the state is left out to dry. In a large portion of the state, inadequate dial-up access is the ONLY option.
In these small towns, often times the local telcos and cable companies do not offer broadband simply because the infrastructure investment is not worth the return and doesn't look good to executives serving only to increase a company's stock price. Often times, it IS economically feasible for a small co-op or municipally offered, in fact there is a good white paper with case studies and sources HERE that provides much insight about the economics of this.
While I have no problem with competition to offer broadband services, I have a problem when telcos and cable companies lobby hard to get this type of anti-municipal legislation railroaded through state congresses. Heck, the de-regulation part of the bill doesn't even bother me, so long as there is still some oversight by the IURC.
If the industry gets their way, Indiana's small communities and rural areas will continue getting the shaft when it comes to broadband access as we fall further and further behind other nations in broadband deployment. If you agree with this, and are a Hoosier, please do call or write your local Senator and explain to them why they should vote down this bill, or at least push to have it re-written without the anti-muni broadband provisions in it. And for a little bit of a history lesson, a similar bill was introduced into the House last year and subsequently defeated.
Concerned citizens should make their voice heard to the Congress, because by golly the voices of the industry are certainly heard by them through lobbyists paid by the industry.
Just as an aside, so you know the score, Comcast's internet service (without cable tv) is $57.95 a month and Verizon's DSL service isn't even available without having landline service through them which is an extra cost. With a landline, the DSL cost is $39.95 a month currently.
Here is the link to the bill: http://www.state.in.us/legislative/bills/2006/IN/IN0245.1.html
Link to the Bill: http://www.state.in.us/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2006&session=1&request=getBill&doctype=SB&docno=0245
2006-01-12
why michigan will always be better than ohio
According to an article at WIRED University of Michigan researchers have created the first quantum microchip. (Take that ohio!)
There is a down side to this. Quantum computing will be many orders of magnitude more powerful than the most powerful supercomputers we have now. As a result, current cryptographic algorithms will be made obsolete as quantum computing can crack traditional crypto schemes without breaking a sweat. What does that mean for you? All the computing you thought was secure (banking, online commerce, etc...) will all be vulnerable. The upside though is that they cost far too much to put them in the hands of most people... you are likely only to see them at universities, governments and other large institutions.
There is a down side to this. Quantum computing will be many orders of magnitude more powerful than the most powerful supercomputers we have now. As a result, current cryptographic algorithms will be made obsolete as quantum computing can crack traditional crypto schemes without breaking a sweat. What does that mean for you? All the computing you thought was secure (banking, online commerce, etc...) will all be vulnerable. The upside though is that they cost far too much to put them in the hands of most people... you are likely only to see them at universities, governments and other large institutions.
2006-01-11
What rhymes with Alito? Burrito?
Okay... just like every other good American, I've been following the Senate judiciary committee hearings. And just like those other good Americans, I've got an opinion on him too.
If I was Dr. Phil, and President Bush was on my show and we were discussing Alito's nomination, I'd be saying "WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?" and here's why.
ABORTION
The guy has already ruled in cases as a circuit Judge where it was very clear in his stance against abortion, and written strongly worded papers that argued against the right to choice while he worked as an assistant in the Office of the Solicitor General. All clues that he wants Roe v. Wade overturned despite the rhetoric he spewed in the hearing.
DOMESTIC SPYING and EXECUTIVE POWER
Big issue lately. Wiretaps and the like are supposed to have judicial oversight to protect Americans against unconstitutional uses, yet Alito has written documents defending executive authority to the contrary. And while I think that we as a people have the right to be protected against crime and terrorism, it should be done so with some oversight so that people don't end up incarcerated for years without charges filed, or worse: dead. This is really a no brainer people! Our civil liberties that we have enjoyed since the First Amendment are seriously at stake if Alito is confirmed.
POLICE AUTHORITY
Alito dissented on a case where a 10 year old girl was illegaly strip searched without a warrant and sided with the police. Why, pray tell, would anyone side with the police on an action like that involving minors? It is absolutely ludicrous and an extreme overstepping of authority, but if Alito has his way, he'd allow things like this to take place. If you have children, you most likely would agree.
ROLE OF JUDICIARY
Now, if what I just described up above sounds like he doesn't care about personal rights (which he obviously doesn't), let me tell you what he said on the issue: "My general philosophy is that the judiciary has a very important role to play ... the judiciary has to protect rights. And it should be vigorous in doing that." That is just a straight-faced lie.
Please, call your senators, write them or send them a telegram via the pony express... but whatever you do, express your discontent with Bush's nomination of Alito and do it soon!
I have a feeling, call it a hunch, that all of the goosestepping republican senators are going to vote yes instead of listening to their constituents. All 55 republicans senators. I can only hope I'm wrong and the senate really does act to serve the people for once.
If I was Dr. Phil, and President Bush was on my show and we were discussing Alito's nomination, I'd be saying "WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?" and here's why.
ABORTION
The guy has already ruled in cases as a circuit Judge where it was very clear in his stance against abortion, and written strongly worded papers that argued against the right to choice while he worked as an assistant in the Office of the Solicitor General. All clues that he wants Roe v. Wade overturned despite the rhetoric he spewed in the hearing.
DOMESTIC SPYING and EXECUTIVE POWER
Big issue lately. Wiretaps and the like are supposed to have judicial oversight to protect Americans against unconstitutional uses, yet Alito has written documents defending executive authority to the contrary. And while I think that we as a people have the right to be protected against crime and terrorism, it should be done so with some oversight so that people don't end up incarcerated for years without charges filed, or worse: dead. This is really a no brainer people! Our civil liberties that we have enjoyed since the First Amendment are seriously at stake if Alito is confirmed.
POLICE AUTHORITY
Alito dissented on a case where a 10 year old girl was illegaly strip searched without a warrant and sided with the police. Why, pray tell, would anyone side with the police on an action like that involving minors? It is absolutely ludicrous and an extreme overstepping of authority, but if Alito has his way, he'd allow things like this to take place. If you have children, you most likely would agree.
ROLE OF JUDICIARY
Now, if what I just described up above sounds like he doesn't care about personal rights (which he obviously doesn't), let me tell you what he said on the issue: "My general philosophy is that the judiciary has a very important role to play ... the judiciary has to protect rights. And it should be vigorous in doing that." That is just a straight-faced lie.
Please, call your senators, write them or send them a telegram via the pony express... but whatever you do, express your discontent with Bush's nomination of Alito and do it soon!
I have a feeling, call it a hunch, that all of the goosestepping republican senators are going to vote yes instead of listening to their constituents. All 55 republicans senators. I can only hope I'm wrong and the senate really does act to serve the people for once.
NEW HOMEPAGE!
Yes, mabusblog is now my new homepage because the old one just plain sucked!
You can still access the forums via clicking on the "forums" graphic at the top or by pointing your browser to http://www.mabusland.com/forums
You can still access the forums via clicking on the "forums" graphic at the top or by pointing your browser to http://www.mabusland.com/forums
2006-01-10
Verizon wireless is up to no good again.
Admittedly, I use Verizon's phone service because it's pretty reliable with excellent geographical coverage. However, the carrier has had a history of disabling important features on their phones that they sell to their subscribers. In fact, the current phone that i have from them (Motorola E815) came with disabled bluetooth functions, file transfer functions and even disabled camera functions. I ended up needing to buy a $40 data cable and software to hack the phone's firmware to restore these functions on my phone (and on my wife's phone - she has the same model). Not only was this a waste of my time, but it makes Verizon look bad. The reason they do this is obvious, they want to force customers to use their network services that perform similar functions which are often more slow anyways - like transferring a ringtone to the phone or pulling pictures off of it. And these services can be very costly to use.
Well, they are at it again, this time disabling the ability to play MP3's. According to an article at C|Net's news.com:
The company's new song download service, announced at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas, is being built around Microsoft's digital-media technology. As part of that service, Verizon decided to eliminate the phones' previous ability to play MP3 files, hoping to keep the phones' music features simple, a company spokesman said.
Even worse is that they try to spin this as not a way of disabling a phone's built in features:
"We don't view this as restricting functionality," said Jesse Money, Verizon's director of consumer multimedia services. "We wanted one music player on the phone with a simple and consistent look and feel throughout the player. If we were to leave (the MP3 support intact), then there would be two players with different experiences."
Now I don't know about you, but anyone that doesn't use iTunes usually just uses plain old non-DRM restricted MP3's because they work anywhere and are damn near universal. Also, why do they think they need two separate players - one for DRM'd files, and one for regular MP3's? iTunes will play both, so will windows media and real player (rhapsody). Trying to force the customers' hands generally only results in alienation. When my contract is up in a year and a half, i may seriously consider a switch of providers if Verizon is still trying to pull this crap. I think they would do better to give the customers a choice and build their service around a model that really does provide value and perhaps offers something better than just transferring MP3's - that's what apple did for the iPod with iTunes, and look at how successful they are. In fact apple's model is so successful, due to ease of use and simple pricing structure, that it has drawn the ire of the record industry, who is trying to force Apple to bend and raise their prices. This comes as the traditional model of selling albums on physical media continues to decline.
In any event, I urge you either not to buy one of these new phones, boycott Verizon Wireless altogether, or just buck the system and hack your phone like I did.
Well, they are at it again, this time disabling the ability to play MP3's. According to an article at C|Net's news.com:
The company's new song download service, announced at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas, is being built around Microsoft's digital-media technology. As part of that service, Verizon decided to eliminate the phones' previous ability to play MP3 files, hoping to keep the phones' music features simple, a company spokesman said.
Even worse is that they try to spin this as not a way of disabling a phone's built in features:
"We don't view this as restricting functionality," said Jesse Money, Verizon's director of consumer multimedia services. "We wanted one music player on the phone with a simple and consistent look and feel throughout the player. If we were to leave (the MP3 support intact), then there would be two players with different experiences."
Now I don't know about you, but anyone that doesn't use iTunes usually just uses plain old non-DRM restricted MP3's because they work anywhere and are damn near universal. Also, why do they think they need two separate players - one for DRM'd files, and one for regular MP3's? iTunes will play both, so will windows media and real player (rhapsody). Trying to force the customers' hands generally only results in alienation. When my contract is up in a year and a half, i may seriously consider a switch of providers if Verizon is still trying to pull this crap. I think they would do better to give the customers a choice and build their service around a model that really does provide value and perhaps offers something better than just transferring MP3's - that's what apple did for the iPod with iTunes, and look at how successful they are. In fact apple's model is so successful, due to ease of use and simple pricing structure, that it has drawn the ire of the record industry, who is trying to force Apple to bend and raise their prices. This comes as the traditional model of selling albums on physical media continues to decline.
In any event, I urge you either not to buy one of these new phones, boycott Verizon Wireless altogether, or just buck the system and hack your phone like I did.
2006-01-09
I'm now a colts fan for life!!!!!
There's four cheerleaders for the Indianapolis Colts and one mabus in the picture.... can you guess which one is the mabus?
Its fun to be stalked by a mob once in a while!
Its fun to be stalked by a mob once in a while!
2006-01-07
headache remedy or toxin?
I've been seeing alot of ads for this stuff called "Head On" in ads on TV. Well, since I get the occasional headache myself, I thought I'd look into what this stuff is. According to drugstore.com the product contains two active ingredients. Potassium Dichromate and White Bryony. Both ingredients are purportedly homeopathic remedies.The first one, Potassium Dichromate, according to the Comenius - European Cooperation on School Education, the principal hazards associated with it are listed as:
- Potassium dichromate is toxic if swallowed, inhaled or absorbed through the skin. It is corrosive and may produce severe eye damage.
- Chromium (VI) compounds are carcinogens.
- Potassium dichromate may act as a sensitizer.
- This material is a strong oxidizing agent and reacts vigorously or explosively with a wide variety of reducing agents.
Now I don't know about you, but I wouldn't exactly want to be rubbing that on my forehead. The other ingredient, White Bryony, also seems to be a pretty nasty active ingredient. According to herbalremedies.com it acts as an irritant and often causes inflammation where it is applied and it is toxic as well. Ingesting this herb can cause vomiting, kidney damage, convulsions, and abortion, therefore, it is prescribed mainly by homeopathic practitioners to be taken in extremely small doses.
Okay, so you might not be eating any of this stuff.... but the ingredients ARE absorbed sublingually and will make it into the bloodstream via epidermal capillaries.
I have a feeling that this stuff causes more headaches in the long run than it cures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
