I'm back!

OK.

So I've been MIA for a long time. Truth be told, I ran out of things to talk about, but then I realized that the blog itself isn't to satisfy my own need to write a journal. Rather, it should be used as an outlet to share the things I'm thinking about every day, which is exactly what I wasn't doing. Given the fact that I think constantly about all sorts of random things, this is the perfect time for me to revive my poor blog that has been so neglected for so very long.

This is the first Christmas where I've bought gifts for someone other than myself. I mean I've bought gifts for others but it was more out of obligation - they'd buy me something so I would feel as though I owed them a gift. This time was different.

Recently I've discovered that I actually don't have very many friends, I mean I have a very select few that I can call "friends", but most of the others are just acquaintances; people I'm aware of and even cordial to, but I can't call them "friends" per se. Of these, three are female, all very sexy, and I think about them constantly. But I wouldn't ever push up on them. One is married, one seems to not be attracted to anyone but her supermodel boyfriend, and the other...well...she doesn't seem to want to deal with guys in that way anymore. I guess she's been hurt. The irony is, I'm more attracted to her than anyone else right now. I can't stop thinking about her. *sigh*.

So here's how my Christmas went:

Bought myself a bunch of presents in November. Still bought even more gifts for myself in December. Bought some gift cards as presents for some folks. Bought a coffee brewer for a co-worker for no apparent reason other than the fact that I felt she could benefit from quality tea and coffee. Gave an acquaintance of mine the LCD flat panel that's been sitting unused in my living room (I'd sold him another one previously, but somehow he broke it). Gave my mother a computer that I bought. Found out that one of my front fang teeth broke at the midpoint. Yes, I said broke....so I have a gaping hole in my mouth. There's no pain and it's not bleeding, but there's a stump there and it's really unattractive to look at my teeth.

Fun, right?

So let's summarize:

• I spent way too much money on myself.
• I spent way too much money on gifts for people I'm fairly certain don't truly appreciate them.
• I'm obsessed with a female friend who doesn't want to have anything to do with men because of some jackass who didn't know what he had.
• I fantasize about all of my female friends, especially considering two of them like to wear shirts that show major cleavage - and both have D-size breasts.
• I have a gaping hole in my teeth that I can't do anything about.

Any questions?

Sony is in trouble.

OK.

So I saw a message board posting claiming that Sony was being sued by Immersion Corp (owned in part by Microsoft, more on that later) for patent infringement and back royalties. The source? The DualShock 2, a controller that, for many, is the difference between playing a game and living it. The DualShock 2, which has been around for years (since the PS2 has been around for years), and is sold along with each console. O....K.

Let me back up and state clearly that I've played every type of controller that has a force feedback function and NONE...NONE of them can compare to the DualShock 2. I'm very picky about how noisy the feedback is within the controller, and thus far, only Sony can make a quiet, yet powerful, feedback motor. Others have tried, and failed - Logitech came close, but their controller is way too overpriced.

Now, let's break down the facts as presented.

• The PS2 has been out for YEARS. YEARS. I remember when it first launched; my friend was dumb enough to run out and buy a launch system for $300, returning it shortly thereafter when he found there were no games. I'd estimate roughly 5 years, but I'm probably off a year in either direction.
• The DualShock 2 has been out for YEARS (since it was sold alongside the system).
• There is a limited list of games that "use the DualShock feature". This I don't get; more on this later.
• Force Feedback really started with the Dreamcast, but its was a separate feedback module that plugged into the controller. N64 followed suit with a similar concept.
• Third party makers have force feedback in them.

With the facts above, I ask myself questions.

1. In all of these YEARS why is this company coming forth now? Especially considering they could have really hurt the PS2's chances of becoming or remaining number one. If the PS2 had never existed -OR- were hindered by this announcement in the beginning, Xbox -WOULD- be the dominant system, Dreamcast would still be around and kicking out games, and GameCube would probably have been on top of the RPG world. Hey, just stating it as I see it.
2. Just about every game on PS2 uses the Dual Shock in some way or another; why is the list so short? I mean certain games like Final Fantasy X-2 and Star Ocean: Till The End Of Time weren't listed. There has to be more to this. I wonder if it's the name "DualShock" and not the mechanics. Then I'd understand the limited list, because not every game that supports DualShock mentions it on the box or in the game.
3. Why are third parties exempt? Why is Nintendo exempt? Again, something doesn't add up, unless question 2 is correct about it being the name patent and not the mechanics, or are others doing something different?

Anyway, I tried to buy a PS2 and found that no retailer has any, for some odd reason. Whether related to the suit I don't know, but I bought Dynasty Warriors hoping to play it, and finding now that I cannot. Really bites.

Oh well. Comments welcome.

Terri Schiavo (uh, oh)

I'll be honest. I learned about this human tragedy roughly a week and two days ago. Apparently this is a 15-year old deal, and I had absolutely no clue. Whether that's due to media trying to squash the issue, or just because it wasn't as big a deal as it is now, I'm not sure. What I get asked regularly is what I think about this.

What do I think? What I think doesn't matter. What I feel does.

I'll share a little known fact about ReV. I'm immortal. I plan to live forever. I have no intentions of dying at 80 like statistics say I should, and in fact, if I DO die, it wouldn't be a day before 146 years old. No, you silly reader, I'm not insane...I simply believe it. I believe it as strongly as I believe the sky is actually not blue. I refuse to give up life, not because I fear death, but because I can't imagine my consciousness winking out. I can't imagine not thinking, in other words. So I refuse to stop thinking, and therefore, refuse to stop living.

Which brings me to Terri's deal. Here we have a situation where she collapses (the true reason behind this collapse is not known but 'rumored' to be a deficiency of a nutrient, causing the heart to stop flowing, thus oxygen was not flowing, thus...you get the pix) and goes into what they refer to, rather rudely, as a "vegetative" state. I've seen people in this state. My grandmother was in a minor bout of this state just before she passed away. It's not pretty...but the one thing that remains: The people want to live.

I like to pride myself as being somewhat empathic; meaning, of course, that I can detect what certain people are feeling. I'm good at it, been good at it since...oh....10th grade maybe? Anyway, when I look at the footage and pictures of Terri, and I look into her eyes, I don't sense someone in pain. I don't sense someone wishing death. I sense someone who's frustrated. Frustrated that she can't voice her side. Frustrated that people can't fully understand her. Frustrated that she can't live the happy life she once had, and frustrated that now, her life is being decided by, of all people, "the system". Not her.

I say "the system" because after many bouts back and forth between her estranged husband and her parents, a judge has ruled that Terri be deprived of the nutrients she needs to survive. You see, she was fed through a tube that went directly to her stomach. Her condition prevented her from consuming nourishment, effectively creating a dehydrated and malnourished state for the body. This tube was her saving life, and a judge made the decision to end it, based on doctor's opinions (I stress that word for a reason) and Mr. Schiavo's slight falsehoods. He's not a downright liar, but he's not telling the full truth. For example, it's a well known fact, and real doctors know this, that a person does not just collapse without:

• physical trauma (i.e. someone struck her)
• mental trauma (i.e. stress, fatigue)
• dehydration (difficult to believe if her 'loving husband' is with her)
• malnutrition (see above)
• suffocation (bad air/not enough air?)
• heart problems
• drugs

Note that with the exception of heart problems, all of these instigators are really motives to hurt someone, and don't make Mr. Schiavo look too good. I'm not saying he did anything. I'm stating a fact: It's highly improbable that she just woke up one day, walked into the living room, then collapsed from absolutely nothing. This isn't the Matrix; she wasn't unplugged or anything.

Which brings us to now. And which leads me to answer the question I've avoided up to this point: What do I think? Honestly, and some will hate me for this, I think that she should be allowed to die. It may seem to contradict what I said above, but let me explain myself before you throw tomatoes with these two timelines. Both could be wrong, neither may happen, but just to get your brain moving a little.

1. Judge makes decision. Tube is to be removed from Terri Schiavo.
2. Parents, friends, and sympathizers provide support to Terri in her final hours.
3. Terri passes away. The country mourns her seemingly pointless loss.
4. Evidence surfaces that Mr. Schiavo caused the initial collapse.
5. Judge finds that due to Terri's death, Mr. Schiavo should be tried for murder and sentenced to death by slow injection.

That's the "poetic justice" timeline.

1. Judge makes decision. Tube is to be removed from Terri Schiavo.
2. Parents, friends, and sympathizers provide support to Terri in her final hours.
3. Terri manages to recover enough to say (and is taped doing so) what happened and that she wishes to live.
4. Parents violate court order, feeding her just enough to keep her alive to request a stay of judgment.
5. Judge orders stay; Terri can be fed until a final verdict is reached.
6. Judge finds Terri can comprehend the world, contrary to doctor opinions, and rescinds order for tube removal.

That's the "sunny day" timeline.

Both basically say that fighting the system is useless. As long as there are nerds with PhD's running around making opinions about symptoms, they'll be believed. This situation can end only one of three ways: poetic justice, sunny day, or yet another person gets away free. OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, The Ramseys, Kobe...

Long answer short - I feel she should be allowed to die because if Mr. Schiavo caused her to collapse in the first place, it's grounds for his execution. He'll die, and in a slow, painful way, just like he made her do. If she's allowed to live and he's found guilty of the collapse (say he hit her, as an example), he'll get...what...2 years lockup time for domestic abuse? Come on.

I may have a cynical view, and again, I AM pro-life, but I'm an even bigger supporter of "what goes around, comes around". IF he did it, he should get the maximum possible punishment.

While I'm at it - OJ Simpson...

OK.

I'm on a roll, and people have asked me about the OJ Simpson trial of the 90's. The criminal AND the civil one. What are my thoughts? Well...I don't want to go too much into detail, but I will say this: OJ was involved, but not the killer.

First, the testimonies.

Kaelin says he heard "3 thumps". I didn't hear the testimony so I could not hear his reenactment of the thumps in order to know speed, volume, and pattern.

Fuhrman found the glove over by Kaelin's room, however the foliage was undisturbed and no blood was found except that from the glove.

The glove was still moist the next morning - a total of 8 hours.

All of the clothing was OJ's. In particular, the Bruno Magli shoes.

OJ could not be accounted for during the murder period. The Bronco was not confirmed to be at Rockingham the entire time...unless Allan Park (the limo driver) was lying.

Speaking of Allan Park, he said he saw a "shadowy figure" walk up from the driveway to the front door. This was assumed to be a black man. However, race is irrelevant, since you could wear a dark beanie or other head ornament over your face and appear black to someone that far in the distance. This is important.

Kaelin and Park just happened to be within visual range of this figure walking up the driveway at the "right" time. So the timing of Kaelin's exit from the room as well as Park's facing the gate with the beams on just happened to be the same. More on that later.

The murder clothing was found half-washed in the washing machine. The bloody socks were found near the foot of the bed and the murder weapon never found.

The murders were brutal, calculated...there was nothing subtle about the way Brown or Goldman was killed. Although Simpson was the only known person to really have a motive to kill Goldman, others may have had reason to kill Brown...and Goldman happened to be in the wrong place at the right time.

That should be it for what was presented. Now, many theories are floating around, the conspiracy to frame Simpson by LAPD, mob involvement, Simpson himself, and even gangs. I think (and I stress this as an opinion based on the facts) that OJ was no fool. I don't...no, CAN'T believe him to be capable of such ineptitude. Things were way too illogical as presented, and the murders too brutal for a normal human being. Therefore....(wait for it....)

I think someone ordered a hit on Nicole Brown Simpson, and I think that OJ was framed...not by that person, but by himself.

Notice I said "someone". I don't discount the possibility that OJ was the requestor. What I'm saying is that someone else did the actual kill. Who was it? I don't know. May have been OJ, may have been someone trying to blackmail OJ, may have been someone who just didn't like Nicole. Perhaps someone from her past. In any case, that would explain the missing murder weapon; the killer would not be dumb enough to leave it anywhere. The second part - that'll be some explaining yet.

So, like I did with MJJ, I'll recount what I believe happened that fateful night:

• Goldman discovers Nicole left her sunglasses at the restaurant. Decides to take them to her.
• Goldman arrives at the Bundy residence, meets Nicole, and gives her the glasses.
• The killer, having been waiting near the residence, sees there's another person. He (more on that later) realizes he'll have to kill Goldman as well.
• The killer performs his killings. He had to have been behind Nicole, possibly holding her with the knife to her throat, giving instructions to Goldman to "get down", knocked out Nicole, then Goldman attempted to take the knife from the killer, who overpowered him and stabbed him. A few more pokes - is he dead? Nicole has since comes around, sees the killer and perhaps recognizes him - Goldman almost got the hoodie off in the struggle. The killer realizes he's busted, kills Nicole.
• The killer departs the Bundy residence immediately.
• Fate and timing would have Simpson show up. Simpson intended to talk to Nicole in an effort to work things out. He walks up the front way until he hears splashes under his feet (this accounts for why blood is on his Bruno Magli shoes and socks). Hmm, maybe she left the water on.
• As he gets closer he sees that they're dead bodies with pools of blood - specifically, that of Nicole and Goldman. He starts in grief, possibly even grabbing Nicole up to him and crying over her body (this accounts for the blood on the sweat suit if he was wearing it). Then he stops. He'll be blamed for this. He'll be the one.
• He gets up, frantic. He goes this way, that way, not sure what to do next. He's in a serious panic over what to do next. Should he call the police? There's blood all over him and his bloody footprints are the only ones present.
• Without thinking, he gets into the Bronco and removes the sweatsuit, laying it on the seat next to him, then drives rapidly back to the Rockford residence (this accounts for the Shively testimony). He knows he needs to get out of there, quickly, but there's blood all over him. What should he do?
• Park's scheduled to pick him up. He forgot. He needs to get to Park so that Park can take him to the airport. But he can't walk in with these bloody clothes. Knowing that Kaelin is the only one inside, Simpson stands partially on the gate and raps three times (Kaelin's story about the picture slanting isn't true), then goes back around into the shadows at the front.
• Simpson waits a moment, then walks up to the house, thinking that Park is inside the limo which is facing the gate with its beams on and wouldn't be looking in that direction.
• He slips inside, now that everyone has exited, throws the bloody clothes in the washing machine, forgetting in his haste that the cycle would not take out all of the blood, goes upstairs, and changes socks, not realizing there were small splots of blood from the splashing. He does his best to hide the shoes and change to get ready for Park.
• Park drives Simpson to the airport with a "half-moon shaped bag". This is the same bag that Kaelin attempted to assist Simpson with earlier. Simpson is seen apparently holding this bag and putting something in the trash. Either he was called by the killer who threatened to kill him if he didn't put the money in the dumpster, or he was called by the killer demanding payment be put there. In either case, I believe it was money, not evidence.
• Fast forward: Simpson is called by police who inform him that his wife's dead. He shows little emotion to this event, why? Because he already knew she was dead and was fighting to maintain composure, lest he implicate himself. Simpson says he's rushing home.
• Simpson writes what appears to be a suicide letter, but is actually a "disappearance" letter. He's encouraged to write this by his friend Cowlings, who is making arrangements for Simpson to flee and has all of the necessary instruments to do just that.
• Fast forward some more: after the Bronco chase comes to an end, it is filled with what appear to be effects for skipping the country - a passport, lots of cash, fake mustache, etc.

In closing, I am honest when I say I don't believe "OJ did it". I believe he was at the scene of the crime, yes. I believe he was wearing the clothes he said he was not, yes. I believe he committed perjury about not wearing the shoes, yes. I believe 90% of his testimony was filled with perjury, yes. However, I don't believe him capable of those murders - not the way they were done. Again, I'm willing to admit the possibility that he ordered the hit and maybe even watched it happening. But I don't believe he killed those two, and until I hear a failed lie detector test and perhaps photo evidence of him carrying the bloody knife, I won't believe it. I think he was a man who panicked. I think he lost cognitive reasoning for that moment and it almost cost him.

Is Michael Jackson really "Bad"?

OK.

So the buzz of the year is, "Did Michael Jackson molest that boy?" In fact, people are also asking, "is it possible that Michael Jackson molested the boy from before?" They assume that, since he paid the last boy off, it's an admission of guilt. They also assume that just because Michael Jackson enjoys the company of children, he must be a pedophile. And they ask me what I think. I'd have to say I get asked the question roughly 4 times in a given day by a variety of folks who are rather disquieted at my reply.

Simply put - I don't think he's fully guilty.

Yes, you heard me. I don't think he's fully guilty. By that, I mean that I think there are things he did that were inappropriate, even illegal. I do NOT, however, believe he molested that boy. I can back up what I believe with the following:

1. The daughter not only lied herself, she admitted that her mother lies;
2. The brother lied, on numerous occasions. First off, it's VERY hard to mess up boxers and briefs. They are two different things. A 13-year old boy is more than likely not wearing boxers, he's probably wearing briefs, but let's assume he wanted to be grown. The brother said once that MJJ had his hand down the accuser's pants. Then he said MJJ's hand was on top of the accuser's pants. Then he said MJJ's hand was down the accuser's briefs, then he said boxers. All during Mesereau's cross-examination (and by the way, if I ever get in a scuffle, I'd love to have this guy on my team.)
3. The accuser stated that Michael gave him wine. He also stated that it smelled like "rubbing alcohol". I know from personal experience that he was referring to vodka; however, there is a strong difference between vodka and wine. The accuser said he took the drink and just swallowed it in one gulp from the Diet Coke can. No. Impossible. For one, you can't just drink the entire contents of a Diet Coke can with "one gulp" due to the fact it's in a can. Two, the strength of the alcohol content in vodka prevents you from running shot with a can's worth. Your throat would be so jacked you couldn't even speak. Three, the boy stated he thought it was water. Bull, since the smell will reach you long before the can does, not to mention it would be illogical to have water in a Diet Coke can. I believe this was very carefully scripted and the boy coached on exactly what to say.
4. The accuser's family is charing MJJ with attempting to imprision them, preventing them from leaving. If this is case, how did they get out the one time, only to turn around and come back to be "imprisioned" again?
5. The only two accusers of molestation in the entire span of time MJJ has had Neverland running (2, for the record) were both from broke, low class families. All of the children who made something of themselves (Macaulay Caulkin, Wade Robson, Emmanuel Lewis) say that MJJ didn't do anything to any of them. Know why? Because the families want to get paid. They know MJJ is a mark. They know MJJ is a softie. They read up on the case or talked to the previous DA that won the settlement and found exact details of what they needed to do. Then, they decided to try to muscle cash out of the King of Pop. Pure and simple. Jay Leno himself tried to get scammed by this same family, for the same cancer pity speech. Unfortunately, it didn't work, because they had nothing to use against him: Leno doesn't like the company of children.

With all that said, I don't believe MJJ molested that kid nor gave him alcohol. The facts presented do not make sense, and these are actually the family's testimonies. They all have been carefully scripted to say certain things certain ways, and there is no truth or validity about any of it. If these events really happened the mother would have put a stop to it long ago. A mother can tell when her kid is plastered, and if this kid really did down a 6 x 2 can worth of vodka, he should have been at slobbering status. Assuming he was, the mother chose not to act. That makes her negligent, and there is no proof to back up the claim that MJJ gave that liquor to the kid.

"But you said not fully guilty!" Yes I did, and I applaud you for your memory. By that, I mean that I DO think MJJ was sharing porn mags with the kids. Why do I think that? It's the one part of this whole trial that is not getting much focus. Sure, Sneddon did a little bit of questioning about the briefcase and such, and Mesereau did do some cross examination of the brother to catch him in a lie, but it was not as deep as the alcohol when, in my opinion, the porn mag is a more serious issue. For one, showing porn to an underage child is illegal. MJJ's prints as well as the kid's were on one of the mags. The kid's prints being on the mag means the kid saw the mag. Which means the kid looked at the mag. Which means MJJ is guilty of that, because if it was in a briefcase somewhere, the kids (unless they're just that good at searching) would not have known where that case was stashed. Someone had to pull it out for them. That someone could only have been Jackson.
Assuming what I think is true, showing porn to anyone has the potential to arouse sexual feelings in that person. Curiosity is a certainty. It's entirely possible, and believable, that in the process of seeing porn, possibly for the first time, the kid may have become curious, and regardless of who initiated it, that could lead to some level of molestation, even if benign.

So...having stated all of this, here is what I believe happened.

1. Child meets MJJ.
2. MJJ finds a common bond with the boy after hearing that the boy also did not have a good relationship with his father (the boy's father attempted molestation)
3. MJJ meets the mother, the mother is at first apprehensive, but realizing the possibility of a good life at MJJ's expense, goes along for the ride.
4. MJJ and the boy are close friends, and he feels safe with MJJ, so much that he feels acceptable calling him "Daddy".
5. Mother learns that MJJ allows the boy to sleep in his bed and is again uncomfortable until she is told that MJJ sleeps on the floor, not in the bed, when someone else is sleeping there.
6. Mother finds out, either through reading or perhaps even a meeting with that DA, about the previous molestation case that was settled. She gets dollar signs in her eyes at the prospect of another settlement. Knowledge that children sleep in his bed is golden.
7. Mother explains situation to the boy, who doesn't want to rat out his friend. The brother, however, does, and somehow gets the boy to go along with it.
8. Martin Bashier interview happens at just the right time. Boy pretends to be perfectly friendly with MJJ, long enough for MJJ to reveal the fact about his willingness to let children sleep in his bed.
9. Boy gets curious, and asks about "the birds and the bees". MJJ, not really knowing how to explain it, offers to illustrate instead, and shows the porn mag.
10. Brother finds wine cellar, alerts boy, and together they go down to "take a look". Finding nothing but alcohol there, the brother encourages the boy to "take a sip and see what it tastes like". Boy is hesitant at first but then concedes. After all, this is all part of mother's plan.
11. Rebuttal video is orchestrated by MJJ, who does not actually script what to say, but pleads with the family to simply solidify the point that nothing sexual or inappropriate happens at Neverland. The rest is the family's discretion.
12. Mother talks to a lawyer to find out her rights, going on the assumption of a molestation case. The accusation begins.

As you can see, I have a somewhat different view of events, but I seriously don't think MJJ would have laced the kid with alcohol nor do I believe that MJJ would have been jerking the kid off or rubbing him inappropriately or in inappropriate areas or whatever. I just don't accept it. Not solely because it's not in MJJ's nature, but because the testimonies are illogical. The stories keep changing, and all the while, the one witness who could exonerate Michael is exercising his rights as a reporter - yes, Martin Bashir, for Martin was the one who lived with Michael during the exact time that the alleged crimes started. Martin knows. He knows exactly what did or did not go on. His testimony would tell the truth (if he himself were truthful), and he chooses not to provide it. So then my question to Mr. Bashier is, are you testifying because you want to protect Michael? Or are you refusing to testify so you can get your share of whatever profit might come out of MJJ's conviction? It seems to me that a man who has evidence or eye-witness testimony to set a man free and believes him to be free would do everything possible and within reason to see that the truth is revealed, but not Martin Bashir. So I'll reserve judgment.

In any case, those are my thoughts. Post away.

File Sharing? No.

OK.

So the RIAA has been issuing lawsuits faster than George W. spits lies. And towards what? Users of P2P, or peer-to-peer, networks. They claim that the "rampant downloading of free music is damaging" to their bottom line, and that the "blantant stealing causes CD prices to go up as a result".

Let me tell you something.

I've been paying $18 for a CD (not including tax) for as long as I can remember. The part about increasing prices is a crock. Recent studies also have shown that, in fact, p2p can help sales. How? Look at the facts:

- the RIAA says that everyone who downloads music off of the net is yet another consumer who's not paying for the music. However, studies show that these same people are, for the most part, not financially inclined. They're the kids with allowances, highschoolers with lunch money, etc. They're not your working stiffs. That's not to say there aren't working stiffs that p2p. It's saying that they're the minority. That means that the minority are the losses to the artists, and truth be told, with the price gouging that CDs endure, they make more than enough to compensate.

- the RIAA says that people like to go online and download whole CD's of music. This isn't true, because anything transmitted over the internet, even with the fastest of connectons, is not near as good quality as the physical copy. A lot of people use p2p to sample music -OR- to get a single - something a lot of stores stopped selling. The thing is, if people get a chance to hear one or a few songs from an artist that they end up enjoying, they WILL buy the person's album: one, because they're impatient to wait for it to download; two, because there's no guarantee it won't be a corrupted file (and most people don't have the patience), and 3, they want to get the best possible quality. They'll buy it.

- the RIAA says that p2p is stealing. It's not. It's sampling music and I'll tell you truthfully - I would welcome p2p to anyone, because it means people actually get a chance to hear my music, and maybe even find songs that they enjoy that didn't get air play. That's sales for me.

- the RIAA says that MP3 files should be outlawed, and songs not be able to be burned to CD due to the rampant burning and selling. It's so hard to find a good quality version nowadays that it's more time effective to just go buy it.

It's getting crazy now people.

OK.

So I'm looking and I see that now we have:
- T1
- DSL
- ISDN
- Cable
- Satellite
- Wi-Fi
- Wireless (Digital cell phone)
- Dialup

All for internet access types. Instead of trying to improve the existing, we're making more types. I remember when dialup was all that was available, and even that was limited speed-wise. T1 connections are still too expensive; DSL isn't available to every home; Cable is bandwidth limited in most markets; Satellite is not only slow but does not support uploading (necessary to request packets, so you have to have a dialup account in order to surf); Wi-Fi is so new that we don't know how Wi-Fi will affect our health, not to mention it's unsecure and VERY easy to hack people's computers through it; Wireless is not only slow but it's expensive for how slow it is.

What about dialup? Believe it or not, it's the connection of choice. Why you ask? Why would anyone want something so slow? I'll give you 3 reasons.

1 - Grandma from Pasadena who only checks emails isn't going to pay $29.95-$49.95 for a high speed connection that she won't notice anyway, not when she could pay $4.95-$12.95 for a connection that suits her needs just fine.
2 - Dialup doesn't care how far you are from what. All you're doing is making a phone call, which you could make to just about anyone with a phone number. That means everyone can have it.
3 - Faxing without external software requires a phone line. Manual fax machines have not evolved in over 8 years, and they probably never will. I'm itching to see if VoIP will allow for broadband Ethernet connections to initiate and establish a dialtone, but in the meantime, if people want to fax over their line, they'd rather just get a main line and a fax line, because they'd get a discount on it. People don't want to disconnect their phone lines for just a broadband connect, knowing they lose the ability to fax or receive calls.

I hope some of these technologies drop off, because a lot are great ideas, but pointless (wireless and satellite).

WWE: Come on now.

OK.

SO I turn on the TV yesterday, and what do I see? WWE Smackdown!. More to the point, JBL, otherwise known as John Bradshaw Layfield. He's spouting off and ranting about CNBC, Americans, Mexicans, Indians, just about everyone. In fact, he even goes so far as to say that it's Americans "that are wrong with America". Well, that's funny Mr. Layfield, and you're saying this why? Because you got fired from a syndicated show that was making you money? No. Because you're upset at the fact that you just can't lose the gut? No. It's because you're starting to finally realize that you're not what you thought you were. You're not a true athlete; you're a joke of yourself. And before some of the anti-wrestling people come on talking about how it's fake, it's not. It's scripted. Scripted is NOT faking. It's predetermining the outcome. What he said in that interview was not scripted. I strongly doubt Vince McMahon would have told him to go out and bash America. He would have said, "go out there and say something that will get people talking about us", and 'JBL' took it from there.

As entertained as I was watching Smackdown, I find it very sad that this is what the industry called "sports entertainment" has come to. A tired man with a beer belly complaining because he got fired from a show he had no business on in the first place.

Abolish the FCC? ReV's Thoughts.

OK.

SO I turn on my computer and log onto CNET News.com to take a look at what's new and noteworthy. What do I see? There's some guy talking about abolishing the FCC; that they serve no useful purpose. My initial reaction is, "how can you get rid of a government agency?" After thinking about it with more fair considerations, I decide that the FCC is not only important, they're necessary to manage CERTAIN aspects of communications. Let me go into more detail about what I mean.

People talked about the whole Janet Jackson deal; how it was raunchy, inappropriate, distasteful, and just plain wrong. Now, the "ripple effect" is in effect, where everything else is being affected by this one incident. I'll tell you that I've seen the video of the performance from two different angles, both close up, and you can clearly tell that it was not intentional. One, you can see the hint of her sheer blue bra peeking out from the leather, an obvious sign that Timberlake was going to strip her piece by piece until she was finally in full on lingerie. Two, this is Janet Jackson we're talking about: easily the biggest tease in the history of music aside from Madonna. She's all about seductive poses and licks. She's not about baring herself - sure, there is that occasional stressing of cleavage, but that's as far as she goes. TO me, it's an insult (and understandably why Janet feels this way) to even suggest that she and Timberlake did this on purpose.

Now let me play Devil's Advocate. I used to be an SBC customer, and when fradulent charges of about $6000 to Jamaica came on the bill, SBC refused to take them off, demanding payment. What'd I do? Contacted the FCC. Next thing I know, a supervisor calls me back and credits $4000 off. The other $2000 they say "since there was a 10-10 code used it means it had to have been your phone" (which since I worked there, I know is a bunch of crap, but whatever, I didn't pay it). What was my purpose in telling you that? The FCC were on top of it. They're on top of complaints like nobody's business, and that's their shine. They can take a dispute or a problem or whatnot and address it faster than any other part of the government. It's their best attribute as well as their worst curse.

For that reason, here's what I think:
- FCC should regulate the telecom industry. By telecom, I mean telephone. ANY company that offers telephone service in any way, shape, form, or fashion. By giving them that type of power, the price gouging that is currently happening will eventually stave off ($7 for Caller ID alone? What a racket).

- FCC should NOT regulate the TV/radio airwaves. This covers satellite, cable, AM/FM/XM, and web broadcasts. Why? IT's simple. All of the soccer moms of the world who complain about the quality of programming because of their kids, NEWSFLASH! It's not the FCC's responsibility to raise YOUR kids right. It's yours. If you don't want them watching TV shows that show suggestive content, maybe you should better control their TV habits. Give them curfews. Do hobbies. If you don't like the quality of music they listen to (and you know you can't fully control this because of other kids at school), then change the station. TV stations can be blocked; just about every TV now comes with this functionality. It's called V-Chip. Use it, and let these stations show what they want without censorship. It's our First Amendment right to see and hear what we wish.

- Finally, whose dumb idea was it to regulate the max speed of a 56K modem? Dumbest thing I'd ever heard. We've got connections that push 6000Kbps, and yet a dialup connection can't even go past 53Kbps, even though you pay for that plus 3. What's the deal with that? And don't give me some crock about tying up circuits, because if that were really the case, all of the ISDN lines would have done that long ago.


Anyway, that's my thoughts. If anyone has anything to add, subtract, comment, rant, rave, whatever, please do.