Category: Personal

Ping + Spam = LAME

Posted by – September 2, 2010

I just signed up for Apple’s new “Ping” social networking service through iTunes (profile here). I followed a few artists that I like and when I started looking through it all I see is comment spam! Every single comment is some ridiculous pitch for a free iPhone. This is so lame! You would think that a company as large as Apple would have had the foresight to prevent comment spam. I am officially going to give Ping exactly 3 days to get straightened out, after that I am done if they don’t fix this.

Twitter Announces the TweetButton

Posted by – August 12, 2010

First the obligatory apology for not writing anything in ages…

via: Mashable

Twitter has announced the TweetButton, as seen at the bottom of each post here! Super simple to implement. I am thinking that I prefer Twitter over many other social entities. It is simple and allows for quick and easy communication. I feel like most other social tools are way too cumbersome and try to do too much.

Get your very own TweetButton here: http://twitter.com/goodies/tweetbutton

Proposed Health Care Bill(s) Fails Californians

Posted by – January 12, 2010

I have been thinking, for quite a while, that we Californians get the short end of the stick when it comes to our participation in the United States of America. This idea has been most recently bolstered when reading an article about the Health Care legislation that is being debated in Congress now. To quote the article:

In addition, the House bill would extend Medicaid eligibility to 150 percent of the poverty line ($33,000 for a family of four), while the Senate plan lifts the threshold to 133 percent of poverty (family income: $29,000).

Now, read that again, Medicaid coverage will be extended to households of 4 that make less than $33,000. Why doesn’t Congress account for the widely varied cost of living when accounting for income levels? $33,000 in California does not go nearly as far as it does in rural Alabama. Why should we Californians be subjected to the same taxation rates if we are only going to be short changed on the benefits?

Google Earth, not so un-evil?

Posted by – December 3, 2009

When installing Google Earth today, I was presented with the following before I could use the program:

To continue using Google Earth, you must accept the new Google privacy policies and allow Google Software Update to run in the background on your computer.

This smells funny to me… I like most of Google’s products, but I don’t enjoy having extra stuff forced upon me. While I imagine that Google’s Software Update service is probably fine and will most likely not cause any problems, I would like to at least be presented with an opportunity to opt-out of this.

Moving iTunes

Posted by – June 16, 2009

    I recently purchased a Drobo to move some of my larger multimedia files off of my iMac as it was running short on storage. The process for moving an iTunes library from one location to another can be daunting, so here are the steps I took. (Mac OSX specific).

    1. Copy files from drive A to drive B
    2. Make a backup of “iTunes Music Library.xml”
    3. Open “iTunes Music Library.xml” file on drive A in a text editor
    4. Find all references to drive A and replace with drive B
    5. Make a backup of the “iTunes Library” database file
    6. Delete the contents of the “iTunes Library” database file
    7. Open iTunes
    8. Get a beverage, it will take a while for iTunes to re-import your libraries xml file

    These steps were necessary because there are two accounts on my iMac using the same storage path for music but different iTunes libraries. Using the standard “Consolidate Library” method would have left me with thousands of duplicate song files. Using the above method simply changes where iTunes looks for the file to play.

California School Textbooks

Posted by – June 10, 2009

California’s Governor has recently announced an initiative to allow the use of electronic textbooks in the classroom. This is being done to reduce costs in a time when the state’s budget is in crisis. Unfortunately, at least in my opinion, the stated initiative misses the mark.

Instead of allowing textbook publishers to present their materials in an electronic format we should be looking into bypassing the textbook publishers entirely. There is no reason that the educational material could not be crowd-sourced to the thousands of certificated teachers currently working in California. Sure it would take some time to compile the material and there would need to be a strict approval policy, but a wiki-like textbook would be effective, efficient and cheap.

Imagine the combined brain trust of thousands of teachers all contributing, discussing and editing an evolving, online repository of information that is available free of cost or copyright restriction to anyone, anywhere. Additionally, local repositories could be branched off to suite the needs of individual communities and we could allow for a free and open discussion of contentious topics to ensure that the children being educated by the state are receiving the information in a manner that is judged to be fitting by people. Parents could comment, object or provide insight into any number of topics included and these comments, objections or insights would be available directly to the content providers. I am not suggesting a completely open system ala Wikipedia, but certainly something similar with controls over who can edit.

CAFE = FAIL

Posted by – May 23, 2009

The change to the CAFE regulations from the Obama administration seem to be much less stringent than I originally thought. The 35.5 MPG requirement is filled with as many loopholes as our street are with potholes.

The largest loophole is that instead of a strict, clear cut rule, the automakers will be able to base the fuel mileage in 2016 on estimates of what the Green House Gas emissions from that year will be. What this will allow the automakers to do is to reduce the Green House Gases by improving the Air Conditioners in their vehicles, which will effectively reduce their estimated fuel mileage that is being based on Green House Gas emissions. Huh?

Perhaps even more dumbfounding than the convoluted and idiotic fuel mileage mess is the provisions that will allow automakers to reduce their CAFE requirements based on the “footprint” (square footage) of the vehicles that they sell. The larger the vehicle, the less stringent the CAFE requirement. This also means that the CAFE standard for each company will be different based on the size of the vehicles they sell. How is this different than what we have now? How is this “Change We Can Believe In”?

President Obama, we do not need more of the same. The leadership of the last few administrations has left this country in dire straits regarding foreign oil dependence and emissions standards. Please, simply set strict rules without loopholes and allowances. Allow all car companies to compete on a level playing field and let them know what is required of them. Why is this so difficult to do in Washington D.C.?

Welcome to Cooper Jackson Pinnell

Posted by – May 23, 2009

My son, Cooper Jackson Pinnell was born on May 20th, 2009. Cooper is an amazing little bundle of joy and I can’t wait to share his life. While certainly challenging, and at times a bit frustrating the joy that he brings my wife and I is completely and utterly unparalleled.

CAFE Standards Increase

Posted by – May 19, 2009

Via: Autoblog

President Obama has recently announced an increase and standardization of the CAFE Standards for new vehicles. For those of you who think I may be talking about coffee the CAFE Standards are the minimum fuel economy standards automakers in the US must conform to, These changes are a big step forward, especially considering the utter lack of progress made over the last eight years.

These new standards apply more stringent fuel economy requirements and (of equal importance) these rules are to be standardized across Federal agencies (EPA and DOT) as well as being adopted by the individual states. Recently, California was involved in a court battle with the Federal government because California wanted more stringent emissions requirements than the Bush Administration (aka rich, white, oil magnates) would allow.

Unfortunately, these new regulations will only increase the CAFE by 5% each year until 2016 when cars will be required to average 42 MPG and light trucks will be required to average 26 MPG. While this is certainly a significant improvement, I would like to see more. I would like to see something in the range of 60 MPG and a mandatory minimum of 30 MPG. I think this is an extremely important part of weaning us from our dependence on foreign oil, not to mention the environmental significance.

In addition, I think that separate standards for passenger cars and light trucks is a serious flaw in the current regulations. The overwhelming majority of light trucks (which includes most SUVs) are used primarily to ferry passengers to and fro, just like a passenger car. I see no need for a separate standard for these vehicles. I understand that there are legitimate cases where a light truck or SUV may be required (contractors or other business uses) and I would not mind a separate standard for these, perhaps based upon a different licensing scheme (commercial vs. personal). Allow vehicles licensed for commercial use to be excluded from the passenger vehicle CAFE standard and instead fall under a commercial vehicle CAFE standard. This would allow anyone that needs an SUV or light truck to license it appropriately, perhaps even paying a higher licensing fee for the increased environmental costs associated with that vehicles operation. In California, this system is already in place with personal and commercial plates having different numbering schemes.

How to save F1

Posted by – May 14, 2009

For those who haven’t been keeping with the wacky world of F1 politics, here is a short primer:

First you must understand the current geography of F1. There are three major bodies involved, the FIA (the rules), the FOM (the money) and the FOTA (the teams). All three would like to reduce the costs associated with operating an F1 team, but they don’t necessarily agree on how to go about it. Currently the FIA and FOM have put forth rules that will allow teams to operate based on one of two strategies. Either you get to have unlimited budgets but limited technical freedom, or you can have a limited budget with more freedom from technical regulations. This may seem like a best-of-both worlds strategy, but I don’t think that it is.

Imagine an F1 world where Renault, Ferrari, McLaren, BMW and Toyota are spending upwards of $200 million dollars a year to compete with teams who have budgets of only $60 million dollars. The big boys will be spending enormous amounts of money, constrained by an overburdened set of technical regulations while the budget teams may be able to beat them with their greater technical freedoms. I can’t imagine Ferrari would be to happy with Lola coming into F1 and being able to run circles around them for a fraction of the cost.

So why wouldn’t the big boys want to run under the currently proposed budget cap? Well, I suppose it doesn’t seem like a worthwhile effort to them. The big name teams are in F1 to express their technical expertise on the world’s grandest motorsports stage. This season in particular has proven to the F1 world that pouring money into your team does not guarantee success. BrawnGP and RBR have begun to run away with the championship lead while the traditional front-runners are floundering. It isn’t because BrawnGP or RBR have spent more money, it is because they are simply doing it better. They are what F1 is all about. A dedicated team of engineers, mechanics and drivers that have crafted a car capable of amazing feats of speed, endurance and reliability.

So how does one fix the current debacle? Easy, at least I think it is easy. Simply begin to transition the cost savings measures from a technical regulation model to a budget cap model. Over the course of a number of seasons allow the teams more technical freedom in exchange for reduced budget caps. But don’t start with $60 million dollars, perhaps that number is attainable in five or more years, but the teams simply cannot be forced into it next year.

One thing I would love to see in F1 is a removal of technical regulations regarding the engine, in conjunction with a reasonable overall budget cap. Currently the engines are 2.4 Liter V8s, limited to 18,000 RPM. Additionally, development on these engines has been frozen for 5 years. That doesn’t seem very F1 to me, F1 is all about development. I would rather the FIA mandate a maximum amount of fuel per race and a restrictor plate. Allow the teams to use any displacement and configuration they want to achieve maximum performance from a specific amount of fuel and air. The size of the restrictor plate should be equal to the current intake volume of the 2.4 Liter V8 running at 18,000 RPM. That way a team could use a 4 cylinder, turbocharged boxer engine if they felt that it provided the best performance, or a supercharged 1 liter, inline 3 cyclinder. The point being that engine development would be a primary differentiator in performance. One other added benefit would be that the teams would be focusing a massive engineering effort on efficiency and fuel economy, something that the motoring public would directly benefit from.