Category Archives: Ramble

The Great Phone/Internet Experiment

Posted on by

Rogers Cable can suck my <expletive>.

We get (got?) all our home connectivity services through Rogers. This means 2 cell phones, 1 Digital Cable, 1 “Express” Cable Internet (10Mbps), and 1 home phone. We are trying to ditch Rogers because what they’re actually sucking is our money. Out of us. Or our bank accounts. Which REALLY sucks.

The straw that broke the camel’s back was the most recent letter we got from them. “Most Recent” because it is the second such letter. The first one came a year ago, saying (paraphrased), “If you would like to continue to receive your Better Choice Bundle discount, you need to commit to 2 years.” (I remember them saying 3, but Rogers insists it has always been only 2, so I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt). On the phone and through no fewer than 3 conversations, I essentially told them, “Piss off. No, sir, I will brook this a moment longer, sir.” Which was a lie, because they held onto me for another year when someone stepped up and said, “We’ll grandfather your existing arrangement for another year.”

But this year, as they hinted, we got another letter saying the same thing. “If we do not receive a commitment by October XX, you will no longer receive your discount.”

What.

The.

F***.
Continue reading →

Something cannot be “very” or “really” unique

Posted on by

The word “unique,” by definition, means exactly this: “one of a kind.”

Imagine saying to someone, “Wow, great outfit. It’s very one of a kind.” Or “Hey man, you have a REALLY one of a kind songwriting style.” It makes no grammatical sense.

Is it one of a kind or not? If it’s kind of like something else you’ve seen before, it’s not unique, period. If it’s kind of like something you’ve seen before, but with something different to it, then it has a unique approach (or whatever). And if it’s truly one of a kind, such that you want to enthuse about it, it’s “unique”.

Not “very” unique. Not “really” unique. Just unique.

Rant over. ;)

The Kindle DX – when will books be affordable again?

Posted on by

Just read an article about the forthcoming Kindle DX eBook reader. Ever since the eBook concept was first brought to the public eye, friends and family have said, “Ugh, I can’t imagine reading a whole book on a laptop.” I’m sure I’m not the only person who was forward-looking, but for at least the last 10 years I have responded with, “But wait until the electronic ‘page’ starts to look and feel like a real one. You’ll see!”. I don’t think the current generation of eBook readers are there yet. But the screen colours and contrast at least aren’t eye-offending.

Here’s where I get annoyed, though: I have always been counting on the advent of the eBook to bring down the prices of books again. After all, a small marked-up text file is cheaper to produce, manufacture (there is no manufacture), and distribute than a real book. Pass the savings along to the readers! But no. This world is effing greedy, and new eBooks cost roughly the same as a paperback.

What will really get me to move to an eBook reader like the Kindle DX is the combination of a few things:

1. Lower price for a unit: ~$400 is still too much for a rather focused tool. Eye strain or not, if I were to spend $400 on something similar, it would be for a netbook. Why? ROI. The assumption is that to get return on investment, you should weigh against the cost of the existing alternative (printed books). For $400 I can get:

  • a dozen new (current) hardcovers
  • 30 new paperbacks (the same as 30 new eBooks, it should be stated)
  • 60 or so “Bargain Section” (but new) hardcovers
  • 60 or so used hardcovers (it’s debatable whether the market in used books should be allowed since authors and publishers get no additional revenue; but it’s not illegal!)
  • 100 used paperbacks (see above re: used books)

You can’t even GET used eBooks unless you want to be shady. Unlike the printed version (a physical asset), as far as I know if you redistribute an eBook you are breaking copyright and committing piracy. Arrrrr…. It would take me probably 8 years to get through 100 books.

2. Lower price for the downloadable books: ~$10–$15 for an eBook from the bestsellers list is the same cost as the same book when it comes out in paperback. I prefer hardcovers in general, but you’re not getting that with the eBook either.

3. Increased personal spending on books. Whether it’s the rising cost of paper books or increasing my volume of reading beyond 8-12 per year (at best), if my personal yearly spend on books increases into the hundreds, it would be worth it to me to have an eBook reader.

4. Desire for the technical features. I think this is what they’re counting on. People deciding they just want their several-dozen books in one portable place, or people who find it more convenient to read at night with a backlit screen than with annoying booklights.

Until these things conspire to make an eBook the right option, my smugness at having predicted more readable eye-friendly screens is squashed alongside my dreams of people offering eBooks for the right non-gouging, non-opportunistic cost.

Finally, because I like images in my posts… I just grabbed this from a related Kindle DX article over at betanews about the Kindle DX. The author liked the screensaver. Someone has made a quiz out of it. ;-) I got (shameful for a lit major, but we were reading books, not looking at pictures!) 3 out of 5. I didn’t register at the end, so I don’t know how highly I ranked. (scroll way down… weird empty space automatically inserted…)

Don’t try to squeak in a post too late at night

Posted on by

Yeah,

So I wanted to write about this weekend’s plumbing experience, then tomorrow I would write about pulling the powder room together once and for all…

But as I was writing a million steps of what should have been a short tutorial, I realized that I didn’t know wth I was saying anymore.

Lesson learned.

Look for those articles and more within the next few days. ;-)

Greg

Twitterin’ and Bloggin’ and bein’ Social

Posted on by

I’ve been using social media since God knows when.

The first serious addiction I had to it was when I got a 300 baud modem for my Commodore 64… which (due to the addiction) I soon upgraded to a screaming 1200 and started using some of my burger-flippin’ money to pay for my own phone line (so as not to hog my parents’). Late nights were occupied connecting to BBSes, many of which were 1 connection at a time. The conversations were interesting, heated, often political or relevant, and were food for a hungry teenage mind.

Then there was a pause… until a few years later with a 56K modem, I discovered Telnet and online MUDs (Multi-User Dungeons). Not only could I play a game in realtime in a rich “swords and sorcery”-type fantasy environment, but I could interact with other people connected at the same time. Wow! My MUD of choice was, and still would be Lostsouls.org, a lovingly-created and brilliantly-realized world. I even created The Neophyte Handbook for the game, which I believe is still being used to introduce new players to Lost Souls. I have never taken up modern MMORPGs like World of Warcraft, but I can understand the appeal of level grinding with the assistance of real people.

The next addiction was internet forums. Racking up thousands of hours posting and reading (in other words, interacting via social media!) forums related to my interests such as music recording and guitar-building. How many times can a guy hit “refresh,” hoping to see new posts on particularly interesting threads? A lot.

On a similar front but with obvious differences, I like to spend a lot of time playing online board-games at Asobrain.com. Board-games are only fun when played against real people, and teh intarwebs give me the opportunity to do so. I play similar board games “in real life” as well, but this helps me get my fix for the several weeks-long stretches between real games.

Which brings me to my point… given a bit of a track record for addiction to online interaction, is my Twitter account going to be my next addiction? I’ve only started up, but I do enjoy checking into it. I’m not so sure it’ll be the same kind of addiction, though. I love up-to-the-minute information, and that’s what Twitter has on offer. Chris Bennett talks about just that—how it’s not just a glorified, world-wide instant message, but a way to stay up-to-the-minute with relevant information. Another thing that I agreed with was how it’s bringing “celebrities” in contact with everyday people. I have a fairly large number of famous people in my follow list, not because I’m a celebrity watcher or anything, but because I’m finding it incredibly fascinating discovering how down-to-earth some of them really are. By inviting you into that world, it gives you less of a reason to be in awe of them, and as long as they’re not complete numpties, more of a reason to respect them.

The blog on the other hand…

That will only be an addiction as long as it doesn’t feel like a burden to keep updated. And luckily, not needing to grow an audience, that shouldn’t be a problem. ;)

Greg

CyberChimps