Thursday, March 31, 2005
For Jamie
Because Jamie wasn't convinced of the sex appeal of the SRT-8 the last time he took a gander, I'll send you all over here to take a second look at some much cooler pics. If you're still not conviced this is going to be a wicked car (that is perhaps only slightly strangely styled) then nothing can help you.
Dance Music In North America - According to the CBC
I just finished reading a great article on the CBC's website.
Anyone interested in music at all should check this out.
The comments at the end of the article are also quite telling, including a moronic (as in, 'uninformed') argument made by a 40-something from Newfoundland, about how 'electronic' (this, after the article clearly examines the problems with referring to all dance music as 'electronica') music has no character.
I personally agree with much of the article, and I think it's the type of thing music people in North America really need to ask themselves about.
I bought "Kish-Kash" (the Basement Jaxx record discussed in the article) for Morgan pretty much as soon as it came out. I love every second of that album, and I think if people would give up their hangups about dance music they could really enjoy this stuff.
I do understand, though, that sometimes I can be (I think everyone can be) a little snobby about what I listen to and accept as 'real music'. When it comes right down to it, I just want my music to be a little bit 'artistic'. Maybe you can ask Morgan to really try and nail that word down for you, but for my purposes, if music hasn't been (or doesn't feel like) it's been manufactured for me to consume, then I feel pretty good about at least giving it a try.
And I was trying not to say anything in direct rebuttal to our 40-something newfoundlander, there's one comment I can't let her get away with. First of all, making 'electronic' music does not necessarily mean that the primary auditory source was 'electronic'. Pick up a Daft Punk record if you want proof of that. Yes, often the sound is manipulated by a computer to add effects and blend noises and so forth, but even that is not necessary. It's actually possible to make 'electronic' music without every using anything digital to process the signal. In fact, much of the early electronic music was done "all analog", perhaps with the exception of a drum machine from time to time. There are very very few guitarist who can claim such a feat today.
And all her precious "real musicians" nowadays utilize ProTools and other computer tools to digitally 'touch up' their product during post-production. There are precious few musicians recording what they actually play/sing without modifying it - and most people wouldn't want to hear it if they didn't. It would sound horrible. And it often does sound horrible when we go see them live. (The fact of the matter is that it's hard to reproduce the intended 'feeling' of the more traditional types of moderm music (ie: rock) in a studio.)
I can think of many examples of 'eletronic' music (stupid term) that have moved me emotionally in equal proportion to any Dylan or Springsteen moment I've had.
I also agree with the article in blaming 'the labels' for the homogenaity of music that's easily accessible in North America, but I know a lot of people won't agree with me on that point, so I'll just leave it out there as my personal thought.
Anyone interested in music at all should check this out.
The comments at the end of the article are also quite telling, including a moronic (as in, 'uninformed') argument made by a 40-something from Newfoundland, about how 'electronic' (this, after the article clearly examines the problems with referring to all dance music as 'electronica') music has no character.
I personally agree with much of the article, and I think it's the type of thing music people in North America really need to ask themselves about.
I bought "Kish-Kash" (the Basement Jaxx record discussed in the article) for Morgan pretty much as soon as it came out. I love every second of that album, and I think if people would give up their hangups about dance music they could really enjoy this stuff.
I do understand, though, that sometimes I can be (I think everyone can be) a little snobby about what I listen to and accept as 'real music'. When it comes right down to it, I just want my music to be a little bit 'artistic'. Maybe you can ask Morgan to really try and nail that word down for you, but for my purposes, if music hasn't been (or doesn't feel like) it's been manufactured for me to consume, then I feel pretty good about at least giving it a try.
And I was trying not to say anything in direct rebuttal to our 40-something newfoundlander, there's one comment I can't let her get away with. First of all, making 'electronic' music does not necessarily mean that the primary auditory source was 'electronic'. Pick up a Daft Punk record if you want proof of that. Yes, often the sound is manipulated by a computer to add effects and blend noises and so forth, but even that is not necessary. It's actually possible to make 'electronic' music without every using anything digital to process the signal. In fact, much of the early electronic music was done "all analog", perhaps with the exception of a drum machine from time to time. There are very very few guitarist who can claim such a feat today.
And all her precious "real musicians" nowadays utilize ProTools and other computer tools to digitally 'touch up' their product during post-production. There are precious few musicians recording what they actually play/sing without modifying it - and most people wouldn't want to hear it if they didn't. It would sound horrible. And it often does sound horrible when we go see them live. (The fact of the matter is that it's hard to reproduce the intended 'feeling' of the more traditional types of moderm music (ie: rock) in a studio.)
I can think of many examples of 'eletronic' music (stupid term) that have moved me emotionally in equal proportion to any Dylan or Springsteen moment I've had.
I also agree with the article in blaming 'the labels' for the homogenaity of music that's easily accessible in North America, but I know a lot of people won't agree with me on that point, so I'll just leave it out there as my personal thought.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
New Muscle
There's some great new muscle showing up at this year's New York Auto Show.
A couple examples that really catch my eye:
A couple examples that really catch my eye:
- this wicked new Caddy
- this totally cool Charger remake (officially called the SRT-8)
- this AMAZING new SVT Mustang (Shelby GT500 label and all)
Best Desktop Picture Ever
Go ahead and just try to tell me this isn't cool.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Daring Fireball: On the Discovery Ruling in 'Apple v. Does'
Daring Fireball: On the Discovery Ruling in 'Apple v. Does'
There is a big big big court case happening in California right now, in which Apple has taken some of the rumor site administrators to court, with the intention of forcing them to reveal who their sources are (by providing access to ISP IP records and website transaction times, etc), that Apple may discover who is stealing information from them.
It's a very interesting case, and one that could have far reaching effects with regards to the "blogger"'s right to publish, etc, etc.
John Gruber once again lays the subject out for us. I think he's spot on and you'll likely be fairly convinced when you're done too.
One thing I find interesting about this case, (and I didn't know this before) is that not only is it illegal for someone to coerce someone else to break a non-disclosure agreement (as in, a journalist who pays money or threatens someone who is "in the know" to reveal what they know), but it is ALSO illegal for someone to publish something that they should reasonably been able to determine was covered under a non-disclosure agreement.
So let's concoct a hypothetical situation here:
Let's say you are a journalist and I am some fancy pants developer who was able to view a new technology at a conference last weekend.
Afterwards, you and I meet up for a pop, and you ask me about what happened, and I tell you what I saw, never once mentioning the non-disclosure agreement I signed before I saw anything at the conference.
According to the law I was just describing, if it is considered reasonable that you should have been able to deduce that the information I gave you was covered under some type of non-disclosure agreement, it is illegal for you to publish it.
Crazy eh?
There is a big big big court case happening in California right now, in which Apple has taken some of the rumor site administrators to court, with the intention of forcing them to reveal who their sources are (by providing access to ISP IP records and website transaction times, etc), that Apple may discover who is stealing information from them.
It's a very interesting case, and one that could have far reaching effects with regards to the "blogger"'s right to publish, etc, etc.
John Gruber once again lays the subject out for us. I think he's spot on and you'll likely be fairly convinced when you're done too.
One thing I find interesting about this case, (and I didn't know this before) is that not only is it illegal for someone to coerce someone else to break a non-disclosure agreement (as in, a journalist who pays money or threatens someone who is "in the know" to reveal what they know), but it is ALSO illegal for someone to publish something that they should reasonably been able to determine was covered under a non-disclosure agreement.
So let's concoct a hypothetical situation here:
Let's say you are a journalist and I am some fancy pants developer who was able to view a new technology at a conference last weekend.
Afterwards, you and I meet up for a pop, and you ask me about what happened, and I tell you what I saw, never once mentioning the non-disclosure agreement I signed before I saw anything at the conference.
According to the law I was just describing, if it is considered reasonable that you should have been able to deduce that the information I gave you was covered under some type of non-disclosure agreement, it is illegal for you to publish it.
Crazy eh?
Monday, March 14, 2005
New Adidas Commercial
'boards - Screening Room: "Adidas - Hello Tomorrow (90)"
TBWA\CHIAT\DAY which is the same company that does Apple's advertising, has created a commercial for the new "intelligent" Adidas sneakers. It's beautiful so go check it out.
TBWA\CHIAT\DAY which is the same company that does Apple's advertising, has created a commercial for the new "intelligent" Adidas sneakers. It's beautiful so go check it out.
Friday, March 11, 2005
Slashdot | Nintendo's Next Console Revolution
Slashdot | Nintendo's Next Console Revolution Will Have WiFi
Exciting news about the new Nintendo, including my recent prediction that they would make it backwards compatible with GameCube. Brilliant. I'm really excited for this.
Exciting news about the new Nintendo, including my recent prediction that they would make it backwards compatible with GameCube. Brilliant. I'm really excited for this.
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Bad Moon On The Rise For Saab
CEO bails sinking Saab - Autoblog - www.autoblog.com
One of my favourite automakers is looking like it may be in trouble. I feared this when they were taken over by "Big, Bad" GM, but it seems that some of those fears I had are coming to fruition now.
After recently losing a battle over where his vehicles would be produced the CEO of Saab, Peter Augustsson is leaving. He's upset.
I understand why. Saab has become increasingly influenced by GM, and not only have they been taking away some of things I found endearing and unique about the Saab line, but they have shown that they don't know how to market this type of vehicle properly. (GM Executive somewhere in Detroit says:"Duh, what's a turbocharger?") Not to mention that it's plain to see that GM has no respect for the "Swedish Way" of supporting themselves, and helping themselves, and being so very proud of their nation state specifically for their swedish-ness.
Cultural insensitivity aside, Saab is not doing as well as they should be, and I think it's directly related to the fact that their parent company is American. I see some of the same things happening to Volvo, though I think they're faring better with the slightly more open and innovative (read "desperate") Ford.
One of my favourite automakers is looking like it may be in trouble. I feared this when they were taken over by "Big, Bad" GM, but it seems that some of those fears I had are coming to fruition now.
After recently losing a battle over where his vehicles would be produced the CEO of Saab, Peter Augustsson is leaving. He's upset.
I understand why. Saab has become increasingly influenced by GM, and not only have they been taking away some of things I found endearing and unique about the Saab line, but they have shown that they don't know how to market this type of vehicle properly. (GM Executive somewhere in Detroit says:"Duh, what's a turbocharger?") Not to mention that it's plain to see that GM has no respect for the "Swedish Way" of supporting themselves, and helping themselves, and being so very proud of their nation state specifically for their swedish-ness.
Cultural insensitivity aside, Saab is not doing as well as they should be, and I think it's directly related to the fact that their parent company is American. I see some of the same things happening to Volvo, though I think they're faring better with the slightly more open and innovative (read "desperate") Ford.
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Whoever Said "What's In A Name?"
Alexander Payne ยป "They Stopped Calling It Rendezvous"
Apple changed the name of their implementation of Zero-Config from "Rendevous" to "Bonjour" recently.
This is one of the best technology stories I've ever heard. Take the time to read along. You probably won't understand a word if you don't use iTunes.
Apple changed the name of their implementation of Zero-Config from "Rendevous" to "Bonjour" recently.
This is one of the best technology stories I've ever heard. Take the time to read along. You probably won't understand a word if you don't use iTunes.
Friday, March 04, 2005
Brilliant!
I thought this was fantastic and wanted to share it. Credit goes to James Gosling (THE James Gosling) for hosting the picture *for me*.
The caption is:
The caption is:
Why Penguins No Longer Inhabit The North Pole
A Little History Lesson
Yes. Good on Pixar.
But just so you have your facts straight(er) (this is because of you, K.W., but I think everyone needs to hear this because your comment displayed a common misconception), Pixar was started by George Lucas during the Star Wars days (at that time it was simply called the "Computer Graphics Division"), and was purchased by Steve Jobs PERSONALLY in 1986 - he was no longer working for Apple at the time. This was when it was named "Pixar".
Pixar and Apple continue to be entirely separate entities today, though Steve Jobs is the CEO for each of them. Separately.
As for Disney, the mistake they made was pissing Pixar Executives (Steve) off with their unfair (for Pixar) distribution and profit sharing dealings, which prompted Pixar Executives (Steve) to decided not to renegotiate a distribution deal with Disney. From now on (as in, right after "Cars" is released) Pixar will be on their own.
By the way, the BIGGEST mistake Disney made, in leading up to the decision to severe the relationship, had to do with Toy Story. Pixar and Disney's original deal was for 5 feature length films (or maybe it was six - I'll get back to you). The problem for pixar comes in when they made "Toy Story 2" Disney decided that it wouldn't count towards their 5 film commitment - it was a sequel and therefore didn't count as a whole movie. Pixar was pissed about this, and the dissidence really seemed to get started around this issue.
I personally think the straws that broke the camel's back were 1) the voting-off-the-exec-baord of the last remaining Disney relative (Roy) and 2) Disney's announcement that they would be doing "Toy Story 3" on their own, without Pixar. I don't remember if '2' was announced before negotiations fell through or after, but it doesn't matter - they were obvously thinking about it.
Further reading:
Pixar History
This article contains some good info
Article on About.com
Another good article
But just so you have your facts straight(er) (this is because of you, K.W., but I think everyone needs to hear this because your comment displayed a common misconception), Pixar was started by George Lucas during the Star Wars days (at that time it was simply called the "Computer Graphics Division"), and was purchased by Steve Jobs PERSONALLY in 1986 - he was no longer working for Apple at the time. This was when it was named "Pixar".
Pixar and Apple continue to be entirely separate entities today, though Steve Jobs is the CEO for each of them. Separately.
As for Disney, the mistake they made was pissing Pixar Executives (Steve) off with their unfair (for Pixar) distribution and profit sharing dealings, which prompted Pixar Executives (Steve) to decided not to renegotiate a distribution deal with Disney. From now on (as in, right after "Cars" is released) Pixar will be on their own.
By the way, the BIGGEST mistake Disney made, in leading up to the decision to severe the relationship, had to do with Toy Story. Pixar and Disney's original deal was for 5 feature length films (or maybe it was six - I'll get back to you). The problem for pixar comes in when they made "Toy Story 2" Disney decided that it wouldn't count towards their 5 film commitment - it was a sequel and therefore didn't count as a whole movie. Pixar was pissed about this, and the dissidence really seemed to get started around this issue.
I personally think the straws that broke the camel's back were 1) the voting-off-the-exec-baord of the last remaining Disney relative (Roy) and 2) Disney's announcement that they would be doing "Toy Story 3" on their own, without Pixar. I don't remember if '2' was announced before negotiations fell through or after, but it doesn't matter - they were obvously thinking about it.
Further reading:
Pixar History
This article contains some good info
Article on About.com
Another good article
