Passacosa - Page 3

Strike Three

Saturday 13 September 2014 • 11:23 PM

For the longest time I assumed that the last great ((and by great I mean the Genesis of the 1970s: quintessential progressive rock, before Phil Collins “pop”-ularized the band in the 1980s, as his solo career began taking off)) Genesis album was Wind & Wuthering. So much so, that I considered Wind & Wuthering to be the last Genesis album period. It seemed fitting– Wind & Wuthering has one of my all time favorite Genesis songs on it, “Afterglow,” which happens to be the last track of the album. Genesis, like most great prog bands, were able to create these beautiful, albeit fleeting, moments in some of their compositions. Moments that kept me coming back for more, yearning for them to last. “Afterglow” is rather unique in that Genesis isn’t afraid to repeat one of these moments– quite the opposite, it’s the core of the entire song, building and building, capping a final crescendo at the end of the piece. It’s a beautiful composition, rivaling Genesis’ best moments in Selling England By The Pound or As The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway.

But on a whim a few months ago I played …And Then There Were Three… Released in 1978 after the departure of Genesis’ guitarist Steve Hackett, …And Then There Were Three… holds its own against the band’s earlier repertoire. While not their best, …And Then… is certainly not crap. Though there is some evidence of Collins’ future “pop”-ularization to which I alluded to earlier, there are, nevertheless, some fantastic pieces and moments on the album. Notably, the first two tracks “Down And Out” and “Undertow,” the latter especially. “Undertow” can go toe-to-toe with some of Genesis’ best work on their first two post-Gabriel albums A Trick Of The Tail and Wind & Wuthering.

It’s a testament to Genesis that they were able to produce such an album after the departure of Hackett. Many a music critic spelled the death knell of the band after Gabriel left in 1974. But to everyone’s utter surprise A Trick Of The Tail was not only good, it would eventually become one of Genesis’ best works. Amusingly, some critics penned that Phil Collins sounded more like Peter Gabriel than Peter Gabriel did.

So it’s arguably even more impressive that …And Then There Were Three… is as good as it is. Doubly so considering how awful their future work would be in comparison. Make no mistake, Steve Hackett was as much a vein of the band as Collins. Many refer to Hackett’s first solo album Voyage Of The Acolyte as the “lost Genesis album.” Losing Hackett at the end of the 1970s really was akin to the band losing a limb. My hats off to them for producing quite a listenable and impressive album. I’m enjoying now and I’ll continue to do so in the future.

You’ve Got To Be [Redacted] Kidding Me

Friday 22 August 2014 • 11:06 PM

Via Techdirt.:

Two more documents were released late Friday, with one of them being more about what it doesn’t include than what it does and the other potentially leading to irreversible eye damage.

Click on the link if you’d like, but basically, the entire report is redacted. The FBI is adhering to FOIA requests just by technicality. This reminds me of when President Nixon released heavily edited transcripts of his Oval Office tape recordings during Watergate. Didn’t fly then and surely this kind of behavior won’t fly now. Right?

Out Of Business

Thursday 21 August 2014 • 10:45 PM

If corporations are people, mathematically, isn’t the reverse true? Next April, I would like to file my taxes at the corporate rate of 13.4%. Who can I talk to about this? Does anyone have Secretary Lew’s phone number?

Where Are All The App Phones?

Monday 18 August 2014 • 4:38 PM

In David Pogue’s 4 November 2009 column, he highlighted a linguistic conundrum facing the mobile industry:

“Smartphone” is too limited. A smartphone is a cellphone with e-mail — an old BlackBerry, a Blackjack, maybe a Treo. This new category — somewhere between cellphones and laptops, or even beyond them — deserves a name of its own.

I invited suggestions on Twitter. The best came from @mentalworkout: “app phone.” Bingo. Apps distinguish iPhonish phones from mere smartphones, so “app phones” it is.

Sadly, this is the only time I ever remember hearing this term. It’s a shame that it didn’t catch on, because I think Pogue’s analysis of the term “smartphone” is spot-on. And I would go further, arguing that even “dumb phones” are smart. They have GPS, allowing authorities to determine your precise location anywhere on the planet. They can make phone calls from practically anywhere on the planet wirelessly. They can send SMS messages. They can take pictures. And, in their own crude way, they can get onto the internet. Sounds pretty smart to me.

The other synonym for “dumb phone” is the (probably) more widely used “feature phone.” That term is even more confusing– app phones and dumb phones both have various features and hence, can justifiably be labeled “feature phone.”

I still try to use this term, even though it usually yields quizzical looks. I don’t care. I’m a technology snob and an linguistic snob. That doesn’t mean the two aren’t mutually exclusive. Long live the app phone!

LinkedOut and Notworking

Friday 15 August 2014 • 6:03 PM

Part of my process of submitting job applications involves, unsurprisingly, LinkedIn. Normally, I would submit my application and then seek out recruiters and HR reps at the company on LinkedIn. I would amend the note attached to my connection invitation explaining that I had just applied for such-and-such position and was hoping s/he could provide some tips as to how to get my application in front of the right set of eyes. I had about a 40% success rate with this method. Until recently, I thought nothing of it.

The other day, when I attempted to connect with a recruiter at a company to which I had just submitted an application, I was asked to enter the person’s email address. I didn’t know the person, so there was no way for me to have this information. Now normally, when connecting with people on LinkedIn, you are asked to specify how you know the individual: classmate, colleague, friend, etc. ((There’s also an “I don’t know this person” option. If you select it, LinkedIn denies your connection request, explaining that you should only connect with people you know. So why the hell is that even an option? That’s like having a button that says “laser heat” on a microwave that does absolutely nothing when you press it. Or worse, makes the food colder.)) It turns out, when you get a connection request on LinkedIn, there are three options: “Accept,” “Decline,” and “I don’t know this person.” If the invitee selects “Decline” the inviter is, obviously, not connected. However, if more than 5 (different) invitees select “I don’t know this person,” the inviter’s account becomes restricted, essentially crippling the functionality of LinkedIn. This happened to me.

I just finished my Master’s degree. I’m trying to build a network to start my career. There are lots of people I don’t know. How am I supposed to grow my professional network if I have to provide information I have no way of obtaining?

Imagine if this is how cocktail parties worked. Or any real life social interaction. Or even dating websites.

Me: Hello, my name is George.
Stranger: I don’t know you.

(repeat 5 times)

Me: Hello–
Stranger: Before we continue this conversation, please tell me my birthdate or my mother’s maiden name.

I can understand having these safeguards in place. Nobody wants to bombarded with spam, but penalizing people for trying to connect with recruiters flies directly in the face of the purpose of LinkedIn. Hell, when I reach out to recruiters I’m essentially doing their job for them.

This begs the question: why is “I don’t know this person” even an option? What’s wrong with “Accept” and “Decline?” Given the functionality of the “I don’t know this person” button it might as well be renamed the “Fuck you” button.

For full disclosure, LinkedIn offers a (somewhat convoluted and hidden) method of removing this restriction. I stumbled across a forum on LinkedIn that explained this process. Once you find this page, you reaffirm that you understand that you shouldn’t reach out to strangers. Click the “accept” button and your account is returned to normal. However, if your account becomes restricted again (i.e. you get five more “Fuck yous”) you must contact LinkedIn customer support to return your account to an unrestricted state.

But this is all beside the point. LinkedIn shouldn’t even function like this. Or at the very least, its algorithms should be smart enough to tell the difference between Russian connection spammers and an unemployed 27-year-old attempting to connect with HR reps. And it’s not like I’m sending out hundreds of LinkedIn connection requests in the first place. In the last year, I’ve invited fewer than 100 people to connect with me on LinkedIn. That now constitutes spam?

I don’t even like spam. And I’m not the only one.

Can I Interest You In…?

Saturday 19 July 2014 • 9:16 AM

From The Verge:

In other words, the incentive structure is really about punishment. Reps start out the month with a full commission, but every canceled product deducts from that amount. Once reps fall below a certain threshold, they get no commission at all. That means a rep could get all the way to the second-to-last day of the pay period only to have a customer cancel four products. Suddenly the rep is below her goal, losing $800 to $1,000 off her paycheck.

Brilliant: Comcast’s abysmally low customer service ratings are self inflicted. Not only does Comcast not give a damn about its customers, it treats its service representatives with the same contempt, scorn and disregard.

This Whale Blubber Burns Extra Long, Too

Thursday 10 July 2014 • 12:56 AM

Sebastian Anthony, writing for ExtremeTech

The telecommunications masters at Bell Labs have managed to deliver a world record connection speed of 10Gbps (10,000Mbps) over copper wires.

Bragging about maximizing speeds over copper wire is like bragging about how much content you can squeeze on a VHS tape.

Shake And Bake

Thursday 3 July 2014 • 5:00 PM

From the PBS Newshour’s Rundown blog:

Research published in Thursday’s edition of the journal, Science, shows that just four of these wells could be responsible for one-fifth of the region’s earthquakes experienced between 2008 and 2013. These are four high-volume wells used in disposal operations near Oklahoma City, researchers at Cornell University found.

“The pressure of the water in the pore space of rock can reduce the forces keeping a fault locked, and potentially trigger a rupture,” reports Science news.

This is a possible explanation for the recent surge of earthquakes in the region. Since the start of the year, the state has already seen 240 quakes measuring a magnitude of 3.0 or greater.

Earthquakes in Oklahoma are like tornadoes in Seattle: they aren’t natural and shouldn’t happen.

Don’t Forget Phonographs

Wednesday 25 June 2014 • 11:57 AM

Chief Justice John Roberts, in the Riley v California decision

The term “cell phone” is itself misleading shorthand; many of these devices are in fact minicomputers that also happen to have the capacity to be used as a telephone. They could just as easily be called cameras, video players, rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions, maps, or newspapers.

Well, it’s decided. I’m going to start calling my iPhone a rolodex.

I’ll Drink To That

Thursday 19 June 2014 • 4:22 PM

When energy companies summarily dismiss the risks their technologies pose to water contamination, I’m reminded of the classic scene from Monty Python’s Life Of Brian which asks, incredulously, “What have the Romans ever done for us?” In this case, the Romans are reservoirs of fresh water, while John Cleese and company represent the cynics, snidely questioning: “Aside from manufacturing, building, cooling, washing, bathing, farming, cooking and drinking, what has fresh water ever done for us?”

Hardly a laughing matter, the Charleston, West Virginia chemical spill of late has brought the threat and consequence of water contamination to the fore. As the people of Pavillion, Wyoming, Marshall, Tennessee, and Mayflower, Arkansas will attest, though, this pattern is frustratingly familiar. Only in the aftermath of disaster, does the public demand implementation of environmental safeguards– a demand which all too quickly recedes into complacency and inaction. Fortunately, enacting sensible energy policies can help break this destructive cycle.

Meeting the world’s energy demands solely from renewables is no longer an environmentalist’s fantasy. In fact, the energy residing in upper-level winds alone is enough to power the planet 100 times over. Recognizing this potential, installed wind power increased steadily between 2010 and 2012, and in 2012, claimed the top spot for newly installed capacity. Per a Department of Energy study, this trajectory matches that needed to generate 20% of the country’s electricity from wind by 2030. The production tax credit (PTC), a temporary subsidy on which the industry depends, boasts advocates of both political persuasions. Its renewal at the start of 2013 resulted in a significant uptick in wind energy projects late last year. And although the PTC expired January 1, 2014, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), incoming chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, plans to reinstate it and several other lapsed tax credits. All told, wind power generates almost 3.5% of the country’s electricity, a figure that’s been rising since 2002.

Among the most under touted advantages of wind energy is its minimal use of water. Compared to hydraulic fracturing, oil and gas drilling, nuclear and even solar and biofuels, wind energy’s water consumption occurs only at its inception: turbine manufacture and transportation. Once installed, you can think of a wind turbine as a 175 foot tall cactus– a cactus that can generate upwards of 5 megawatts of power.

Safe drinking water is an easily understood subject, championed by all. Contrastingly, centurial climate forecasts predicting a 0.5 to 1 m surge in sea level or a 2º to 11.5º C rise in global temperature are difficult for the layman to comprehend and appreciate (doubly so because they’re in metric). In an era where lightbulbs and even toilets are politicized, reliable access to clean water remains one of the few wholeheartedly supported, nonpartisan issues. Were I a betting man, I would wager that even the most ardent climate change skeptics take hot showers and cook farm-grown food. Thus, wind energy development, within the context of water conservation, provides the best incentive for a domestic energy revolution.

Fundamentally, these issues are two sides of the same coin. Weening the country off fossil fuels mitigates the dangers they pose to the water supply. Supported by scientists and politicians alike, these are no longer unattainable goals. Wind energy already lowers consumer electric bills. By Department of Energy estimates, the industry will become self sustaining around 2017, eliminating its need for the PTC. Surely wind energy’s benefits outweigh its (oft misquoted) ecological and aesthetic counterarguments. (At their advent, I bet power lines, for their purported unsightliness, fell victim to public contempt and derision). Equipped with tangible means for energy reform, the country can begin minimizing the unnecessary risks it takes with its water supply. Eventually, Americans will be guaranteed, unequivocally, clean air, clean water, and when they flip on a light switch, a clean conscious.