logictortured.com Blog

The HD Scam

So the government decided to make us all buy new TVs (which you’d have to pry from my cold dead hands to take it from me!), free up some frequencies, and make TV broadcasters use different frequencies.

Despite dire predictions the switchover went off without a hitch. Most of us have big screen TVs in our houses and our TV shows and movies look awesome.

But I’m not as happy as I used to be. I’m not happy because we’re being scammed.

Both satellite and cable companies are holding onto HD programing and making us pay more to get it. But that’s all about operating in a free market right? Not really.

Right now every TV affiliate in my area is broadcasting in HD. But yet my cable company only gives me four of them in HD. They are taking the broadcasters’ HD 720p and 1080i signals, cropping them down the middle, and converting them to crappy 480i.

Do you remember when we switched from black and white to color? Can you imagine if the cable companies had converted the broadcasts back to black and white and then demanded extra payment to get them in their original form?

Clearly this is nothing but a money grab. They’re making us pay more for broadcasts without adding any value at all. They’re merely subtracting the value and then making us pay to get it back.

My guess is that the cable and satellite companies would argue that they don’t have the bandwidth in their systems to give us all the channels in HD. Of course that’s BS because they will give them to us if we pay enough.

And that argument is also BS because they’ve known about the switch over for decades. Basically, their argument is this:

We’ve sat on our asses for decades not upgrading our systems to handle HD. And because we sat on our asses doing nothing we should get paid extra money.

As I said, that’s BS.

Share this:

Never give up… never surrender!

Captain Peter Quincy Taggart was right when he said, “Never give up… never surrender!” I was faced with a situation over the weekend where I almost gave up. I’m glad I didn’t.

A friend of mine had a problem with his computer. When he transcoded video into MPEG-2, his computer would shut off.

I picked up the computer and took it home. I did what he attempted and confirmed the problem existed. I then tried transcoding the videos with a different program on his computer and it worked perfectly.

So I updated the program he used to the latest and the problem was still there.

To eliminate any software problems I grabbed a hard drive and installed a new copy of Vista and then the program he used… and the problem still existed. But it made me very happy because that eliminated any cause relating to software. That’s the great thing about diagnosing a problem. Every “failure” actually brings you closer to the solution.

I then started systematically replacing the hardware. The memory, the power supply, the mother board, the video card, and finally the CPU. After each change I’d transcode the files with the program and the computer would shut off.

I decided to install the program on my PC and transcode the same video file, just to make sure there was not anything weird in relation to the file and the program. It transcoded fine.

So I thought I had eliminated any software cause and any hardware cause. I was fricken perplexed. But because the PC could transcode those files with a different program, I thought, “That’s good enough.”

So with my tail between my legs I called my friend, explained everything above, and said I couldn’t fix it and he’ll have to use those other programs. I also told him that I’d keep the PC for another day in case I thought of something.

The next day I thought it had to be heat. Sure the CPU’s fan was running and the side of the case was off allowing plenty of airflow. But I wanted to eliminate that possibility because the CPU fan and heatsink were the only hardware which was consistent throughout.

So I downloaded this really cool app called Core Temp which allows you to view the temperature of each core of the CPU.

I started Core Temp and started transcoding the video with the problem program and sure enough the temp spiked up from about 45° C to over 100° C. I shut down the program before the computer shut down. I then tried the same thing on my PC and the temp never went over 65° C.

Hot damn, I finally solved the problem. It was the fan/heatsink. At first I assumed there was something wrong with the fan and thought about buying a new one. (Strangely I didn’t have the correct size in my stack of stuff.) But then I remembered how dusty the case was and decided to check out the heatsink. Sure enough it was stuffed with dust.

When I changed CPUs the previous day, I did blow on it and a lot of dust came out of it, but I didn’t look at it to see how much dust was in it. So I took it out to my workshop and used my air compressor to blow it out. It was very dusty.

Afterward I reinstalled the fan and heatsink and everything worked perfectly.

Share this:

It’s about fricking time…

The Democrats and Obama have finally signed into law a new health care bill.

My question: What the frick took so long?! He was sworn-in back on January 20, 2009. Throughout his term he’s had a majority in Congress.

What has he been doing for the last year? Attempting to get consensus from the Right. What the frick?!

When was the last time the Right compromised their positions? When they’re confronted with opposition they scream like school kids (example 1, 2 and 3) or pick up their toys and go home.

If Obama actually thought the Right would seriously come to the table in good faith and create a genuine compromise he’s an idiot.

He should have created the plan he wanted passed and had his majority in Congress vote and pass it within his first six months. The delay only gave the Right time to mobilize and create their asinine Tea Parties. It also gave Fox News a year to denigrate the plan which caused it to be watered down.

Could that be the reason for the delay? That maybe it was Obama’s plan to water it down from the very beginning? Mmm….

Share this:

Will Google become a TV network?

After watching NBC screw up yet another Olympics, refusing to show the events in real time, making it difficult to watch online, etc, it occurred to me in passing that Google could “broadcast” the Olympics on YouTube. Every single event could be streamed live. Or you could watch them when it’s convenient for you. Everyone would be happy.

The more I think about it, the more I think it’s a fantastic idea. In fact, I think eventually Google will turn YouTube into a broadcasting juggernaut.

The first problem to overcome is getting YouTube in your living room. However, that problem is already solved. There are plenty of devices in your living room which can already stream YouTube. PS3, Xbox 360, and the Wii, just to name a few. And just in case you cannot access YouTube on your living room TV, Google is building their own set-top box to make it easy.

Second, Google certainly has the technological backbone to handle the audience the Olympics would demand. If it could handle the Olympics, it’d have no problem handling a normal night’s programing.

And I have to admit that YouTube’s 720 and 1080 HD video options look pretty damn good. Not as good as blu-ray discs, of course, but way better than SD cable or satellite. While cable and satellite providers are holding onto HD programing with an iron fist and making viewers pay extra for the privilege of watching it, YouTube has the technology to put all their programing in HD.

And I’m sure some of you are thinking that YouTube uses a lot of bandwidth that costs Google a ton of money. Think again, Google has so much fiber optic cable around the country that Google essentially pays nothing for YouTube’s bandwidth.

A third problem is programing. I’m sure plenty of you are thinking, will the big four broadcasters let their shows air on YouTube? To me the question is irrelevant and incredible short-sighted.

The vast majority of programs only survive three years tops. Sure, CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox might have tons of cools shows right now. But will those same shows be cool in three years? Probably not.

To get next years’ cool shows Google would not have to pay anyone. Google would simply let the producers put their own shows up and take a cut of the advertising.

Instead of the big four’s approach of throwing out a hand full of shows each season and seeing what sticks, Google could throw out hundreds of new shows every day.

And while the networks are constantly accused of pulling shows prematurely, before they can build up audiences, Google could let any show run its course until the producers get tired of doing it.

And let’s face it, niche programing is in. Back in the old days of television, it was about getting the largest audience possible. Shows were dumbed down so every idiot could watch. Now it’s about getting specific and narrow demographics for advertisers to target.

It simply will not matter if Google does not have even one huge hit. Because it will have hundreds of niche hits that advertisers will kill to be involved in.

And YouTube eliminates the old networks’ problem with DVRs. Remember, they live and die by ratings. Thus, the networks want you everyone to watch at the same time. All Google cares about is views. It does not matter when someone views, just that he does.

So let’s recap, chances are that YouTube is already available in your living room. YouTube has the infrastructure in place to make it possible. And there are thousands of creative people chomping at the bit to get their shows in our living room, so Google has the programming.

The question is not really whether this will happen, but when.

Share this:

A glass of granite on the rocks…

I just read that on Saturn’s moon Titan, it’s so cold that ice is as hard as granite. With my imagination at full steam, I realized that the inhabitants there would obviously use it as a building material. So if we traveled there we could tell the inhabitants, “Back home we’d liquefy then drink this building.”

Of course that led to this question: Is there a place in the universe where the inhabitants drink granite?

Share this:

Why my kids can’t watch South Park

I’m an atheist living in a rural right-wing redneck part of the rust belt. Despite the vast number of bible thumpers in my city, my son and daughter are probably the only kids in the area that do not watch shows such as South Park or R rated movies.

I should point out that I first noticed this back when my son was 7. All of his friends love South Park and Family Guy and watch horror movies such as Saw. But I won’t let my kids watch them. Why am I the one acting like a bible thumper?

I certainly do not think watching South Park will turn any kid evil. He’s not going to start kicking his baby brother like a football because he watched a cartoon. And even if he did, that only means he’s already a sociopath, which had nothing to do with the TV programing other than a show giving a bad kid a bad idea.

And I’m certainly not a prude. For example, I have nothing against profanity. In fact, I cannot understand why anyone would be offended and upset over sounds used to form nonsensical words.

Take “fuck” for example. If I say, “fuck this” I’m not making an imperative, “Have sex with this object now.” What I’m really saying is that “I’m really pissed.” Why would anyone be offended over that? It makes no sense to me at all.

And I have no problem with my kids listening to any form of music, even satanic music. (Knights in Satan’s Service dude!)

In fact, the so called offensive content in shows such as South Park is not actually the reason my kids can’t watch them. It’s that I’d prefer my kids to watch kids’ shows. Why? Because they’re still kids.

As Lisa Simpson famously said:

It’s because they are kids! And so are we! Come on, Alex, we’ve only got nine, maybe ten years tops where we can giggle in church, and chew with our mouths open and go days without bathing! We’ll never have that freedom again.

As kids they can still enjoy the simple pleasures of shows such as Phineas and Ferb. They’ll have blast watching Diary of a Wimpy Kid. I just see no good reason for them to turn into teenagers before their teens.

If 8 year old kids are watching shows such as South Park and movies such as Saw, what are they going to find enjoyable when they’re 16? Tijuana donkey films? As far as I’m concerned, that can wait until college!

Share this:

Out of the frying pan…

The purpose of this piece is not to denigrate anyone’s religious beliefs. For me to argue that Islam or Christianity is or is not the one true faith would be as asinine as me arguing that an apple or a banana is or is not the one true fruit.

If you believe your faith is the one true faith, that’s awesome, amazing, and astounding and I would never attempt to change your mind on that. No, the purpose of this post is something entirely different.

Yahiye Gadahn is in the news again because he was recently captured. (Maybe.) For those who don’t know who he is, he’s an American who converted to Islam and went to the middle east to join Al-Qaeda. The purpose of this post is to look into why he converted from Christianity to Islam as explained in his internet posting, Becoming a Muslim.

As background he states that he was raised Christan and was home schooled. He claims his dad was pretty much an agnostic, but stuck with Christianity. It’s also quite interesting that his grandfather was Jewish. He criticizes Christianity for the “blind dogmatism and charismatic wackiness” of its followers.

I will go through Mr. Gadahn’s arguments as to why he converted one by one:

I discovered that the beliefs and practices of this religion fit my personal theology and intellect as well as basic human logic. Islam presents God not as an anthropomorphic being but as an entity beyond human comprehension, transcendent of man, independant (sic) and undivided.

I don’t see how this is different from Christianity. Sure, the Christian Bible says that God made us in his image, however, I don’t know any Christians other than children who actually belief that God is a human sitting up in heaven on a throne looking down on us like Zeus.

And while the Christian Bible talks about the Trinity I’ve never met a Christian who actually believes that Jesus is actually God. The reason Christians emulate Jesus is because he taught Christians how to act. Much in the same way how Muslims treat its founder and prophet, Muhammad.

Sure, it might be odd when Christians ask “What would Jesus do?” when it’s actually God running the show. But to me it’s completely insane to murder someone merely for illustrating Muhammad. So sure, Mr. Gadahn can criticize Christians for their devotion to Jesus, but he might want to take a long hard look in the mirror sometime.

Islam has a holy book that is comprehensible to a layman, and there is no papacy or priesthood that is considered infallible in matters of interpretation: all Muslims are free to reflect and interpret the book given a sufficient education.

This goes along with his argument against Christianity above, where he calls practitioners dogmatic. And he’s certainly right that Islam does not have the structured hierarchy that the Catholic church does.

However, this argument fails by his own actions. Mr. Gadahn was arrested and convicted of attacking someone who he felt was not Muslim enough. So while he praises Islam as not being dogmatic and for allowing any Muslim the opportunity to interpret the Holy Qur’an in his own way, he dogmatically and quite violently wants his narrow interpretation enforced on everyone else.

And he ignores the amazing amount of diversity among Christians. The reason there are so many sects and divisions in Christianity is because it’s nearly impossible to get two Christians to completely agree on everything.

As a great example, I have a friend who goes to a very liberal Christian church where they do not believe that Jesus was the literal son of God. They believe he was a great prophet and that we can learn from his words and action. But they do not believe he will save us.

(See the August 5, 2011 update below for information on the vast number of atheist Christians in Europe. You can be a non-believing materialist and still be a Christian! How’s that for diversity?!)

Think about that, Christianity is so diverse you don’t even have to believe in Christianity to be a Christian.

Islam does not believe that all men are doomed to Hell unless they simply accept that God (allowed his son Jesus to) be tortured on a cross.

This one is sort of odd. It’s certainly true that Islam does not teach that Jesus saves, to put it succinctly. No one is disputing that. However, the argument gets even more ludicrous because Islam also requires a belief system to enter heaven.

The parable of the Garden which the righteous are promised! Beneath it flow rivers. Perpetual is the fruits thereof and the shade therein. Such is the End of the Righteous; and the end of the unbelievers is the Fire.” Qur’an 13:35

So to get into Christian heaven, you have to believe in the tenants of Christianity. To get into the Islam heaven, you need to believe in the tenants of Islam. I don’t see a difference.

Islam does not believe in a Chosen Race

While Judaism teaches that Jews were the chosen people, Christians don’t believe that. They believe that Jesus ended the covenant between the Jews and God, allowing anyone to enter heaven. (As long as that anyone accepts the Christian faith, of course.)

So every single reason Mr. Gadahn gave to explain and justify his conversion is complete BS.

But it gets worse. He also writes that practitioners of Islam are not “the bloodthirsty, barbaric terrorists that the news media and the televangelists paint them to be.” And he’s certainly correct about that.

However, Mr. Gadahn has praised the innocent killings in the 9/11 and Fort Hood attacks and was working to ensure that even more innocent people died. So, why did he choose the path of the bloodthirsty, barbaric terrorist? And more importantly, why is his dogmatic and violent path of the bloodthirsty, barbaric terrorist better than the “blind dogmatism and charismatic wackiness” as practiced by Christians?

Is merely being dogmatic really somehow worse than dogmatically killing innocent people? Is merely being wacky really worse than being a sociopath? If these are worse, Mr. Gadahn never explains how or why. I’m not entirely sure anyone could.

Update – August 8, 2011:

A great article from the BBC about Atheist Christians running rampant in Europe:

An imposing figure in black robes and white clerical collar, Mr Hendrikse presides over the Sunday service at the Exodus Church in Gorinchem, central Holland.

“Personally I have no talent for believing in life after death,” Mr Hendrikse says. “No, for me our life, our task, is before death.”

Nor does Klaas Hendrikse believe that God exists at all as a supernatural thing.

“When it happens, it happens down to earth, between you and me, between people, that’s where it can happen. God is not a being at all… it’s a word for experience, or human experience.”

His book Believing in a Non-Existent God led to calls from more traditionalist Christians for him to be removed. However, a special church meeting decided his views were too widely shared among church thinkers for him to be singled out.

A study by the Free University of Amsterdam found that one-in-six clergy in the PKN and six other smaller denominations was either agnostic or atheist.

Share this:

Is free speech a trade issue? Who benefits from “free” trade?

I’ll let Google explain its own argument:

Search engine giant Google is urging the U.S. Congress to make the promotion of an open Internet a key part of American foreign and trade policy. Google Vice President and Deputy General Counsel Nicole Wong told a panel of lawmakers on Tuesday that Internet censorship not only stifles business and investment for U.S. companies but also for any enterprise that relies on the World Wide Web for its operations.

Speaking at a Senate subcommittee hearing on Internet freedom and the rule of law, Nicole Wong called for Internet openness to be a major plank of U.S. diplomatic efforts. She said that the free flow of information will help promote foreign assistance efforts and diplomacy as well as engage other countries on human rights.

She also said an open Internet should be part of the U.S. trade agenda because of the economic impact censorship has on companies.

“It [censorship] tilts the playing field toward domestic companies and reduces consumer choice,” said Nicole Wong. “It affects not only U.S. and Internet companies, but also hurts businesses in every sector that uses the Internet to reach their customers.”

While I certainly believe that free speech is an important human right, I’m not entirely certain whether it’s trade issue. The purpose of our trade laws is to make certain that governments do not favor its own industries and corporations. I don’t understand how China’s web censorship gives an advantage to natural corporations and an unfair detriment to foreign corporations.

Sure Google is used to operating under our free speech laws. Its entire business model is based upon the underlying premise that most data can freely flow through its pipes, with the exception of pornography and copyrighted material.

But that sort of mindset change always occurs when a companies try to compete in a foreign country. I’ve read that American car companies had trouble selling cars in Japan in part because they included cup holders, which the Japanese didn’t use, coin holders, which did not fit Japanese coins, along with steering wheels on the wrong side of the car.

I’ve also read that David Lee Roth had to change the name of his Eat ‘Em and Smile CD when it was marketed in Mexico because the title lost its sexual innuendo and was taken literally.

What I’m getting at is that while Google is at a cultural disadvantage, it is not an unfair disadvantage. If China’s largest search engine Baidu can succeed, Google can succeed. If it learns to adapt.

However, what this problem for Google illustrates is whether we need free trade in the first place.

As sovereign entities, why should a government not be able to favor its own industry? Who would be against such favoritism? Foreign corporations, mostly. The real purpose of the WTO is to eliminate costs for corporations. They want to build their gadgets throughout the world, using the cheapest labor possible, they want to set up shop in countries with lax environmental laws, and most importantly, they do not want to pay tariffs on their property transfers. In other words it’s all about maximizing profits and minimizing costs.

The corporations of the world have created the WTO to exempt themselves from the laws the rest of us follow. If they don’t like the environmental laws in Germany, they’ll move to Mexico. If there’s labor unrest in Mexico, they’ll move to China. They’re free to do whatever they want without paying anyone, all in the name of fair and free trade.

You can see the problem. It’s not really fair when the laws of each country are not equal. Even between the US and Canada, Canada has a huge advantage in that corporations who set up there will not have to contribute to health care costs. That puts US workers at an unfair disadvantage. Fair trade can only work where the laws and customs of each country are equal.

Think of it this way. China has very lax environmental and worker safety laws. Our strong environmental and pro employee laws are rendered meaningless to international corporations. They can ignore our laws, build their materials in China, and then sell them to us. And there’s not a damn thing we can do about it.

Tariffs were the system governments used for centuries to keep trade fair. When the government noticed an unfairness, the tariff could be increased proportionally.

If we truly had fair trade through the use of tariffs, any corporations who set up shop in China to avoid our strong environmental laws, could not benefit from such a scam. If they wanted to sell their products here, they’d have to pay accordingly.

Of course someone will make the dogmatic argument that protectionism does not work and that only a free market will benefit everyone. But who are making those arguments? International corporations and universities and think tanks which are funded by such international corporations.

And where is the evidence that the WTO’s version of fair trade benefits anyone but corporations? Sure the WTO’s version of fair trade benefited the US back when we were the world’s largest exporter. But when our wages got higher and our laws got stricter, corporations dumped us for the third world. Now those very same fair trade laws are killing our country. Decade after decade the US sinks deeper in the toilet. How long will this “fair trade” experiment last before we give up on it?

Share this: