Amazing … the perfect synthesis of software engineering, World of Warcraft and love songs. Skeptical? Check this out…
Amazing … the perfect synthesis of software engineering, World of Warcraft and love songs. Skeptical? Check this out…
Sling Media announced recently the launch of three brand-new versions of their groundbreaking Slingbox product. For those of you unfamiliar, this is a simple box that you plug into your entertainment center — plug one side into your A/V source, such as a TiVo, and the other into your home network — and suddenly, with minimal setup no monthly fees, you can watch your TV from anywhere. Plug in your TiVo, and you can get your TiVo on your laptop at work. Plug in your DVD player, and you can watch your DVD from your Windows Mobile 5 smart phone. Any of the 500 deviced that can run the Slingplayer client make it possible to watch your TV from anywhere.
Sounds a bit like a commercial? Well, it kinda is. My company, Capable Networks, builds online communities. Among quite a few others, we run the official user community for Sling Media — the Sling Community. If you own a slingbox, want to own a slingbox, have had unexplained dreams recently about owning a slingbox, know someone with a slingbox, or think the slingbox would make a good Christmas present … then check out the community. It’s one stop shopping for everything slingbox, including…
I mentioned that three new models were being released. They are the Slingbox Tuner, the Slingbox A/V, and the Slingbox PRO. One of our editors, Matt Whitlock, has also written a couple reviews of the slingbox — one when the original slingbox was released in July, 2005, and another one focusing on performance just today. He also addresses the question “Which Slingbox is right for you?“, given that there’s some confusion around the three new units just released.
I normally don’t do these kinds of commercials on my blog, but this truly is a revolutionary product. Plus, I’ve very seldom plugged any of our communities, and they’re all very useful and interesting. If you like the Sling Community, you’ll definitely love Techlore and DVRplayground as well. And coming soon, the new official user community for WowWee Robotics, the Robo Community (not quite up yet). I’m “Jeff Block” on all of them. PM me, and let me know what you think.
Technorati tags: sling media, slingbox, placeshifting, television
I’m getting SO tired of SO many people saying that the United States is torturing suspected terrorists. It’s unbelievable to me that it is so easy for news commentators or politicians or arm-chair quarterbacks to give the rest of the world the impression (and I think they honestly believe this) that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rice sit around all day trying to think up new ways to torture people. “Whom can we drag into the chamber next?” “Where should we put the next CIA gulag?”
That’s just utterly ridiculous, and I’m getting sick of people like Howard Dean or John McCain implying otherwise.
I don’t know a single person (politician or otherwise) who has given me the impression that cutting off fingers or electrifying genitals would be okay with them. Even in the Abu Ghraib scandel — where you could make the argument that we actually did torture people — the people who did it are being prosecuted. Some are already in jail. It’s the terrorists who are lobbing people’s heads off with machetes, not us. We’re not even in the same universe.
So I want to know what “torture” is. To me, if we cause someone irreparable physical harm (chop something off or beat someone bloody), then we’re torturing, and I don’t think we should be doing it. That’s torture, and I’m against it. We’re better than that. Shooting someone in the leg, breaking fingers, shock treatment, etc. This stuff’s right out.
But scaring someone. Threatening them with words. Loud music. Dogs barking. Sleep deprivation. Stripping them naked. Scantily clad women making them feel uncomfortable. Keeping them in a really hot or cold room. Maybe even slapping them around a bit if necessary. All this stuff, if it breaks them and saves lives, then I’d approve it. I’m not happy about it. I don’t want to do it. I don’t get my jollies from it. But it’s an unfortunate, though necessary, part of war.
I guess what I’m tired of is all the worry and concern and hand-wringing over the emotional well-being of captured terrorists. I just don’t have much sympathy on that front, because I’m much more worried about sparing the tens of thousands of people who would lose somebody and have their lives irrevocably altared in the next 9/11 (if it were to occur). I think their safety and their emotional well-being comes first. Period. And if a few captured terrorists have a few bad days in prison to get it, then so be it.
Now, I can already hear you asking, “How do we know they’re actually terrorists? What if they were just barbers that took a wrong turn in Kandahar and ended up at Gitmo?” First, I can’t believe people actually think that’s the case. How incompetent do you have to assume our military is for that to happen?!
But second, I agree (in a sense). We should only rough up / make really uncomfortable the guys who have been tried in the military tribunals and found guilty, or whom we believe have information we need immediately. In those cases, the guy who went through three different levels of scrutiny before ending up in Guantanamo (because that’s what it takes) goes into cold-exhausted-rap-music-break-him-now mode. And I won’t really feel that bad about it.
And another thing… When John McCain implies we’re becoming like the enemy, it’s just plain insulting. How are we even close to the enemy, Senator? And when Nancy Pelosi or Howard Dean or Ted Kennedy says we’re torturing people, and Al-Jazeera puts that in primetime in Saudi Arabi, they don’t envision barking dogs, Hooters girls and loud music — they envision limbs being ripped off. And neither the enemy without nor the enemy? within bothers to clarify. Shocking that they’d hate us so much!
Last point before I get to my question… I heard one of the analysts on Fox News the other day say that we should use the following test to determine what are coercive interrogation policy should be… “If we would be comfortable with Al-Qaeda doing X to our troops when captured, then it’s all right for us to make X a part of our policy for interrogating prisoners.” He was making the point that we wouldn’t want the enemy who had captured our soldiers to strip them naked, lock them in a cold room and play the Red Hot Chili Peppers really loud (which is what the CIA did to extract vital information from Abu Zubaydah a couple years back), so we shouldn’t do that to the poor terrorists.
That’s SO ridiculous. First of all, our soldiers would be thrilled with that treatment. Unfortunately, we have to train them to be prepared to get mutilated by the enemy if captured. The second thing that really bothers me is that every time I hear someone (typically a conservative) say what I just said, I seem to always and immediately hear someone else (typically a liberal) say that just because they do it doesn’t mean that we should. Of course that’s true! Of course we shouldn’t! But that’s not what I’m saying, and I don’t think that’s what any conservative I know of is saying either. My point is that the same standard shouldn’t be applied.
The Fox News analyst’s test is totally invalid / fallacious. If our marines were the ones running around blowing up cafe’s and hospitals, beheading prisoners of war, and flying civilian airliners into buildings of more civilians, then YES … I would cetainly approve the Red Hot Chili Peppers and a cold room for them. If it were me, I’d probably approve more. But because we aren’t doing that kind of thing (not even close), we can’t use the same standard with the two sides. We are better than they are … more noble, more honorable. It’s extreme for us to “waterboard” someone. For the terrorists, there is no such thing as extreme. Therefore, in my opinion, it’s a totally invalid comparison. We cannot be too idealistic or theoretical, or we won’t be able to beat them.
All this brings me to the question… What does it mean to torture someone? Define it for me. And let’s get past all this nonsense about how the US is 30-seconds away from becoming like the enemy. Give me a break! We’re not even on the same planet.
Technorati tags: torture, abu ghraib, war on terror
Earlier this month, former president of Iran, Mohammad Khatami, went on a five-city speaking tour of the NE United States. He was invited to speak at the Washington National Cathedral, at Harvard’s Kennedy Law School, at the University of Virginia, and in other rather prestigious venues. Some lauded his coming as a shining example of the openness of US society — a gem in the crown of democracy. Others, like MA Governor Mitt Romney were less excited, claiming that (especially so close to the anniversary of 9/11) someone like Khatami should not be welcomed with open arms the way he was. And (in Romney’s mind) he certainly shouldn’t be afforded police escorts and other status symbols on tax payers’ dollars.
Just a few days ago, the current president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, visited the US as well, speaking at the United Nations, as well as at Columbia and Georgetown Universities and others. As is typical, many liberals were all for it, and many conservatives weren’t.
Bill O’Reilly has weighed in on this topic several times over the last few weeks on both radio and television. I bring him up because, as usual, I mostly agree with his views. His basic point is that this is a tough call. We’re a free and open society, and we all want it to remain that way. As such, we’re obligated to let people express themselves, even when we aren’t going to like what they have to say. However, there is a certain level of respect accorded someone when they are invited to speak at Harvard University, for example. I’m not sure that every psychopath in the world should be granted that level of respect, even if he was once the president of a country. Even still, both O’Reilly and I agree that you have to let him come.
But here are a few things that I believe Mr. O’Reilly (and others) are overlooking, which I feel are pretty important…
1) Harvard and other universities have a double standard. The same people screaming that Khatami and Ahmadinejad absolutely must be given any forum they want to say any thing they want, are the same people who would say that Christians should never be given a forum in public schools or in government. They’re the same people who would claim that President Bush’s faith disqualifies him from serious debate on many things, because he’s in a sense tainted by it. They would denegrate all day long the Jerry Falwell’s and Pat Buchanan’s and Jim Dobson’s of the world (not that I necessarily agree with them either, but that’s not the point) as being reactionary. The same group that would insist everyone give the presidents of Iran a fair hearing would call these other guys names all day long, belittle them at every turn, and try to make them appear incapable of a rational contribution to the debate. Or leave religion out of it and focus on politics, places like Harvard or Georgetown (in my view) feel far less likely to invite George Bush or Condoleeza Rice or Bill Bennett to speak than Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro. This is wrong and hypocritical, and it needs to be said. It means that it isn’t really the “free and open marketplace of ideas” that some claim so venhemently that it is.
2) The press routinely does not cover presentations by the likes of Khatami and Ahmadinejad fairly. Over and over again, guys like this are afforded every benefit of the doubt in the national media, where someone like Bill O’Reilly or President Bush are always assumed to be radical reactionaries, war mongers, homophobes, etc. It’s not balanced. And because it isn’t, it makes the question of whether or not to invite Khatami and Ahmadinejad on five-city speaking tours a hard one.
So, what’s my point? It’s not that we don’t invite them. Even after all this, I think we have to. What I want to change is how easy it is / how accepting we are. They should be invited, they should be escorted and protected (on Harvard’s nickel, not the taxpayer’s), and then they should be grilled within an inch of their lives about the horrible things they’ve done and are continuing to do. They should be exposed as liars and sociopaths. When they get to Harvard (or wherever else), they should be given a chance to say their piece, and then face a whole panel of people who call them out on all manner of fascist extremism that has gone on in Iran.
Why is their society not free and open? Why are people persecuted if they aren’t Muslims? Why are women considered less than men? Why are they funding and training terrorists? Why won’t them play ball with the UN over nuclear weapons? Why are they so viciously anti-American and anti-Israel? On and on.
The university is not just about the open and free exchange of ideas, it’s about truth and knowledge and learning and wisdom. Not everyone who would come and speak has these in equal measure. In other words, not every idea has the same value as every other. And if we don’t recognize that as a nation (and soon), then the danger we face in this war could overwhelm us.
Technorati tags: freedom of speech, mohammad khatami, mahmoud ahmadinejad, harvard, bill o’reilly

My buddy Dave sent this one in, and it deserves comment. Roger Shawyer, an English physicist, who has worked on such auspicious programs as Europe’s satellite navigation system (the Galileo project), is in the process of bringing to large-scale production a new type of engine he calls the “emdrive” — for “electromagnetic drive”.
This is an engine (pictured above) that uses microwaves (and blatant exploitation of Einstein’s laws of relativity) to propel the engine foward without any moving parts or fuel to speak of. A relatively-small electrical charge generates microwaves — using the same device found in the average household microwave — and protects them into a cylinder of just the right size and shape to cause the waves to resonate and multiply im intensity. Stir in some relativity principles, and the thing starts moving toward the fat end of the tube. Make it out of superconductive material that won’t bleed energy, and it starts moving fast. Now we’re cooking with … microwaves.
Check out the article Dave sent me from the NewScientistTech magazine.
Technorati tags: relativity, superconductivity, physics, electromagnetic drive, microwaves
In a speech to a group of professors in Germany on September 12th, Pope Benedict XVI quoted a 14th-century Byzantine emperor who characterized some of the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, Islam’s founder, as “evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” Almost immediately, his words were picked up by every media outlet imaginable, and broadcast to the entire world. Predictably, the Islamic world went nuts. Many protesters immediately proved that there is some obvious and concrete validity to the Pope’s comments by erupting into violent threats, burning effigies of the Pope in the streets, etc. Even the whole firing guns into the air and lighting cars on fire doesn’t exactly scream “religion of peace”. Of course, the Vatican is now back-peddling like crazy and apologizing six ways to Sunday, but that’s to be expected.
I think the Pope was spot on — 100% accurate that there is a wing of Islam (I’d actually call it a “side” of Islam) that feels perfectly justified in raping, pillaging, and killing anyone and everyone who doesn’t agree with them. Far too many Muslims feel they will rewarded by God for killing those who believe differently from them. They feel they have the perfect right to force people to convert to Islam, and even to destroy whole nations who get in the way. As a result, we are dealing every day with blood-thirsty killers like Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others.
Of course, there are peaceful Muslims too — probably even the majority (although they are certainly a silent majority). They just want to live their lives in peace, practice their religion, and not cause or get into much trouble. I respect them. But for the crazy Jihadists, not only do I have no respect, but I clearly believe that we will have to deal with them in a very strong, very … er … pointed way. Let’s use the nice innocuous term “harsh”. We’ll have to be “harsh” in our response. Simply put, they’re going to have to be put down before they kill us all.
So, what does this have to do with political correctness? Well, here it is…
I can’t believe the Pope is backpedaling. Why doesn’t he stick to his guns? Why is everyone so outraged that he called a spade a spade? Where’s the outrage from the Muslim street or the liberal press when one of our guys is getting their head sawed off by one of these fanatics? Where’s the outrage when someone says Christians are evil or the white man is always oppressive. I have to stomach that crap every day, and not only do I not blow things up in response … if I so much as say that I disagree, I’m a racist or a xenophobe or whatever.
Believe that the borders of the US need to be protected and that immigration should be orderly and controlled, your a racist.
Believe that marriage has a special place in society, your a homophobe.
Believe that murderous killers like Al-Queada do not deserve civilian laywers, and you’re a human rights violator.
Believe that there’s more to interrogating captured terrorists than “May I please have your name, rank and Jihad cell number”, and you’re torturing people.
But if you’re muslim or gay or someone who lost your husband in the war or a poor Mexican immigrant or the ACLU or the New York Times… Then you can do no wrong. You can’t be racist. You can’t be questioned. You can’t be contradicted. You can’t be profiled. And you can’t be made to feel bad or be told your wrong, because….
Political Correctness (my definition) is the 2nd most important law of the secular culture in America: You can never be made to feel bad.
(By the way, the first rule is: You can believe anything you want as long as you don’t actually think it’s true. But we’ll talk about that another time.)
And here’s the problem with the don’t-make-me-feel-bad law… It’s impossible. The only way to throw off all ability to deal with outside pressure like that is to lock yourself in the closet … forever … and even that wouldn’t work. So, the only way for the liberals (who believe this law to be real, where conservatives have much more of a “suck it up” attitude) is to focus on the people who disagree with them. And of course it doesn’t help that they believe they’re morally superior to the rest of us. I’m liberal, so I care more about people’s rights and poverty and the down-and-out and whatever else.
The conservative wants people to pull themselves up, to work hard, to not be taken care of, etc, but that makes people feel bad. So, the conservative is evil — or at least a callous unfeeling bastard.
And that’s how, in the name of freedom and equality for all, people can literally be more concerned for the well-being of the terrorists than for the well-being of the incalculable number of lives they threaten to destroy? That’s how people like John McCain can say that we’re “in danger of becoming like the enemy” or how we feel we can’t profile Arabic Muslims as potential terrorists (even though 98.3% of them are) or how professor after professor can keep his job even though he believes that the Holocaust was a myth and that we attacked ourselves on 9/11 as a ploy to get at Iraqi oil.
I think this puts all of us in a great deal of danger. We need to start taking our ques from the Pope and call things what they really are — instead of spending so much time avoiding hurting peoples’ feelings. And while we’re at it, let’s get rid of some of the ridiculous double standards. Being a white protestant male doesn’t make you any more inherently anything than being a black woman or a Muslim or a homosexual. And all the people who don’t believe that and still preach equality while pounding their fist on the podium is a hypocrite.
Technorati tags:political correctness, liberals, conservatives, conservatives, torture, homosexuality, illegal immigration