Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Does Net Neutrality = Sinister Government Plot to Control our Actions?

No.

For those of you who aren't aware of the net neutrality debate going on, i'll give you a brief, yet biased, recap.

To have net neutrality is to allow every single website on the Internet the same equal privileges. Nobody's website gets special treatment because he/she/it has more money than others. More specifically, nobody's website loads faster than others just because he/she/it has more money.

I know, we live in a capitalist society and the people with less money should fall through the cracks and be pushed off the world wide web (sarcasm). I know this, but for some reason, i just don't feel comfortable being the person with the stick pushing them through (nor do i feel comfortable being pushed through the cracks by someone with a stick). On a side note, i understand that this is already happening......kind of. When you google someone, the person with the most hits is first, but there is always a list on the right hand side of "sponsored links", or links that people pay money to have show up. I'm okay with this because of the two lists. As long as people have a chance to be a number one hit, regardless of money, i feel good about the current system.

The problem with steering away from net neutrality is that the Internet, even with regulations, is the communications medium of choice in regards to free speech. You can literally say anything you want. I think that's a really important aspect of the Internet, regardless of all the messed up, craziness that is posted. It's that kind of freedom that is truly inspiring. Yes. people can libel you. People can post inappropriate pictures, but that same freedom allows you to post religious stories, political arguments and anything else that you enjoy.

Net neutrality isn't about the government controlling our lives. For instance, the government has their hands in what we view, but it's still run by the people. You don't believe me? What would happen if a show aired that had a gratuitous sex scene, and nobody complained? Do you think the FCC would take it off the air? Do you think they'd fine the the network that aired it? No, they wouldn't do a thing. They'd most definitely expect people to complain, but if nobody did, no actions would be taken and more scenes of the like would begin to air. I just don't understand how keeping things equal on the Internet would lead to the government taking over. I mean, i would if i was a fear monger, but i'm not, so i don't. Let's be honest. If the government really wanted to control everything, they'd be able to, regardless of whether or not the internet stayed neutral.

Next topic - Fear Mongers: why they are usually a detriment to society.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Partial Color Photography Should've Died With LaserDiscs

So......Because of the blatant title, I feel that I can jump head first into this rant without too much of an introduction. I will, however, give a quick description of "partial color photography", aka "crap" and it's effects on people's taste.

"Partial Color Photography", aka PCP, aka "crap", is what happens when someone, usually a photoshop newbie (or pewb, as we in the photo industry call them), succumbs to a mental battle between good taste and fascination with technology. Good taste being what looks good and fascination with technology being a fascination the technology. Pretty straightforward.

Basically, PCP is a black and white image with certain elements colorized, ie. eyes, flower or flowers, a butterfly, a stick of butter, etc..... You think of it, and i can guarantee you that somebody has done it. "Well this doesn't seem like a big deal", you're thinking. WRONG. it is a big deal. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do something. For example; writing on blogs. Just because technology allows the planet to blog, doesn't mean that the whole planet should blog. Myself included. Unfortunately, i do, and that's that.

Just real quick, i will be the first to admit that i've done it once. I succumbed to that battle and created a piece of art and said, "that looks good in black and white, except for the eyes. The eyes should be in color." Luckily, i've long since abandoned the old ways and found my inner taste.

Just because photoshop allows you to make a photo black and white except for certain elements, doesn't mean you should.

I look through online portfolio's of wedding photographs and time and time again, i see the same thing. PCP'd photos in the mix. LADIES and DUDES. It's not classy. Try concentrating on the actual photo at hand instead of the what you're going to do afterwards. You'll most likely create better work.

My problem is trying to convince everyone else that it is a bad idea. It's a never ending cycle. People see photographers doing this, thus they think that it looks good, which makes the photographer do it again. Someone (me) needs to stop this horrific cycle. When someone asks for that kind of photography, someone (me) needs to look at them and say, "yeah, i'm probably not going to do that. It's bad taste." I'm not saying i know exactly what is good taste, but i certainly can look at this stuff and say that it is not.


Some of you might have already been verbally assaulted by me, courtesy of this topic, but rest assure that I definitely held back for fear of losing friendships. I don't know why that would make you rest assuredly but hopefully it did. Anyway..... I apologize to anyone that i've offended. If you like that sort of thing, you should probably just trust me, and not like it. You'll thank me when the revolution begins.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

Androgynous Shopping

I found this unposted post and decided to post it, regardless of consequences.

Pet Peeve Number Whatever I'm Up To: When i go to buy clothes at a store, more specifically an outdoor store, more specifically scott's ski and sports in pocatello, and they have racks of clothes but no rack is labeled which gender they're for. Usually, it's pretty easy to tell, but with outdoor clothing, it gets muey difficile. It's not until i'm actually wearing the jacket, or shirt, or underwear (just kidding about the underwear) that i realize that i'm wearing ladies apparel. I'm probably just sexually insecure, but it is a genuine annoyance. I think it's because i have a fear of people looking at me thinking "why is he trying on women's clothing?" I mean come on, if you're not a lady, then you should have that fear, unless that's your "thing", in which case, i don't judge.

I'm no store owner, but i feel this would be one of the easier fixes that's in their control. Here is what i might do if i was in their position. I'd take two racks. i would put all the women's clothes on one rack. then i'd put all the men's clothes on the other rack. Now, here's the kicker. i'd put a sign on top of the women's clearance clothing rack that read as such: "women's clearance". I'd then put a sign on top of the men's clearance clothing rack that read as such: "men's clearance". Problem solved.

This weird fear/annoyance is closely related to my fear of the alarms going off as a leave a store even though i didn't steal anything. I think it's because i have a fear of people looking at me thinking "why is he trying to steal clothing?". It hasn't been so bad recently, but in the past, i'd get visibly concerned as i walked towards and through the detectors. At least i felt it was visible. Maybe not.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Pleasantries in Purgatory

I hate Internet etiquette. More specifically, etiquette on facebook. "But there is no etiquette on facebook", you say.

Wrong. Well.............50/50.

PROBLEM: What bugs me the most is, on facebook, when someone sends you a "friend request", you feel obligated to either confirm or ignore this friend. With confirmation comes endless amounts of notifications telling you that your friend ran 14 miles, or your friend is going to the bathroom. It's really quite annoying. On the other hand, if you ignore it, then (because people aren't stupid and can figure it out) you feel like a jerk because they know that you ignored their request.

For example. I was sitting in class one day. There was a girl I went to high school with who also attended the class. She was married. She had previously sent me a friend request and because, not thinking of the consequences, i ignored it. A couple weeks later, she confronted me in class asking why i kept ignoring her requests (i did it a couple time). CRAP!!! I was caught. jokingly, i told her that there was a long list of people who were waiting to be my friend (false), and that she would have to wait her turn. We both chuckled about it, and went and sat in our seats across the room, not talking to each other, just like we did the entire semester. What's the deal? We obviously weren't good enough friends in real life, what would be different online? what's the point? I didn't want anymore of these confrontations, but i also didn't want to clutter my facebook with people's pointless information.

SOLUTION: Purgatory. Not just after death limbo, but facebook purgatory. what the hades is facebook purgatory? i'll tell you. It's when you neither confirm nor deny a friend request, and you leave it pending for ETERNITY. I have about 34 people as of this moment who are currently in facebook purgatory. You're probably thinking i'm rude. Well, you would be correct, but I'm also trying to get the number of friends down to the magic number of 150.

The magic number of 150, or Dunbar's number (google it), is the maximum amount of human connections you can know. Vague and confusing, i agree. Without getting too in depth, when i say "know", i don't mean biblically, but i mean able to genuinely care and be involved with.

ie. i know my friend chad. that's one. I know my friend kat. that's two. my friend kat and chad know each other. Since I would want to know what's going on between them, that's three. blah blah blah, 150 people. This isn't a made up number. Human beings are physically hardwired to behave this way.

So, for those of you who are in purgatory, i'm sorry, but i care too much about other people. And since my sister is the only one that reads this, i don't really have to worry about any public outcry.

I realize i veered off track but it was on purpose. I basically used facebook as a segue to dunbar's number which is way more fascinating. I'm also using the number as an excuse to my terrible behavior, which i will in no way apologize for.