It's long been a dream of mine, and an occasional quest, to be able to visit BBSes like in the good old days, the early 90s, when games like Tradewars 2002 and Legend of the Red Dragon, aka LORD, were the best thing going "online." Heck, online actually meant on-a-phone-line then.
These days almost every BBS still around is accessible through telnet. The problem with using these BBSes with a Mac is the view, especially if you use the Mac Terminal application. The colored DOS-based text that made all of the once-fancy graphics possible on BBSes just doesn't display properly on a Mac, not without a good amount of research and downloads and settings adjustments.
There is one program out there that seems to be a silver bullet for this problem though, a program so old it looks like it is DOS-based, even though it works great on the OS X platform. It's called SyncTERM, available at http://syncterm.bbsdev.net/. SyncTERM takes some getting used to, as its interface is simple, with just enough menus and settings to get the job done. What it does do superbly is display extended ASCII text and ANSI special effects, all of the fancy characters that are in the VT-100 font family you probably took for granted when your system ran on DOS, Windows 3.1 or Windows 95.
If you really enjoyed those old BBSes and miss some of the door games that made them a part of your life, but haven't found a way to display all of that colored text properly on your modern Mac, give SyncTERM a shot. What makes it even cooler is the program is free. No charge. It's available on plenty of operating systems too, not just Mac OS X.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Pirate Bay's crime no greater than the industry fighting it
If The Pirate Bay's founders aren't in jail right now, it's because the world doesn't believe what they're doing is wrong enough for them to go to jail.
All the same, the very name of the site is an allusion to being almost explicitly used for illegal purposes. They break the law by facilitating the breaking of the law by others. The problem with this particular law, regarding copyrights, is that it seems public perception is that intellectual property isn't worth nearly as much as street value, especially when it comes to music.
There's good reason for this gut feeling. If a company can create a product for pennies, as is the case with digital music, but charges $15 for it, that company is reaping too much profit, by consumer standards.
For a while, consumers didn't have much choice. If you wanted to have a good-quality copy of a song, you HAD to buy it. You couldn't make one yourself, because the consumer grade recording equipment that was around up until about 15 years ago frankly sucked at reproducing good sound, in part because the sound quality wasn't that good in the first place: cassette tapes.
Once the MP3 file format was developed and popularized, reproducing songs became as easy for consumers to do as it was for the record companies. That meant most of the work that record companies were charging us for was no longer in their hands. So why, then, should we pay just as much for the music?
In fact, we're still doing just that. Look at the price of a song on iTunes. The new stuff costs $1.29. Extrapolate that over an album of a dozen songs, a fair average, and you've got the equivalent of a CD retailing for $15.48.
This doesn't make any sense, though. That price doesn't come with a nice little booklet or anything to hold onto at all. It comes with a shitload of electrons. Sure, it's more convenient, for which people are willing to pay. The problem with this equation is that it's just as convenient for the record companies, if not more so. They don't have to physically create products for iTunes. They just give iTunes permission to make copies of the record company's material, yet somehow the same amount of money is being charged for the product.
So why do people download music for free? Because fuck the recording industry, that's why. Anyone can see they're not playing fair. If it costs them a fraction of what it used to to get music to the customer, where's the savings? There's no savings, and it's because the record industry believes it's entitled to keep charging the same if not more than it did when it had to manufacture CDs, album covers, CD booklets, cases, package them, ship them to distributors who shipped them to sub-distributors who shipped them to music shops, who paid rent or a mortgage for retail rack space to sell these things.
So why aren't The Pirate Bay's founders in jail? Because the average person deep down thinks their accuser, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), is just as much a criminal, if not more so.
All the same, the very name of the site is an allusion to being almost explicitly used for illegal purposes. They break the law by facilitating the breaking of the law by others. The problem with this particular law, regarding copyrights, is that it seems public perception is that intellectual property isn't worth nearly as much as street value, especially when it comes to music.
There's good reason for this gut feeling. If a company can create a product for pennies, as is the case with digital music, but charges $15 for it, that company is reaping too much profit, by consumer standards.
For a while, consumers didn't have much choice. If you wanted to have a good-quality copy of a song, you HAD to buy it. You couldn't make one yourself, because the consumer grade recording equipment that was around up until about 15 years ago frankly sucked at reproducing good sound, in part because the sound quality wasn't that good in the first place: cassette tapes.
Once the MP3 file format was developed and popularized, reproducing songs became as easy for consumers to do as it was for the record companies. That meant most of the work that record companies were charging us for was no longer in their hands. So why, then, should we pay just as much for the music?
In fact, we're still doing just that. Look at the price of a song on iTunes. The new stuff costs $1.29. Extrapolate that over an album of a dozen songs, a fair average, and you've got the equivalent of a CD retailing for $15.48.
This doesn't make any sense, though. That price doesn't come with a nice little booklet or anything to hold onto at all. It comes with a shitload of electrons. Sure, it's more convenient, for which people are willing to pay. The problem with this equation is that it's just as convenient for the record companies, if not more so. They don't have to physically create products for iTunes. They just give iTunes permission to make copies of the record company's material, yet somehow the same amount of money is being charged for the product.
So why do people download music for free? Because fuck the recording industry, that's why. Anyone can see they're not playing fair. If it costs them a fraction of what it used to to get music to the customer, where's the savings? There's no savings, and it's because the record industry believes it's entitled to keep charging the same if not more than it did when it had to manufacture CDs, album covers, CD booklets, cases, package them, ship them to distributors who shipped them to sub-distributors who shipped them to music shops, who paid rent or a mortgage for retail rack space to sell these things.
So why aren't The Pirate Bay's founders in jail? Because the average person deep down thinks their accuser, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), is just as much a criminal, if not more so.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The Marriage Ref: An Uncomfortable Comedy
NBC's The Marriage Ref attracted about a minute's worth of attention before it dawned on me like an avalanche of revulsion that a reality show about marital problems is doomed to vapid, pointless commentary and awkward one-liners, and that this show was a platform for comedians to joke about subjects that are inherently unfunny.
In a flash of dread I contemplated, amid the chuckles of celebrities and flashes of couples' faces, what married couples would pass the audition to be on this show. It was immediately apparent that the producers would never allow couples with real problems on the show, because of how unpleasant such a spectacle would be as to see them hash out their problems.
Marital discord falls into two categories: transparently superficial problems that can be worked out in a conversation, and deep-seated concerns that result in counseling or divorce. There's something to be said by quickly broaching concerns about a spouse, to avoid a small concern building into a major one. A TV show isn't the venue best-suited to such a resolution. That's a private conversation at home.
It's uncomfortable to watch a live-action show where the jokes aren't funny, because you get the uneasy feeling too often that you're being lied to. The lies come in the form of phony laughter and phony smiles, from the joke-makers and the couples, who, if they really have a problem, shouldn't be laughing.
So why, then, would a comedian as well-regarded as Jerry Seinfeld develop, let alone agree to star in, a show that's inherently unfunny? There's no good one-liner to answer that.
In a flash of dread I contemplated, amid the chuckles of celebrities and flashes of couples' faces, what married couples would pass the audition to be on this show. It was immediately apparent that the producers would never allow couples with real problems on the show, because of how unpleasant such a spectacle would be as to see them hash out their problems.
Marital discord falls into two categories: transparently superficial problems that can be worked out in a conversation, and deep-seated concerns that result in counseling or divorce. There's something to be said by quickly broaching concerns about a spouse, to avoid a small concern building into a major one. A TV show isn't the venue best-suited to such a resolution. That's a private conversation at home.
It's uncomfortable to watch a live-action show where the jokes aren't funny, because you get the uneasy feeling too often that you're being lied to. The lies come in the form of phony laughter and phony smiles, from the joke-makers and the couples, who, if they really have a problem, shouldn't be laughing.
So why, then, would a comedian as well-regarded as Jerry Seinfeld develop, let alone agree to star in, a show that's inherently unfunny? There's no good one-liner to answer that.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Twitter chokes on plankton
I think an argument could be made that every American cell phone provider benefited from the recent outage over at Twitter.
Cell phone companies have occasionally been forced to defend their practice of charging exorbitant sums for delivering texts. It's a service that costs so close to nothing to provide that the question arises, why aren't they just charging nothing? The beauty of the free market probably has something to do with it. The important point though, is that if Twitter occasionally locks up while transferring these tiny messages, it furthers the cell company argument that those messages take up resources. That is, even if the messages are so small an Apple IIe from the 1980s would laugh at them.
I have to question how any service that exists to transfer 140-letter messages from point A to point B should not be able to handle that burden, even if the amount of messages were at an astronomically high level. The reason, of course, is that when you stream music or video, or even load CNN.com, you've received the equivalent of hundreds of those messages in just a few seconds. Maybe thousands.
The "technical difficulties" image is certainly appropriate, considering that the whale in that stylized image subsists on a steady stream of tiny things, too: plankton. I've never heard of a whale choking on plankton, though.
Cell phone companies have occasionally been forced to defend their practice of charging exorbitant sums for delivering texts. It's a service that costs so close to nothing to provide that the question arises, why aren't they just charging nothing? The beauty of the free market probably has something to do with it. The important point though, is that if Twitter occasionally locks up while transferring these tiny messages, it furthers the cell company argument that those messages take up resources. That is, even if the messages are so small an Apple IIe from the 1980s would laugh at them.
I have to question how any service that exists to transfer 140-letter messages from point A to point B should not be able to handle that burden, even if the amount of messages were at an astronomically high level. The reason, of course, is that when you stream music or video, or even load CNN.com, you've received the equivalent of hundreds of those messages in just a few seconds. Maybe thousands.
The "technical difficulties" image is certainly appropriate, considering that the whale in that stylized image subsists on a steady stream of tiny things, too: plankton. I've never heard of a whale choking on plankton, though.
Man's death makes for entertainment at Tribune
Tribune did it again -- they made another death-related news story entertainment. This time it's the apparent suicide of 26-year-old Jason Kevin McCarthy at a gun range, reported in the Orlando Sentinel, a Tribune paper. Note when the reference to the victim's name is first made, it's hyper-linked to the "entertainment" section of the Chicago Tribune.
For some reason only his middle and last name are hyperlinked, too. Maybe the Sentinel has a two-world limit on blue underlined text. There's clearly no limit, though, on tasteless links.
For some reason only his middle and last name are hyperlinked, too. Maybe the Sentinel has a two-world limit on blue underlined text. There's clearly no limit, though, on tasteless links.
Friday, November 14, 2008
World's brief honeymoon with pirates ends abruptly
It's now reported that Somali pirates in the Middle East have successfully captured a Chinese fishing boat and taken its crew hostage. This comes on the heels of a story just a day earlier about a British military ship and boarding vessels laying waste to a trio of pirates on a Yemeni boat that was out marauding on what was undoubtedly the high seas.
The Captain Jack image of pirates being witty do-gooders (excepting for the zombie pirates, of course) is being sullied as swift as a gale in the Caribbean. Oh, wait, that was all make-believe. Pirates are really basically just like the ones who kidnapped the Chinese fishermen. They're savages out to steal, murder and if given the opportunity, rape. They do exclusively bad things because they're desperate human beings without any grasp of civil community.
Pirates are the biker gangs of the sea, and the only time anyone ever thought kindly of a biker gang was in Pee-wee's Big Adventure, and that was after they almost killed Pee-wee.
The Captain Jack image of pirates being witty do-gooders (excepting for the zombie pirates, of course) is being sullied as swift as a gale in the Caribbean. Oh, wait, that was all make-believe. Pirates are really basically just like the ones who kidnapped the Chinese fishermen. They're savages out to steal, murder and if given the opportunity, rape. They do exclusively bad things because they're desperate human beings without any grasp of civil community.
Pirates are the biker gangs of the sea, and the only time anyone ever thought kindly of a biker gang was in Pee-wee's Big Adventure, and that was after they almost killed Pee-wee.
Why the Franken recount story isn't about counting
Al Franken wants to be a senator, and he got so close to beating Norm Coleman for his job in Minnesota that the two are now fighting over every little detail of the election process in that state. How close? About 3 million people voted in the race, and Coleman beat Franken by about 200 votes, at least in the initial vote count.
It was so close that the state requires the votes all be counted again, to make sure there weren't any mistakes, or, say, ballots left in somebody's car (which apparently didn't happen.)
Either side could win more votes during the recount, which is starting in a few short days. That means either side has a good chance of winning the election. What's left, as is the true nature of politics, is splitting hairs. That's where Secretary of State Mark Ritchie comes in. He's the guy who runs the recount process, and happens to be a Democrat, just like Franken.
Naturally, this is a suspicious relationship. People are wondering, and some screaming like teenage girls at an [insert flavor-of-the-month band] concert, whether Ritchie is up to no good. Most of this complaining seems to be baseless, though, or should I say, based exclusively on the fact that Ritchie is from the same political party as Franken. Even the Wall Street Journal got into the act this week, asking in a headline whether there's "Mischief in Minnesota?" Spurrious accusations aside, the Journal's opinion made clear that Franken wasn't going to get away with a recount of any kind, regardless of how open and secure it was, without being considered either a sore loser or a fraud.
Here's the problem: Ritchie didn't create the system. People long ago did that, and he ran for office as a Democrat, and he won. A Republican could've done the same, but if Coleman were the one down by 200 votes right now, that Republican secretary of state would be getting accused of "mischief," though maybe not from the conservative-leaning Wall Street Journal.
There is absolutely no evidence that Ritchie has done anything improper. The mere fact that he's got the job is enough. This is splitting hairs, or to put a more modern spin on it, this is false outrage.
Here's how it works: Want to make a point about something? Why merely say you're upset that the bricks were painted pink? You could say the decision to make the bricks pink reflects fundamental flaws in the judgment of the brick-painter's union representatives and that an honorable painter would immediately apologize for the color and denounce the decision to use pink paint.
Note the triple-whammy: the decision was criticized and the painter got slapped along with everyone associated with that painter. How's that for painting with a broad-stroke brush?
Unfortunately, in a world where there are so many people clammoring for attention, getting that attention is becoming more about theatrics and less about substance. It's most certainly not, in this case, a story about math. It's a story about false outrage and ad hominem attacks that have no bearing on the outcome of the election, and everything to do with modern politics.
In an ideal world, we would let the bi-partisan recount play out over the course of the next month, and sip some sweet tea until the final count was announced. Then the loser would concede in a gracious phone call, the winner would say his thanks, and government would commence anew. But hey, pink bricks.
It was so close that the state requires the votes all be counted again, to make sure there weren't any mistakes, or, say, ballots left in somebody's car (which apparently didn't happen.)
Either side could win more votes during the recount, which is starting in a few short days. That means either side has a good chance of winning the election. What's left, as is the true nature of politics, is splitting hairs. That's where Secretary of State Mark Ritchie comes in. He's the guy who runs the recount process, and happens to be a Democrat, just like Franken.
Naturally, this is a suspicious relationship. People are wondering, and some screaming like teenage girls at an [insert flavor-of-the-month band]
Here's the problem: Ritchie didn't create the system. People long ago did that, and he ran for office as a Democrat, and he won. A Republican could've done the same, but if Coleman were the one down by 200 votes right now, that Republican secretary of state would be getting accused of "mischief," though maybe not from the conservative-leaning Wall Street Journal.
There is absolutely no evidence that Ritchie has done anything improper. The mere fact that he's got the job is enough. This is splitting hairs, or to put a more modern spin on it, this is false outrage.
Here's how it works: Want to make a point about something? Why merely say you're upset that the bricks were painted pink? You could say the decision to make the bricks pink reflects fundamental flaws in the judgment of the brick-painter's union representatives and that an honorable painter would immediately apologize for the color and denounce the decision to use pink paint.
Note the triple-whammy: the decision was criticized and the painter got slapped along with everyone associated with that painter. How's that for painting with a broad-stroke brush?
Unfortunately, in a world where there are so many people clammoring for attention, getting that attention is becoming more about theatrics and less about substance. It's most certainly not, in this case, a story about math. It's a story about false outrage and ad hominem attacks that have no bearing on the outcome of the election, and everything to do with modern politics.
In an ideal world, we would let the bi-partisan recount play out over the course of the next month, and sip some sweet tea until the final count was announced. Then the loser would concede in a gracious phone call, the winner would say his thanks, and government would commence anew. But hey, pink bricks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)