Browns 14 – Ravens 15 – Deezo and I Get Tortured
Yesterday Deezo and I headed down to the Browns game and for about three quarters and 12 minutes it was a joyous experience.
The last three minutes of the game was not so joyous as the Ravens intercepted, drove 47 yards, and kicked the winning 52 yard field goal.
Man, that is not only frustrating, but par for the course. The Browns team, by all accounts outperforms expectations in this game, but can’t pull off a victory. There might not be anything worse than that. At least in prior weeks, I could blame someone. This week, who are you going to blame?
Maurice Carthon had a pretty good offensive attack going that reacted to the intense pressure of the Baltimore defense. The Browns had some bad offensive series, but they made adjustments and moved the ball a few times in each half of the game. One of the scoring plays was a downfield throw that gave Braylon Edwards a chance to make a play, and he did scoring the touchdown. He also didn’t get into an overly conservative stance in the second half. The team didn’t execute from the Ravens’ 5 yard line, and Charlie Frye threw an interception, but I still can’t argue with the play call. It was a risk, but it was a high percentage attempt to put the nail in the coffin. You can argue that that is exactly what you should try to do in that situation, and it wasn’t going to happen in the running game.
Kellen Winslow could have been blamed after a really stupid taunting call, but they got that yardage back in that same series. On top of that winslow had 7 catches and 97 yards, so even though he made a pretty bad judgement error on that taunting call, you never would have been in a position to win without his contributions.
Charlie Frye could be blamed for throwing the interception in the 4th quarter, but he was being hit as he threw and he was sacked 7 times yesterday. He was knocked down a number of times in addition to that 7. Yet, he remained steadfast in that pocket, scrambling out when he needed to. He took sacks rather than forcing passes into bad coverage situations. I don’t think you can say he played a bad game.
The defense played a great game overall. They allowed Baltimore to drive 47 yards on the final drive of the game, but they were still able to force Baltimore to kick a 52 yarder. They stopped them a number of times during the game. They sacked McNair twice and hurried him and knocked him down a number of other times.
So you are left with a pretty well-played game that just didn’t work out in the end. It hurts, but it is hard to be angry.
Congratulations to the Browns
Even in their ineptitude in the first two games of the season, apparently the Browns did enough against their first two opponents to not be considered one of the worst teams in the league. ESPN didn’t include the Browns on their poll for who the bottom team in the NFL is this season so far.
I am so proud.
(and there was much rejoicing. Yay.)
Apple Announces iTunes Movies and the iTV
Yesterday Apple announced a new product called iTV in concert with their new movie download service. The iTV is an appliance for your living room that will allow you to connect iTunes content (ie downloaded music and more importantly video) to your television. In other words, it is going to bridge the gap between the computer and your television. And it is wireless.
Here is a picture of the connections on the new device, which will apparently cost $300.
I have to say that overall, I am underwhelmed by the prospects of this new device. I think it is a necessary component in the technological convergence of your computer and living room, but overall, this particular device bugs me.
Technologically, it is a superior device. It has HDTV capabilities. It is rumored that it isn’t out today because it will run on the new, but yet to be standardized, 802.11.N protocol which should make streaming video in the home easier than the lesser 802.11 standards.
In my mind problems still remain. I assume that this device will only work with iTunes. I can probably make the leap from there and say that it will work with iTunes content, but what about other content? If I download a movie trailer from another site, will I be able to play it through to my television? I guess I would assume yes, but then what is the hook for Apple? And why should I pay $300 to do it?
Have they not seen this device?
On a low level, this device will stream everything you want to your TV today. It may not have HD hookups and all the snazzy stuff that Apple announced yesterday for their iTV, but it is about 1/3 the price and they still have time to build a new device before Apple’s hits the streets.
Have they seen this device?
Sure it is made by the “evil empire,” Microsoft, but I have one and it is a well-designed device. It has unbelievable gaming capabilities, all the HD hookups you could ever want, and it works pretty well with Windows XP Media Center Edition. The cost / benefit of an Xbox 360 for it’s price of $300 – 500 depending on how many peripherals you get, vs. this media extender from Apple for $300 seems to be pretty easily in favor of the Xbox.
And I am not a hater of Apple. I really love my two iPods. I am considering a MacBookPro for my next PC so that I can have access to all the great iLife programs as well as the Windows stuff on my desktop PC. But I must be missing something.
What is the hook that makes iTV work?
Wal-Mart vs. Chicago
It seems that Chicago mayor Richard Daley has vetoed a bill that would force “big-box” retailers (such as Wal-Mart, Home Depot and others) to pay a higher wage and benefit amount than the national minimum wage in Chicago stores. The retailers balked at this and started cancelling plans to build stores in Chicago. In response to these cancelled plans, Mayor Daley decided to veto the bill put forth by City Council because losing the stores could be far more harmful than the low wages.
Daley said that losing the stores would “drive jobs and businesses from our city, penalizing neighborhoods that need additional economic activity the most.”
But it doesn’t stop there.
The City Council is threatening to pass a “veto override” later this week to enact the plan, regardless of Daley’s thoughts on the subject as a pro-union Democrat.
Now, The Wall Street Journal reports the following about this City Council.
- It turns out that the wage bill’s chief sponsor, Alderman Joe Moore, shops at suburban big-box retail stores, for the usual reason. His campaign committee has purchased $30,589 worth of supplies at big-box retailers outside the city, according to disclosure forms. Alderman Moore isn’t alone out there with a cart among the high stacks. A review of Illinois State Board of Elections disclosure forms finds that the 35 aldermen who voted to stick it to the “big box” retailers have spent $114,000 patronizing these non-Chicago stores.
I know it is really tough to soften the image of a giant retailer that doesn’t really pay all that well and has a propensity to hire illegal immigrants via a subcontractor to clean their stores while driving the proverbial “mom and pops” right out of business (allegedly?), but this City Council might have done it.
Tribute
What will you be doing today in honor of this day of infamy?
I will honor this day by not participating in what the news hopes to be a ratings bonanza.
I won’t watch programming with music chosen to put me back on that horrible day.
I won’t watch newscasters with their specially-chosen muted outfits and makeup.
I won’t watch clips of death and destruction chosen for air to try and shock me into watching through multiple commercial breaks.
I won’t listen to Republicans use the images and sentiments to try to gain support.
I won’t listen to Democrats use the images to help them sway voters to their side for the mid-term elections.
I won’t engage in any debates about whether or not we are safer today than we were then.
I won’t entertain any thoughts or debate on Ground Zero.
It isn’t that this day isn’t important, because it certainly is.
So why will I be avoiding all these things?
Because nothing about today seems pure, except what is in my own head. I lived through it, and I can remember enough of the details that I can internally participate in whatever way that my head seems fit. I don’t need anyone to tell me otherwise, because every piece of information being broadcasted at this point is pushed through a very thick filter.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but my own filter is good enough for me.
Multi-function Device From Apple the Real iPod Killer?
I have an old phone with my Verizon service. I have been to the Verizon store no less than five times looking to replace my phone with a newer, fancier model, and still I walk around with my phone with its dying structure, and dwindling battery. I just don’t know what phone to get. I like some of the PDA phones, but they have an additional monthly data charge, and they aren’t nearly as compact as my current phone. Plus, I really don’t know if I would use all those fancy features that these PDA phones offer.
Now, it is breaking that Apple has a big announcement in about five days, and then this morning, these patent photos were released.
The first photo shows a rough mock-up of the various kinds of virtual controls that this device could contain in its Graphical User Interface (GUI.) What that means is that it has various configurations of touch-screen type buttons depending on what functionality you might be using.
And what functionalities might be included in this device?
Are you drooling yet?
The only questions left to answer are what kind of battery life this device will have, and how much it will cost. This certainly could beat the functionality of every phone, PDA, and MP3 player on the market. It also goes to show how silly all the “iPod Killer” devices are. We should have guessed that the company most likely to kill the iPod would be Apple with a newer device.
For more detailed discussion of the Apple patent, check out macnn
Again with the Short-sleeved Dress Shirts?
I know it isn’t a new sentiment from me, but after looking around, I think it needs to be stated again. Obviously not enough people are listening to me. (Can you imagine that?)
The short-sleeved dress shirt slash tie combo is unacceptable now and will continue to be unacceptable into the future as far as these eyes can see.
I am not any kind of fashion authority (as Jen will gladly tell you) but I can certainly help guide everyone on certain minimum levels of fashion acceptability.
ESPN 360 – Net Neutrality, ETC
For the first time, ESPN put together their best version of the full assault. They had Miami vs. Florida State on ESPN, ESPN2, and their new online TV channel ESPN 360. All the stations had slightly different coverage, so that ESPN could provide some sort of ultimate fan experience.
What they ended up doing was over-covering a snooze fest as Florida State defeats Miami 13-10. And it serves ESPN right that they ended up with such a boring game.
Why am I so vindictive toward the “Worldwide Leader” right now?
ESPN 360, the new online sports video channel, is not available to me as a customer of Adelphia/Time Warner cable here in the Cleveland area. If you go to ESPN’s FAQ to find out why, you would think that it is the fault of my cable company. They say that my cable company doesn’t offer ESPN 360.
What they should say is that my cable company wouldn’t pay a service fee for the rights to carry ESPN 360 over the Internet. That might sound funny to some of you. How can something not be available on the Internet? Back in the AOL dial-up days there were differences between the offerings of Internet, but in the broadband world, the Internet normally looks the same whether it is coming via DSL or Cable modem. Not so with ESPN’s new 360 video offering.
This is a relatively bold and new business model in the Internet world, even if it has always been the norm since the beginning of Cable TV. Each cable service provider would have to pay for the right to have MTV, ESPN, TNT, WGN, and whatever other channels they wanted on their service. Then the cable company would make that part of a package, or leave a channel out on an island waiting to see if anyone wanted to pay extra for the right to view those channels.
In the Internet, it has never worked that way. It has pretty much always been, one person making their own Internet content decisions. The Internet Service Provider would never make any content decisions on behalf of the consumer, including the blocking of services. And this openness and freeness is how the Internet is usually thought of.
With ESPN’s new plan, they are throwing a lot of those things into question. Instead of allowing me to subscribe to 360 as an individual, they have decided to try to charge my ISP. I understand the business reasons that ESPN is trying this. They want to be compensated for their online video. They want to make sure their bills are paid to cover the cost of the service. They don’t want to take a chance that they won’t be able to recoup their expenses with advertising alone. They want to make sure they have as much adoption of their service as possible, and making it APPEAR free to Internet users is a good way to do that.
But none of this works for me. I am a member of ESPN’s Insider so that I get their stupid magazine and extra access to Insider articles. And even I can’t watch ESPN 360 by logging in. That is not the way to treat your most loyal customers, I don’t think.
But beyond that, this could end up being very harmful to the Internet as a whole, and this is why I applaud Adelphia/Time Warner for not paying ESPN’s 360 ransom. If other companies try to adopt this kind of business model, then it thrusts the ISP’s into more of a decision-making role as the service provider. The only decisions I want my ISP to make is on how much total bandwidth is provided to me. If I want to load up on Skype, iTunes, BitTorrent and other services and it is within the parameters of my own bandwidth usage, I want to be able to do that.
And while ESPN’s 360 is just one small thing, if it catches on, it could throw the whole culture of the Internet and how services are served to individuals on the Internet into chaos.
Croc Hunter, Steve Irwin, Dead
I know he was cheesy. I know he put on his show for kids. I know Animal Planet is aimed much younger than me, but I admit that I never get bored watching most programming on the channel, including the Crocodile Hunter. I really am left saddened that this guy met his end at the young age of 44. And no, it did not happen while handling a crocodile. A stingray got him in the ocean.
“He came on top of the stingray and the stingray’s barb went up and into his chest and put a hole into his heart,” said Stainton, who was on board Irwin’s boat at the time.
