Friday, September 10, 2010

Eye Witness News

I'm up late tonight trying to make some sense of my eye doctor appointment today that turned-up the replay of the potential of a small hole in the retina in the far lower left area of my right eye.  My optometrist also feels there is a possibility of a trace amount of fluid that has gotten between my retina and eye.  This coming from the Optomap scan of my eye.  So now I am going to end up having to go back to a retina specialist to make sure my retina is not in danger of detaching.  If there is a problem, there is a possibility that I will need to have the area around the hole sealed-off using laser surgery.  This is not something I am looking forward to, as I'm a fair amount squeamish about eye stuff.

While I was waiting for the doctor, I was looking through the rack of magazines.  In almost every magazine, I observed that the head-shot on the front cover partially obscures the name of the magazine.  This included Sports Illustrated, People, Marie Claire, and Texas.  The only magazine where I could see the name was Popular Science.  Why do magazines do this?  I would think that they would like to be proud of the name of their magazine, and the trademark recognition that it provides.  I spent about 10 minutes trying to figure out what magazine "Mar{head}ire" was (FYI: that was Marie Claire, and I was only able to tell by looking at the spine).  People magazine doesn't have a spine.

I always like browsing through Popular Science and/or Popular Mechanics when I find them in the waiting room where I happen to be.  My parents subscribed to these magazines at various times throughout my childhood, and I found them to be fascinating.  That feeling still hasn't gone away...and maybe it's time to get an old school magazine subscription again.  It's nice to see that they don't have a need to cover up the name of their periodical.

Time once again to make a comment about Time Warner Cable's stupid RoadRunner TV commercials.  They have been claiming again (paraphrasing) that their service is so much faster than DSL service using slow, antiquated phone lines.  Puhleeze...give me a break.  My wireless networking is faster than their Internet service, and it is using even older, "slower" radio signals.  Bottom line is that any of these technologies have progressed far beyond what they had been able to do in the past, and in most cases (especially cable and DSL) the speed is artificially limited by the carrier, not by the technology.  If I were the phone company, I'd show a clip of a snowy TV picture full of interference (or a modern one full of macro-blocking) and say, "Are you ready to get your Internet service from the same people who give you this kind of TV picture?!"  Just cut it out.  If you're going to attack each other, then please do so without the lies and half-truths.  Good grief.

By the way, in the name of full disclosure, I get my Internet service from the local cable company.  I did have DSL at one time as well, and it was fast and reliable.  The only reason I switched is because at&t's customer service sucks worse than Time Warner Cable's at this point.  If Time Warner Cable wanted to make a (mostly) truthful commercial, they should just say:
We're Time Warner Cable.  Hey, we know that cable and DSL Internet service are about the same speed, and almost the same price, and nearly as reliable.  But problems sometimes happen, and when they do, you can call us and we'll fix it without cost to you...unlike the phone company, who tries to blame you for all the problems before they'll even send someone out (and if they do find it's "your problem," they charge you a hefty service fee).  We won't lock you into a time commitment if you want a reasonable price for service.  So you can try us out, experience our blazing fast speeds, and see if you like what we're selling.  If not, then you can stop your service without extra charges.  Try doing that with the phone company.
By the way, TWC, if you use that idea, you should give me a few months of free RoadRunner service. {insert smiley face}  I suspect that their attorneys feel that blatant lies that attack the competitor's technology are a lot easier to defend in court than making the claims I just did...

I went forward with converting the Gentoo Linux OS on my system at work to 64-bit (again, effectively involving a complete OS rebuild).  So far, so good.

Well, it seems I have procrastinated bedtime long enough.  If I don't get to sleep soon, it is unlikely I'll be awake for work in the morning, never mind awake enough to host "games night."

No comments: