Recently in Life Kills Category
So, everyone who's been on the interweb for more than a few years knows about the old Nissan vs. Nissan court case. What's that? You don't know about it?
Well, to avoid big yawns from those that do know about it, here's the synopsis. Go to nissan.com. Whoa, that's not Nissan, right? Mostly. Now go to nissandriven.com. There they are! The deal (briefly) is that some guy whose name is Uzi Nissan (seriously) has been using the nissan.com domain since the early days. During these early days Nissan used to be known as Datsun (they were very very early days). Once Nissan got it together and decided to re-brand themselves, they also decided that they just absolutely needed that nissan.com domain. Awesome. Only Uzi Nissan sure as heck wasn't gonna give it up (can you just imagine the sheer amount of traffic that domain must get? It's a freakin' gold mine!) So Nissan Motors got nasty. And not in a good way.
That started back in 1999. Yeah, seriously, like 10 years ago. A series of legal battles known as Nissan vs. Nissan ensued. At the end of the day, the little guy won out and Uzi Nissan got to keep his domain. I remember when this was in the news... and his website was basically a link to the legal documents and battles that were raging during the early 2000's. All pretty rough, no doubt.
So this begs the question: do we boycott Nissan for being a big fat faceless corporation that cares nothing about anything but itself? Apparently their evilness isn't limited to trying to yoink domains from small businessmen:
So what do we do, then? Do we boycott all the major corporations and manufacturers, opting instead for the small businessman and the craftsmen that roll cigars on the plump thighs of Puerto Rican women? I'm not so sure we could, even if we wanted to. It's all well and good in theory, and when we get our self-righteous rage on, and our chests puff up in indignation, but at the end of the day I want the best technology money can buy. I want the best bang for my buck. I want what Corporate America is here to give me.
And that kinda sucks.
Well, to avoid big yawns from those that do know about it, here's the synopsis. Go to nissan.com. Whoa, that's not Nissan, right? Mostly. Now go to nissandriven.com. There they are! The deal (briefly) is that some guy whose name is Uzi Nissan (seriously) has been using the nissan.com domain since the early days. During these early days Nissan used to be known as Datsun (they were very very early days). Once Nissan got it together and decided to re-brand themselves, they also decided that they just absolutely needed that nissan.com domain. Awesome. Only Uzi Nissan sure as heck wasn't gonna give it up (can you just imagine the sheer amount of traffic that domain must get? It's a freakin' gold mine!) So Nissan Motors got nasty. And not in a good way.
That started back in 1999. Yeah, seriously, like 10 years ago. A series of legal battles known as Nissan vs. Nissan ensued. At the end of the day, the little guy won out and Uzi Nissan got to keep his domain. I remember when this was in the news... and his website was basically a link to the legal documents and battles that were raging during the early 2000's. All pretty rough, no doubt.
So this begs the question: do we boycott Nissan for being a big fat faceless corporation that cares nothing about anything but itself? Apparently their evilness isn't limited to trying to yoink domains from small businessmen:
Wow. Nissan Motors' evil knows no bounds. They do however, make a mighty fine car. Knowing (or at least being aware) that Nissan is capable of such vile acts, can we really purchase a Nissan (or by proxy, an Infinity) and support this beast? I mean, I hate it when Corporate America flexes and squashes small businesses (damn you, Wal-Mart!) but at the end of the day, it's Corporate America that really sways the economy and creates the environment you enjoy now. They make the fancy cars, and the sweet computers, and the big televisions, and all that great stuff that you call 'name brand.' And listen: it's not like Sony isn't doing the same thing. Or IBM. Or (ahem) Motorola. When it comes to achieving their goals, there's not much a hefty-sized corporation isn't gonna do (and if they get caught, just throw lawyers at.)In another example of Nissan Motor's flexing its corporate might, age old eminent domain laws have been rewritten in Mississippi allowing the State to take land and homes from local landowners for the sole private benefit of Nissan Motors. How the State of Mississippi was "convinced" to change these laws is unclear, but it is clear that local individuals are being deprived of their property rights so Nissan Motors can build its own plant.
So what do we do, then? Do we boycott all the major corporations and manufacturers, opting instead for the small businessman and the craftsmen that roll cigars on the plump thighs of Puerto Rican women? I'm not so sure we could, even if we wanted to. It's all well and good in theory, and when we get our self-righteous rage on, and our chests puff up in indignation, but at the end of the day I want the best technology money can buy. I want the best bang for my buck. I want what Corporate America is here to give me.
And that kinda sucks.
In what I can only describe as some of the most exciting hockey I have watched in the last decade, the Bruins (who I've been a long time fan of, despite the fact that they suck, their management sucks, and they haven't had a decent shot at anything even resembling a title in far too long) are in a Game 7 tussle against (of course) Montreal. I don't know how or why it always works out this way, but man am I excited. Even if the boys don't win it, consider me sold on the Bruins once again... I am once again proud to wear my Neely jersey.
Don't get me wrong - I still hit the Panthers - Bruins games and cheer 'em on. I still watch 'em on TV. But they really haven't gotten me excited about watching in forever. This series has been white-knuckle intense and the hockey has been just genuinely good. And that makes me happy as hell. So at 7pm tonight I will be glued to the TV to watch the conclusion of what I can only describe as the reigniting of my passion for hockey.
Bill Simmons wrote an excellent article about the Bruins and how he feels after this playoff series that describes exactly how I feel right now better than I can possibly express. I think that article can be related to by a lot of Bruins fans out there, and I think that any and every Boston pub and bar in the US is gonna be packed to the gills with Bruins jerseys. Hell yes.
I gotta admit - the war (and there is a war going on) is really, really far away. Not just in physical distance, but in emotional distance too. The media isn't doing much to really 'bring the war home', and for good reason. The economy is in a shambles, and who wants to hear bad news? Not the American People, no way. They'd rather watch reality TV.
It's not that the war doesn't feel like it exists. It's there. But we have to get some perspective on a lower level, and make the 'soldier' more real. There's guys running around the middle east, American guys, trying to keep peace in an unbelievably hostile environment. Hostile because they're there? Sure, I guess that's one reason the environment might be hostile towards the U.S. military that's been busy rolling around all over them. Thing is, I think that the area is just hostile in general - each faction hates the other. The U.S. is just another faction to hate and shoot at. I don't think that's any reason to leave that area, although the reasons for being there in the first place is definitely suspect.
I don't think I support the war, but as long as we're there, I suppose I support the GI's dodging bullets over there. I ran across a website called The Tension, a blog, that gives an interesting perspective on what's happening over there. Far from being a political site, it concentrates more on a low-level perspective from the GI point of view. Day to day kind of stuff. Interesting, sure, but it accomplishes a more important task: it humanizes the war effort and shows what guys do when they're there. That makes things so much more real, and I can appreciate that.
From there, I followed some links and ended up at an article about improving military helmets. This was from the Marine Times, which also has a variety of interesting articles and interviews showing that those guys in uniform are actual people that worry about such things as being able to shoot back when they're laying down prone and getting shot at. Continuing that thread lead to this site that provides improved helmet padding for soldiers' helmets. Take a look, read about it, and maybe make a donation. Seems like a worthy cause. Especially now that I've gotten a little more perspective on the reality of "the soldier".
In the age of video games, it's hard to come to grips with the fact that getting shot in war doesn't mean your health bar goes down - it means that you are (potentially) in a shitload of pain, and vital parts of your body are destroyed. There's no such thing as the 1-Man-Army, an army is a team, and the team works together not only to accomplish their objective, but to protect itself.
It's not that the war doesn't feel like it exists. It's there. But we have to get some perspective on a lower level, and make the 'soldier' more real. There's guys running around the middle east, American guys, trying to keep peace in an unbelievably hostile environment. Hostile because they're there? Sure, I guess that's one reason the environment might be hostile towards the U.S. military that's been busy rolling around all over them. Thing is, I think that the area is just hostile in general - each faction hates the other. The U.S. is just another faction to hate and shoot at. I don't think that's any reason to leave that area, although the reasons for being there in the first place is definitely suspect.
I don't think I support the war, but as long as we're there, I suppose I support the GI's dodging bullets over there. I ran across a website called The Tension, a blog, that gives an interesting perspective on what's happening over there. Far from being a political site, it concentrates more on a low-level perspective from the GI point of view. Day to day kind of stuff. Interesting, sure, but it accomplishes a more important task: it humanizes the war effort and shows what guys do when they're there. That makes things so much more real, and I can appreciate that.
From there, I followed some links and ended up at an article about improving military helmets. This was from the Marine Times, which also has a variety of interesting articles and interviews showing that those guys in uniform are actual people that worry about such things as being able to shoot back when they're laying down prone and getting shot at. Continuing that thread lead to this site that provides improved helmet padding for soldiers' helmets. Take a look, read about it, and maybe make a donation. Seems like a worthy cause. Especially now that I've gotten a little more perspective on the reality of "the soldier".
In the age of video games, it's hard to come to grips with the fact that getting shot in war doesn't mean your health bar goes down - it means that you are (potentially) in a shitload of pain, and vital parts of your body are destroyed. There's no such thing as the 1-Man-Army, an army is a team, and the team works together not only to accomplish their objective, but to protect itself.
...than the work? I was hanging out at Borders, sipping on some coffee and perusing books I have no intention of buying (and even if I did want the book, I'd just buy it on Amazon) when I noticed a strange trend.
This isn't a new trend, mind you, it's just something that I started noticing after years and years of simply ignoring the covers of books (it's true, by the way, that if only books could be as cool as their cover art is, there would significantly less illiteracy in the world.) The author's name is, usually, significantly bigger than the title of the book. I'm not just talking a few points of type bigger. I'm talking about HUGE author's name, tiny little book title. I might chalk it up to artistic license, but it's freakin' everywhere. The title of the book may as well not matter. It is all about the author.
I suppose it makes sense, from a marketing standpoint. You're not really trying to sell the title of the book, not really. I think most publishers have come to terms with the fact that there are two major demographics of book-buyers: the ones that ignore the covers and look for 'good authors', and the ones that think the cover art looks cool and therefore buy what is probably a horribly written book. The title itself? Kind of irrelevant. So you make the author's name hugenormous on the cover for the former, and you pay artists to come up with cool-looking artwork for the latter. And you slap a tiny title on it, just so it fits somewhere in the Dewey decimal system once the book is relegated to the dusty halls of a public library.
I'm going to write a book and publish it. And it's not going to have a title. I want to see how long I can get away with that fact before someone notices. In fact, I'm going to go one further - I'm going to write 4 books. Novels, probably. I'm not going to title them. Maybe I'll color-code them, maybe I won't.
Speaking of authors, on that same trip to the bookstore I discovered that authors are terrible readers of their own material. Makes me think that they didn't actually come up with it, they seem so haltingly unfamiliar with their own writing. Hm.
This isn't a new trend, mind you, it's just something that I started noticing after years and years of simply ignoring the covers of books (it's true, by the way, that if only books could be as cool as their cover art is, there would significantly less illiteracy in the world.) The author's name is, usually, significantly bigger than the title of the book. I'm not just talking a few points of type bigger. I'm talking about HUGE author's name, tiny little book title. I might chalk it up to artistic license, but it's freakin' everywhere. The title of the book may as well not matter. It is all about the author.
I suppose it makes sense, from a marketing standpoint. You're not really trying to sell the title of the book, not really. I think most publishers have come to terms with the fact that there are two major demographics of book-buyers: the ones that ignore the covers and look for 'good authors', and the ones that think the cover art looks cool and therefore buy what is probably a horribly written book. The title itself? Kind of irrelevant. So you make the author's name hugenormous on the cover for the former, and you pay artists to come up with cool-looking artwork for the latter. And you slap a tiny title on it, just so it fits somewhere in the Dewey decimal system once the book is relegated to the dusty halls of a public library.
I'm going to write a book and publish it. And it's not going to have a title. I want to see how long I can get away with that fact before someone notices. In fact, I'm going to go one further - I'm going to write 4 books. Novels, probably. I'm not going to title them. Maybe I'll color-code them, maybe I won't.
Speaking of authors, on that same trip to the bookstore I discovered that authors are terrible readers of their own material. Makes me think that they didn't actually come up with it, they seem so haltingly unfamiliar with their own writing. Hm.
