PLEASE NOTE: You may run across some dead links, temporarily. I am currently heavily revamping the site (as you can see), and am aware of the situation.

Please do not send me dead links until you see this message disappear. Thanks!

Monday, June 27, 2005

Sony VAIO S460/B Notebook


Update: Here's an actual picture of the notebook. I also wanted to briefly note my experience with Best Buy. After I purchased the notebook, the following Sunday Best Buy offered a mail-in rebate for it! I called and explained the situation to which they politely informed me that I could simply take the notebook back and exchange it for the same one. When I got to the store I was greeted with a smile and the exchange took roughly thirty seconds. I'm quite satisfied with my experience and am happy to be one of the few people on the Internet who will send much deserved kudos to Best Buy. :)

I bought a new Sony VAIO S460/B Notebook. Chock full of goodies, this notebook boasts a Pentium M 740 Processor with 1.73GHz and 2MB L2 cache, 512MB RAM (I may upgrade this, depending on product performance), 80GB hard drive, 13.3" WXGA display with XBRITE, an iNVIDIA GeForce Go 6200 128MB graphics card, CD/DVD burner, WiFi, and best of all, it's only 4.3Lbs. Posted by Hello

Sunday, June 26, 2005

An Experiment in Narcissism

Google Search: "adam donaghey"

Yeah, so like I'm 1-10, 12-18, 20-31, of 31 results from Google search as of this day. I'm like, moving on up and stuff. Oddly enough, my Blogger profile is number one, and the main www.akook.com isn't even on the list. A full search actually yields 626 results... The first few pages are all me, but after awhile, even I can't stand clicking the damn "next" button any longer to find out about the rest.

Friday, June 24, 2005

Yahoo! ScapeGoat

Update - June 24, 2005: Yahoo Closes Chat Rooms After TV Sex Report. "Osako said the decision to close the chat rooms, which were online discussion sites that any Yahoo user could create, was made because the company is working on a better version. 'We are working on improvements to enhance the user experience and compliance with our terms of service,' she said."

Update - June 23, 2005: Groups Laud Yahoo For Closing Chat Rooms. "
'We were absolutely horrified to find out about this,' [Yahoo! Spokesperson] Keegan said, adding that the company had no knowledge that their ads were appearing in the chat rooms in question."

Update: Yahoo! comments:
"Yahoo requires users to agree not to 'harm minors in any way' or make available any content that is 'unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, ... or otherwise objectionable.'"
Yahoo Closes Chat Rooms Over Sex Content...

Update - June 22, 2005: Yahoo! user rooms are no longer available by any means, as far as I can tell. See video here: http://www.whiotv.com/video/4631828/detail.html


Update - June 20, 2005: Yahoo! now has until next month to respond to the $10 Million dollar lawsuit pinned against them for failing to do anything about sexually explict Yahoo! Chat User Rooms, directed towards children. Many Yahoo! users who frequent legitimate user rooms are outraged and are waiting to see what Yahoo! will do. As of yet, Yahoo! has not commented on when and if it will release a more restrictive chat. Please see references at the end of this post for source information.

Originally posted June 18, 2005:

Yahoo! is currently being sued by the family of a "child porn victim" for $10 Million dollars because it, "could have removed the [child sex] sites, but instead chose to make money on them." The story quoted and linked above, broke June 1st and hasn't had much press since then. However, a few days ago, Yahoo! Chat posted: "The ability to publish user-created chat rooms in the public Yahoo! Chat directory is currently unavailable. We are working on improvements to this service to enhance the user experience and compliance with our Terms of Service." Several advertisers have pulled their ads from Yahoo! because the ads were seen in user-created chat rooms on Yahoo's chat servers.

Despite the fact that it's Terms of Service would protect Yahoo! from any liability, Yahoo! may be in serious danger, and as a result, has taken down links to user rooms. Yahoo! Chat users can still access these rooms by using a different client or joining a different chat room and utilizing a "/join" command; however, this might be the first step to larger measures--with a possible conclusion of deleting access to all user rooms. Being a frequenter of a Yahoo! Chat user room since 1999, I am concerned and appalled at the current course of events.

The major problem here is that if Yahoo! is to blame for what users post in their chat rooms (despite the fact that they're clearly not responsible, given Yahoo's ToS), then this will be a catalyst for many more frivolous lawsuits. Why not sue Google for its "child sex" search results? Or, how about other chat/instant messaging lawsuits because "child sex" solicitation is taking place on their messaging platforms? What about those "child sex" phone calls on cellular phone networks? Hell, I'd like to see some wigged out mother sue her local shopping mall for "allowing" child-molesters to talk with their innocent children in Hot Topic. Because our justice system relies on precedent, this sort of slippery-slope is bound to happen.

Am I making light of the issue? Depends on what you think the issue is. I don't think the issue is about saving the children. The issue is about money and money alone. The family who's suing Yahoo! is trying to pass off responsibility to the biggest fish. Yahoo! is simply a company who provides the technology for worldwide communication. If the parents have such a problem with this, why don't they try monitoring their children? And because of this nonsense, big businesses are scared that this sort of thing will reflect on their business--so they pull their advertising contracts. And with little or no revenue, Yahoo! would certainly discontinue the service. This ridiculous scape-goating has got to stop.
References:

Sunday, June 19, 2005

Batman Begins

When I was thirteen years old I was already spending a small fortune in comic books shops, picking up the latest comic books and graphic novels and trading cards--entranced in the superhero world, fascinated by the origins and the history of these characters more than the specific stories themselves. When comic book cards became the huge craze in the mid-nineties, I remember spending hours reading the backs of the cards, memorizing the origins and histories of every comic character I could get my hands on.

From the first time I saw the trailer for Batman Begins, up until only a few hours ago when I finally got to see, I've been dizzy with quiet anticipation. I thought the movie was great. There were a few inconsistencies that I noticed, though, like all super hero movies these days: it can't be helped. And I won't spend any time on them. I think the story here--largely based on Frank Miller's Batman: Year One and Jeph Loeb's Batman: The Long Halloween--really sticks to the Batman multiverse. I actually have a copy of Batman: Year One somewhere, and when I get back to Texas, I intend to find it. The comic series, Batman: Legends of the Dark Knight also deals with Batman in his early stages of crime fighting.

I still haven't seen Sin City (I know, I know), but after seeing this and thinking back to my comic collecting days, I really want to dive right into Frank Miller. He's really responsible for rendering Batman human. Not only does Bruce continually wrestle with his demons, but he even judges himself and challenges his own moral compass. In Miller's famous Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Batman sort of comes out of retirement and faces his demons as he attempts to protect Gotham City. This really put Frank Miller on the map because he details Bruce's struggle with himself, his past, his darkness and his humanity. Batman Begins heavily enunciates the difference between revenge and justice, and continually presses this issue with Bruce Wayne and his alter-ego.

The problem that this film and the comics both present, is this blurred idea of what is good, not-so-good, rotten and evil. Batman is not a good guy per se, but simply a man torn between his life as a billionaire playboy and his dark past, i.e., his witnessing the death of his parents and subsequently blaming himself for their deaths; and further, what he intends to do about this latter psychosis. Batman: Mask of the Phantasm, arguably one of the best of all the Batman films, heavily deals with these issues as well. Phantasm is a spin-off from the heavily acclaimed, Batman: The Animated Series; in my opinion, the greatest animated series based on a comic book ever created. These are all the Batman influenced by Frank Miller.

Marvel Comics always had a way of light-heartedly presenting the various psychology of their characters as well, though D.C. Comics really took the psychology to a new level. Not only does Batman question himself as a good person--a hero; but the reader sees him enact the very viciousness that invokes his selfhood. He is the product of his dead parents, and through his vigilantism, Batman both prevents and encompasses the agony that is his history. Batman Begins shows us that he will continuously confront his fears--and project this same fear unto the enemy. Batman can, and never will, be a superhero as far as classic superheroes go. He is the anti-hero, that character who walks the fine line, beginning with justice and ending with an attempt to save his own sanity.

References:
I am eagerly awaiting the sequel.

Labels:


Happy Father's Day! Posted by Hello

"Crime never wins when Batman Begins"

I just heard this on a Mattel commercial, advertising the new Batman Begins Batmobile. Man, I remember when toy slogans and toys were cool. I picked up some twenty Star Wars figures at Goodwill a few months ago for $6 and, well, those were cool toys. The old D.C. toys were cool too. I remember playing with those toys as a kid. And then the Legend of the Dark Knight Batman series came out. Those toys sucked. And I'll bet these new toys suck too. But this new slogan makes me want to rip into Mattel's document-fabricating ass. Hiyah! "Zack, Zack, he's the Lego Maniac." Now that was a cool slogan. "G. I. Joe, the Real American Hero!" That was a great slogan. "By the power of Grayskull: I have the Power!" That was an awesome slogan. "Crime never wins when Batman Begins." What the hell is that, anyway? Now I don't even wanna see the damn movie. My day is ruined.

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Is Evolution a Threat to Religious Belief?

Is Evolution a Threat to Religious Belief?

I read the above article by Eugene Volokh earlier today, and found his commentary on the evolutionism/creationism debate to be the ordinary and expected polarizing viewpoint purporting science and religion as coexistive. Though his belabored point came across to me, I am highly doubtful that most would understand the real problem here: the fact that there really is no debate between evolutionism and creationism at all. He concludes with:
"Yet scientific popularizers and educators have to deal with the fact that in our society, many people are still religious, and still accept descriptive religion (at least ostensibly). If the popularizers and educators describe science as taking no stand on the existence or influence of God, and as leaving such questions to others, I think they’ll have great success; and, whether they want to or not, they will indeed further undermine descriptive religion. But if they insist, in my view unnecessarily, that the standard scientific theory does take a stand that God is not influencing the world -- and that accepting evolution as the best scientific hypothesis while seeing God’s hand in its operation is an inferior conclusion that is worthy of scientific criticism -- then they will encounter much more resistance."
Though he may not be doing so on purpose, he's really just polarizing the two issues--forcing science into a box he's created with his strawman arguement with regards to the "scientific standard" that evolutionary theory posits. For more on that, please read his article. I did comment directly on the Huffington Post site, however, the response itself--though slightly contingent on his article--is basically self-sufficient; and so here it is:

First of all, the “standard scientific theory” with regards to evolutionary theory is not as stated above; rather, evolutionary theory is simply the frequency of change in alleles—in a given population—from one generation to the next.

You’ve touched on an all too common misunderstanding of evolutionary theory—and science in general, for that matter: that somehow, not dealing with god (and in this case, we are clearly discussing the god of the Abrahamic religions) is synonymous to denying god as a potential mover or designer, and essentially, that god “had no part in this process.” Simply put, given the empirical nature of science, metaphysical things, as such, have no place in scientific theories.

Science deals with the corporeal world and demonstrates said theories by virtue of testability, repeatability and verifiability. “God”—a word, a concept, an idea, a symbol of belief, etc.—cannot be introduced into scientific theory because scientific theory is bound by methodology (cf., scientific method). And what is “scientific theory”? Well, it’s certainly not an opinion or a hypothesis; a scientific theory is simply a collection of correlating facts.

Is creationism a “theory” then? Using our scientific terminology it cannot be—given, the only “evidence” of creationism lies in the Bible. And let’s try not to forget that a) the Bible is not a scientific text, b) the Bible never claims to be a scientific text, and c) the “creationism” referenced here began as a movement in the late nineteen-hundreds, following Darwin’s Origin of the Species. Instead of addressing problems with Darwin’s theory (of natural selection—now considered a mechanism of modern evolutionary synthesis), this movement immediately constructed a red herring by ignoring the premises and jumping at the seemingly abject conclusion—that there is no intelligent designer. Either way, we are talking about apples and oranges here, folks.

Remember people, you can believe in the god of the Abrahamic religions, while accepting modern evolutionary synthesis. You can believe in “intelligent design.” However, you cannot be a “creationist” as referenced in the above article, and accept modern evolutionary synthesis, since this movement of creationism—commonly referred to Young Earth or New Land Creationism—was a knee-jerk reaction to early Darwinian evolutionary theory.

I encourage all interested parties to take a detailed look at reputable references like Wikipedia or TalkOrigins, before perpetuating these detrimental misapplications of evolutionary theory.

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Mr. Picassohead


This is my Mr. Picassohead. Create your ownPosted by Hello

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

PostSecret

I just ran into PostSecret, an "art project where people mail-in their secrets anonymously on one side of a homemade postcard." It's a very sobering experience, and I encourage all of you to check it out. I'll be adding it to my Blogroll for updated reference.

Monday, June 13, 2005

Michael Jackson--Guilty?



Count 1: Conspiracy Not Guilty

Count 2: Child Molestation Not Guilty

Count 3: Child Molestation Not Guilty

Count 4: Child Molestation Not Guilty

Count 5: Child Molestation Not Guilty

Count 6: Attempted Child Molestation Not Guilty

Count 7: Servin' Alcohol Not Guilty

Count 8: Servin' Alcohol Not Guilty

Count 9: Servin' Alcohol Not Guilty

Count 10: Servin' Alcohol Not Guilty

Count 11: Taking up way too much of our time? Guilty as Charged!

Saturday, June 11, 2005

Presidential MisSpeak

"One of the things that's interesting about the Stanley Cup is that the players--each player gets to spend time with it. Must be pretty neat. The cup has traveled throughout North America and Europe. It's been to some famous sites. Ah, recently it was at the McDonalds drive-thru in New Glasgow, Novia Scotia. Must have been a pretty interesting moment for that burger flipper--filler-up.

***

"It [the Stanley Cup] showed up at the Bob Edmunds restaurant in Brunswick, Ohio. Went to Filthy McNasty's Bar and Grill in Toronto. I don't know who took it there but I'll bet you're pretty happy the cup can't talk--if you know what I mean."
George W. Bush -- September 29, 2003.

Friday, June 10, 2005

Mr. & Mrs. Smith

I spontaneously saw the new film by the director of The Bourne Identity this afternoon. I haven't gone to a film on a whim in a very long time, but I'm glad I chose this one. I mean, not only does the film have the contract killa action that the Bourne films have, but the dialogue remains witty and clever without drowning out the primary theme of the film. And there's always the actors. I don't see how anything can go wrong with Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie at the helm. I was watching "Brad Pitt: The Interview" the other night with Diane Sawyer, and I remember thinking to myself--as Pitt was discussing his divorce with Jennifer Aniston and the rumors swarming him and Jolie--"Wouldn't it be grand if these two beauties got together?" The chemistry between these two is really phenomenal. I mean, this isn't a romantic comedy, this is an action flick; yet, you're really pushing for these two to make it out alive--and together. Where, generally speaking, the romance between two individuals in an action film just doesn't matter that much.

I came into the theater thinking, "Okay, this'll be a clever reaction to The War of the Roses," but it really wasn't. It was something all its own, and it had a charm that Roses didn't have, that I found myself addicted to throughout the film. The charm was in the banter, the style, the believability of the whole thing. There was one scene that screamed Jerry Bruckenheimer, but other than that it convinced me. Oddly enough, however, it was the style that sutured me into the whole thing. The mentality and quips of the characters, the clothing they wore, the architecture of the scenes, the technology, the furniture--everything. I recommend the film, but I recommend you leave the credit cards at home or be ready for some strenuous self-discipline; you'll wanna go shopping afterward. That, or you might do some traffic weaving on the way home like I did.

Please note: the comments to this post contain spoilers.

Labels:

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

Frank Lloyd Wright's "Organic Architecture"

To celebrate Frank Lloyd Wright's birthday, I went to Florida Southern College to check out the largest collection of buildings Frank Lloyd Wright designed. More pictures are available and have been edited for your viewing pleasure.

References:

Sunday, June 05, 2005

L.S.D. Enterprises


L.S.D. Enterprises: "Buy Here Pay Here" Posted by Hello

Friday, June 03, 2005

Life, the Universe, and Pimples

How do you feel when you wake up in the morning? Do you feel as if you can take on the whole, entire world? I think you ought to look into the mirror everyday and say to yourself—whether you love yourself, hate yourself, think you’re so damn beautiful or ugly, or think yourself just a fool—“This world I live in, this situation I am in, is absolutely and confidently meaningless.” Now how does it make you feel? Do you go on shaving or putting on your repulsive makeup with the light bearing down on your face like the hot, boiling pot of the ocean on the banks of an eroding mountain? Or maybe you stop for a moment and reflect on this philosophical idea. Perhaps you contemplate life and all its wonders and fortunes. Perhaps you really do think about all those silly little things that you let by day after day without the tiniest thought in your mind—the things your mother always told you not to take for granted. But probably, you just sit there and stare at your face—notice a pimple or an unshaved spot—and move on to more important business. Wash your face twice a day, child, lest you infest with blackheads and bad pores.