http://east73.com/mikeydangerous

and be sure to update your RSS feed too:

http://feeds.feedburner.com/Mikeydangerous

1) All New Design

It’s an Apple, that’s sure. The phone looks good, and feels nice in the hand. That said, just like previous iPhones, it feels awkward when up to my ear. The angles and edges just aren’t comfortable when using the phone as a phone. I tried to recreate the issue people have been talking about with blocking reception when holding it a certain way, but I wasn’t able to, so no comment there.

I’m still a little hesitant about the glass enclosure though. Apple claims it’s stronger than plastic, but I dropped my iPhone 3G about half a dozen times and the worst that happened was a couple microfractures, and those are not the results that have been had with iPhone 4 drop tests.

2) “Retina Display”

Images and text were certainly crisp. It was sharper than my Nexus One (I tested by looking at the same images on Flickr on both devices.) But, as I expected, the colors were much richer on the Nexus One. Overall, the iPhone display would be better for small text, but since there’s a zoom function, I don’t really see the point. I’ll take the better colors on AMOLED than sharper tiny text on an iPhone.

3) A4 Processor

The iPhone is fast, just like all new smartphones. I’ve played with the EVO, a lot of time with my Nexus One, and I didn’t feel like the iPhone was any faster or more responsive really.

4) Gyroscope

I completely forgot that this existed, so I haven’t played with it.

5) Camera

The camera app UI and quality are the best I’ve seen on a phone. Can’t argue that. However, I didn’t see a huge difference between the HD video on the iPhone and the HD video I’ve taken on my Nexus One.

6) iOS 4

Again, nothing special here. If you like the iPhone, there’s nothing especially new here. Folders exist, so what? Multitasking is there, but it’s not really multitasking, so much as a better task switcher. It’s still just as closed down and sterile as iOS always has been. Custom wallpapers doesn’t change that. It’s still as pretty a UI as it’s always been, but with no customization or control options, I just don’t see the value.

7) iBooks

Meh. Kindle is on all platforms now, and there’s nothing special about iBooks. Kindle is already moving on to offer video and other media into eBooks, so Apple is already playing catch-up.

iAds

No comment. Oh wait, one comment: ANTI-FUCKING -COMPETITIVE.

9) Facetime

Not available on the store demo models, and I haven’t had a chance to check it out, but I still don’t see the point.

1) All New Design

Oh wow, Apple made a pretty device prettier and thinner! That’s never happened before! Let’s all go crazy! Especially since even though the phone is thinner it still isn’t as light as my Nexus One.

2) Retina Display – 3.5″ IPS display with 900×640 resolution and 326DPi.

This is the one feature of the new iPhone that I am legitimately interested to see. The second it drops, it will be the highest resolution display on the market. That said, it is still an IPS (read: LCD display) which does not have the same color depth as an OLED screen. Case in point, Apple touts the new screen as having an 800:1 contrast ratio, and because the general public doesn’t understand the number, they think it’s great. But, just for comparison, my Nexus One has a 10,000:1 contrast ratio, which in real life terms means more vibrant colors and deeper blacks.

I have to see the screen to pass full judgement, but I’ll expect that for all practical purposes because of the resolution, the iPhone will have the best screen on the market for about another 3-4 months or so, before an Android phone eclipses it.

3) New Processor – the A4

Given the benchmarking results, the A4 is slightly faster than the ubiquitous Snapdragon, at least in the iPad. We don’t know how the iPhone will stack up, but I’d assume similar results. Again this is a spot where Apple will have the lead for a few months, but, with newer Snapdragons on the way, plus Tegra 2 chips coming along as well, Apple won’t be at the top here for very long either.

4) Gyroscope

Useful only if you use the iPhone as your primary portable gaming device. And, even then, all it will do is make a few games better. Ultimately, developers will probably find uses for this, but nothing really exciting except better flight sims will result. Personally, I could care less, because I don’t do much gaming on my phone anyway. I mean did you see the video demo of this? Do you really want to be spinning around in order to do something on your phone?

5) Camera – 5MP and 720p video

Yay! You caught up with 2 year old Japanese cell phones, and my Nexus One. Be proud of yourself for pushing the envelope, Steve!

6) iOS 4

Still lagging behind Android on all fronts except for design (although even that isn’t as wide a gap as one would think). The apps and system are still gimped because of Apple’s need for control. And, no matter how Steve takes things out of context, it’s not true multitasking like in Android.

7) iBooks

Still not as good a store as Kindle, which is also available in the App Store. Plus, reading on a phone is silly and uncomfortable. Next.

iAds

Just another proprietary platform that Apple had to create because competition was getting too tough and they lost the bid for AdMob. Anti-competitive, ho!

9) Facetime – front facing camera chat.

Useless unless the person you are talking to also has an iPhone 4, because Apple is sure to make it incompatible with offerings that use the Evo and future Android front-facing cameras. Anti-competitive, ho!

Overall, I’m not that impressed with Apple. At the speed that Android is evolving, Apple just isn’t coming hard enough. The best thing they could have done would have been to announce the iPhone coming to Verizon, because they have saturated  their limited market on AT&T.

It’s Windows vs Apple all over again. Apple can’t compete with the hardware when Android is licensed to so many companies, and they simply won’t compete in software because that would mean giving up control over their system. The only thing they have left is the gaming aspect, but even that can’t hold forever.

MVP – Of course, there’s no real debate about this award – LeBron wins, though I’d put Durant as number 2.

Sixth man – Jamal Crawford. He shouldn’t even be eligible because the Hawks should have shot Mike Bibby months ago, but here we are.

Defensive player – Dwight Howard. No one dominates the defensive end like him.

Most improved player is ambiguous at best. Should it be unexpected improvement (Marc Gasol) or does Kevin Durant still qualify? In the end, I don’t even care enough to make a pick.

Coach of the Year – In my opinion, it should be between Nate McMillan and Scott Brooks. One overcame tons of injuries, and one got a young team to commit on defense and surprise everyone. I’d go with Nate, because he’s had a tougher road. The Thunder had the talent to be this good all along.

That brings us to the award I really wanted to talk about – Rookie of the Year. The race is both not as close as it should be (Evans vs Curry) and closer than it should be (Brandon Jennings.)

Starting with Brandon Jennings, I don’t think he should even be in the discussion. All the arguments for Jennings boils down to one flawed point: he’s “leading” a team that won 46 games and made the playoffs, whereas Evans and Curry are on teams that only won 51 games combined. Here’s the biggest issue with that argument: top rated rookies go to shitty teams, that’s how the NBA draft works. You cannot take a team’s overall success into consideration in the RoY award because of that. It’s not Jennings’ doing that he landed on a better team in an easier conference any more than it’s Evans or Curry’s fault that they ended up on crappy teams in a really tough conference. If you had put either Curry or Evans on the Bucks, they’d still be in the playoffs, and if you put Jennings on the Kings or Warriors, they’d still suck. So, taking that out of the equation, let’s look at Jennings’ pros and cons:

Pros – 55 point game, good free throw shooting (82%),

Cons – Terrible shooting that continuously got worse throughout the year (43%FG 50%3P in Sept/Oct, 38%FG 32%3P in Nov, 32%FG 35%3P in Dec, 31%FG 31%3P in Jan, 37.5%FG 36%3P in Feb/March),

Not so good assist to turnover ratio (2.35),

Second worst Adjusted FG% for all rookies (43%).

Jennings shot the Bucks to more losses than wins. He shot terribly, and still ended up taking more shots than any other rookie, while playing fewer minutes than Evans or Curry. I don’t care how well the Bucks were as a team, Jennings doesn’t deserve any votes for rookie of the year.

So, the decision comes down to Evans vs Curry. Evans was successful from day 1, while Curry came on stronger as the season went on. Their overall stats are very similar:

Evans – 20PPG, 5.8APG, 5.3RPG, 1.5SPG, 3TO, 46%FG

Curry – 17.5PPG, 5.9APG, 4.5RPG, 1.9SPG, 3TO, 46%FG

Drill down a bit and things spread out a bit:

Evans – 25.5% 3P, 75%FT

Curry – 44% 3P, 88.5%FT

So, they had similar stats, but Curry was more efficient. And, more importantly, Evans had no help at all. He had the ball in his hands all the time, but somehow only ended up with 2.5 more PPG than Curry. On the other hand, Curry had notorious ball hog Monta Ellis (22 FGA per game) next to him. I’d say that makes Curry’s year more impressive. Plus, as I mentioned at first, Curry got better throughout the year, Evans didn’t. Shouldn’t that come into play with a rookie? Yes, it’s impressive when a rookie can come in and play at a high level from day one, but even if that’s the case, shouldn’t he still get better? Consistency is good, but I want to see growth potential in my rookies.

So, as you can guess, I’m going with Curry for RoY.

Like many of my generation, I grew up being fascinated by astronauts and space flight. I love sci-fi and dreaming of untold worlds beyond our reach. But, ultimately, that is the real point here – the true riches of space exploration are beyond our reach. It doesn’t matter how much money gets diverted towards NASA right now, we simply do not have the technology to do more with manned space flights than get to the moon. President Obama’s plan is not to kill the dream of manned space flights completely, but to shift the focus in order to bring about that dream faster.

At this point in time, manned space flights past the ICC are a waste of money. The issue is power. The fuel and engines that exist today are terribly inefficient for what our dreams require. Sure, we have made huge technological strides because of the space program, but aiming to put men on the moon or to Mars will not accelerate future strides, it will simply lead to more waste. We need technological revolutions here on Earth before we can set our sites on Mars or beyond. We are still slaves to gasoline, combustion engines, and other wasteful power sources. If anything should be the focus of NASA, it should be in developing new propulsion systems that are cheaper, smaller and more efficient and in developing better radiation shielding.

With current systems, it would take anywhere from 4-7 months for a manned flight to reach Mars. Then we still have issues involving landing on Mars, getting astronauts from the surface back to their main ship and back home. VASMIR rockets which have been in development for close to a decade, could cut that time to 39 days. This is a good step forward, but these rockets are still barely in the testing phase and won’t even be ready for orbital testing until 2013 at the earliest.

More importantly is the issue of radiation. We here on Earth have the good fortune to have an atmosphere that shields us from that radiation. What do we have in place to protect astronauts? Not much. Currently, radiation shielding is big, heavy, expensive and not that effective. Radiation levels on the ICC are monitored very carefully, and the plan has been to not let astronauts spend more than 4-6 months in space at a time. This is not only because of radiation, but because of the effects of low gravity and other issues which have a profound effect on the human body. There is research into electrostatic fields and other options for shielding, but most are still very far from practical use.

So, with a mission to Mars, even with the VASMIR rocket fully functioning, it would take 78 days of round trip flight, plus however long the astronauts spend exploring Mars itself (say 30 days as a conservative estimate.) That’s 108 days at least. Less than the 4-6 month limit currently placed on astronauts living in space, but not by enough. The further from Earth they travel, the more dangerous it is if something goes wrong.

Some day, I would love to see humans traveling to Mars or beyond, but that day is not today, and it is not in the immediate future. Americans don’t need to be the first to put more people on the moon or on Mars in order to be a technological superpower, because there are still plenty of technological issues that need solutions right here on Earth. Let’s focus on those first, and work our way up to those sci-fi dreams. We don’t need to aim for the stars to be successful, as long as we know that each step gets us closer to them anyway.

First, I had a chance to play with the iPad at an Apple Store on launch day. I didn’t have a huge amount of time, and I was limited because the Apple Store (according to an employee) has strict rules about what apps they can load onto iPads for the public to demo. So, I was not able to use some major things, such as  the Kindle app, or Marvel apps, but I was able to use my iTunes login to load up the New York Times app, Wall Street Journal, BBC, ABC, Netflix and Reuters apps.

The iPad is what you would expect from Apple. It is pretty, easy to use, fairly intuitive, and has the clean Apple look. The iPad is completely a consumption device, not a creation device, and that is both its allure and downfall. If all you want is something to surf the web, check e-mail, play some games, read and watch video, the iPad is a very nice device. It does all of those things well. If you want to write e-mails, blog posts, or even Twitter updates, maybe the iPad won’t do so well for you. Typing in portrait mode was tough for me. Typing one handed is slow and the device is a bit too heavy to for most people to hold comfortably one handed for an extended time. Typing with my thumbs worked okay, but even with my pretty big hands (I’m 6’4″,) it was a stretch to reach the middle of the keypad. Typing in landscape mode was surprisingly comfortable, but that requires something to lean the iPad on, something that was already set up at the Apple Store, but not a good sign for if you want to use the iPad somewhere other than your living room or bathroom.

Also, while the ABC and Netflix apps work very well on WiFi, I don’t imagine those apps being very useful for the most part. I don’t think streaming video is really the way for this device. The iPad is technically “unlocked” but won’t work on anything but AT&T, and given AT&T’s past, I’d expect a downgrade in video quality for the 3G models, which effectively makes the screen pointless. When you’re at home, unless you’re in the bathroom, there is no need for these apps, because with On Demand services through cable providers, or Netflix streaming on any number of devices, there are better options for these things than the iPad. Ultimately, I see the iPad working best with preloaded video, or purchases from the iTunes store (sneaky Apple!), because none of the other options will be useful enough.

The screen is nice, but has problems with both glare and smudges, another issue that would make this device fairly useless outdoors. I can imagine short bursts of reading being fairly comfortable on the iPad, but extended periods of staring at that screen could lead to strain. The built in iWork app suite is also very well designed, but again, somewhat limited, because while you can use the device to write documents, it is awkward to do so. Games look great on the device as well. So, I can see tablets having niche uses (not just the iPad mind you, all tablets. This is an important point: Colgate is toothpaste, but not all toothpaste is Colgate. Kleenex are tissues, but not all tissues are Kleenex. The iPod is a media player, but not all media players are iPods. The iPhone is a smartphone, but not all smartphones are iPhones. The iPad is a tablet, but not all tablets are iPads. Name recognition does not the best product make.) I can imagine tablets being incredibly useful in the classroom, on the train, in the bathroom, at a coffee shop, or as a cheap alternative to a DVD system in a family car.

Ultimately, the iPad is a nice device. For better or worse, it is what you would expect from Apple, but because of that, it is not what everyone wants and it’s not what everyone needs. And, because of the hype surrounding it, I fear that this device could hold off the evolution of the media industry, which in the end, will only hurt the media industry, and here’s why: the iPad will allow the media industry to hold onto their walled gardens and pre-packaged products just long enough for them to become completely irrelevant.

I played with a number of the media apps like NYT, WSJ, BBC, and Reuters. Reuters had good ideas with pushing the UI, NYT and WSJ both just looked like digital scans of newspapers (the worst option possible), and BBC had the best offering by far. BBC did what American newspapers can’t quite grasp: the old way of the print media does not apply any more, it is old and dead, and we need a new way forward. We are no longer a mass consumption audience. We all want different things, easy access to the content we want and we want to be able to get other relevant information as well as share stories we like. Newspapers do not allow that, and that is not how you build a successful digital format. NYT and WSJ don’t understand this. They are offering a newspaper and nothing more. BBC offers a news discovery platform, and that is what we really need.

Consider these examples:

1) The New York Times website, and article about Global Warming. It is static, the only links are relevant people, not concepts, ideas or events. Past coverage is limited to 2 links all the way a the bottom.

2) The New York Times teamed with Google for “Living Stories” about Global Warming. There are links for all relevant information, a timeline of important events, and tons more articles related to the story.

Which one presents the news in the way you want to consume it?

The expected additions of pay walls and limited content only exacerbates the problem. The newspapers are trying to hold onto control when their best way forward is to give up control. Stop trying to sell us a package and give us quality content. Give us control over what we see, how we see it, and what we can do with that content. The old media is dead. If you try to exclude us, or pretend you have something special we need to pay for, we will go elsewhere. There are plenty of organizations willing to give us what we want and how we want it. And, many of them don’t have to subsidize a dying print business, they can focus on making the best product for us, not the best life raft for them.

My Apple addiction didn’t take long to dig its claws in, so when I saw the first screens of the iPhone my mind went blank and all I could see was a gadget that I needed to own. Luckily, I was still in Japan, so the first gen iPhone was able to pass by without any battles between my self-control and my credit card. The iPhone 3G was released about 2 weeks before I left Japan and returned to the States, so of course buying one was my first act upon leaving the plane. The first 6 months or so were bliss, but things began going downhill quickly.

I was forced to continually jailbreak with each software upgrade, because the device simply wasn’t allowed to do what I wanted. The more I saw, the more Apple’s arbitrary and obtuse approval process annoyed me and completely put me off. Here was a device that was revolutionary, but at the same time held back from its full potential by Steve Jobs’ draconian practices. Only apps that he deemed acceptable could run on the device, it could only sync with iTunes (obviously), no apps could duplicate built-in features (anti-competitive), and huge parts of the system were cut out of the official SDK only allowing developers to do what Steve said they could. Couple that with being bill-raped by AT&T (you want me to pay extra for SMS? f*** off,) and I needed out. I bought a Nexus One, got switched over to T-Mobile, and just like the moment I bought my Macbook, it was a revelation.

Yes, the iPad looks pretty, and it has all of the apps and everything just like the iPhone/iPod touch, but it also still has all of the problems, but now on a bigger scale. Let’s put aside the fact that it’s a first gen Apple device, which are notoriously flawed products. This thing has the guts of a netbook, and a beautiful interface, but it’s still cut off at the knees because it’s locked down. The App Store has unknown and constantly changing review criteria, though the anti-competitive policies are well known. It can’t multitask (except for the anti-competitive multitasking with first party software.) It can’t run Flash. It isn’t expandable. Consider this on that last point: this is a 16Gb micro SD card. That card costs about $40 and equals the storage capacity of the lowest rung iPad. Given the size, there is no way Apple could build a slot for that? Of course not, because then they couldn’t charge you an extra $100 to jump from the 16Gb iPad to 32Gb iPad.

Here’s a dirty little secret everyone: the iPod was almost never the best MP3 player on the market, but you were so stuck in the web of iTunes, you couldn’t break free, and never knew what you were missing, couple that with the Apple branding juggernaut, and to this day all MP3 players are called “iPods” by the casual consumer. The same is now true for the iPhone. It is nowhere near the best smartphone on the market. It was the first one to be beautiful and to rope in the luddites, and now that those people are trapped in the Apple web, they aren’t going to get out, because people are inherently afraid of change. So, here’s the answer: don’t buy an iPad, don’t get stuck deeper in that web. The iPad, like the iPod and iPhone, will be the first tablet on the market to get it right, but that doesn’t mean it’s the best, and more to the point, it will not be the best tablet on the market by the time the year is out.

Sometime this year, the Notion Ink Adam Tablet PC will be released and that will blow the iPad out of the water. Here are some of the differences:

Notion Ink Adam Tablet (NIAT) will have a dual core processor, and therefore be able to easily multitask and run Flash, the iPad cannot do either (except for crippled multitasking which is only allowed by Apple software). NIAT has an amazing screen which will not only offer better resolution and battery life than the iPad, but will also be able to switch to a mode similar to E-Ink (think Kindle) for more comfortable reading and even better battery life. NIAT will support Android OS, Ubuntu Linux or Google Chrome OS, giving you access to anything you would want to do, whereas the iPad will run iPhone OS, limiting you to the App Store (and remember apps are rejected if they duplicate functionality, so no alternatives to Safari, Mail, Calendar, and maybe not even the iWork that comes bundled.) NIAT will also have a camera that swivels 180 degrees, whereas the first gen iPad has no cameras. And, to top it all off, NIAT will be cheaper than the iPad.

Not sold? There will also be plenty of tablets coming out running Windows 7 (not some form of the Zune or Windows 7 Phone software, full on Windows 7,) Linux, and Android.  So, you can choose a tablet that runs Windows 7 and can use all of the software that goes along there, or a tablet with all of the benefits of Android (open development).

The iPad will act as a gateway for content providers to charge you for everything. Hulu is planning an iPad app, but it won’t be free, even though Hulu turned a $100 million dollar profit last year, and expects to double that this year from ads alone. NBC is considering a paid app for the iPad as well.

But wait! you say? The iPad will have custom built apps for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and other newspapers, plus the iBook store! It will revitalize the sinking print business! First of all, why do you need access to thousands of books in your pocket? You need one book, and you can get that one book you will read at a time from a library, for free if you want. Owning a Kindle or iPad will simply lead to impulse buying of books that you won’t read and won’t feel guilty about because they won’t be staring at you from the shelf, they’ll be hidden away on your tablet.

And, here’s a crazy question: maybe the newspapers are dying for a reason. Maybe they are still clinging to outmoded ideals and business practices and want you to pay for their inability to evolve with the times. Consider this: these apps that are supposedly going to “revitalize” the industry are simply repackaged newspapers, and they will charge you subscription fees. These companies are just repackaging the stuff you already don’t buy. We don’t need newspapers, we don’t need the packaging, we just need the content, and we can access that content redistributed in hundreds of different sources. The Times and WSJ don’t have anything that you can’t find elsewhere, but they want to charge you a fee as if what they are giving you is some sort of precious commodity. The news is not a rare commodity, especially not in the world of the Internet. These companies are not giving you paper (an actual commodity that could easily become limited,) they are giving you information that has been digitally distributed and copied. It is nothing special. WSJ is going to charge $4 per week for full access on the iPad. Alternatively, it only costs $2 a week to subscribe to WSJ online. Double the price for what? The privilege of owning an iPad? B.S. They know the target market of the iPad: people who don’t know that there are better options, people who won’t notice that they are living in Musolini’s Italy.

Sure, with the iPhone and iPad, the trains will run on time. But, that doesn’t change the fact that you don’t have full control over the device you bought, it is purposely crippled, and the apps available are subject to the whim of dictator Steve.

The biggest problem with media today is that “unbiased and objective” has become synonymous with boring. This is partly because of the popularity of “entertainment news” sources like MSNBC, and Fox News, but also because of the recent move to the “24 hour news cycle”. News outlets need to realize that “unbiased and objective” does not mean emotionless. Journalists need to rediscover their passion for the truth, and need to take pride in delivering that to the audience. As I mentioned yesterday, we as the audience have a duty to support true news sources, but those news sources also have a duty to give us the information we want.

Ultimately, the news needs to be a conversation. The news source engages the audience, gives us the truth of the situation, explains what needs explaining, and we as the audience give our reactions and help steer the news sources away from things that are trivial (ie. surfing alpacas or whatever Sarah Palin is doing at any given moment) towards things that are informative and relevant to our lives (ie. real explanations of the health care reform bill.) “News” sources like MSNBC and Fox News only serve to drown out the true news with their constant shouting back and forth. Imagine you went to a college lecture, but throughout the class, while the professor is explaining how government works, two students on either side of the room were shouting at each other constantly. Eventually, no matter how ridiculous the argument between the students, all attention moves to them, because they are loud, disruptive, and passionate. What happens at the end of the year? Everyone fails that class.

The answer seems simple: throw those students out of the class. So, why can’t we do that? Why are we allowing MSNBC and Fox News to take over the public discourse? Why do we as a society enjoy being ignorant, so long as it’s entertaining? And, why do we hold such low standards for those we give authority to keep us informed?

In “30 Rock” a couple weeks ago, Elizabeth Banks, playing an NBC News reporter, said, “It’s a 24-hour news cycle, Jack. We don’t have time to get it right.” How has this idea become the truth? If access to 24-hour news comes at the expense of accuracy, I’m against it. I want the truth, and nothing else. I am smart enough to form my own opinions on what it all means.

The other detriment of the 24-hour news cycle is that politics have become unendingly corrupted. Remember this: just because the Republican party keeps getting in the news by repeating the words, “The American people do not want health care reform,” does not make those words true. That is the point of living in a democracy: we tell the politicians what we want, not the other way around.

My next post will be more on my thoughts about democracy and America. Expect it when you see it.

Obviously, and most detrimental to this undertaking, knowledge is power. Not just knowledge of the situation and subjects, but knowledge of those running counter to us, and how they may use misinformation or distractions to lead us to give them what they want, and, we must also have full knowledge about how our actions truly effect the situation. In many cases, gathering a group around an issue will effect that issue in direct relation to the spirit of the gathering (ie. support leads to positive effects, and opposition will lead to negative effects for the target.) But, the key that people forget with this line of thinking is that those effects are tied directly to the culture of payment in question. For example, if a group gathers around the recent issue with Toyota car safety, that group can directly impact Toyota because ultimately we, as consumers, decide whether or not to buy a Toyota. However, in the case of media, all groups lead to a positive effect for the target, except for a group of boycotters.

This connects me to the Limbaugh Corollary (alternately the Howard Stern Corollary, or Fox News Corollary.) When it comes to media, all attention, good or bad, is ultimately good for the target. If you love Rush Limbaugh, aside from being willfully ignorant on issues, you will listen to him and you will tell others to listen, leading to better ratings and more advertising revenue for Rush. However, the problem arises in that most people who hate Limbaugh will listen because they “want to know what he’s going to say,” thus making his comments newsworthy to those who don’t agree with him, their friends, and on until reputable news sources are even guilty of spreading links to content that is better off ignored.

I understand that even writing this blog connects me to this vicious circle, but only in the hopes that I may convince more like-minded people to follow my path. Because in the end, you cannot fight misinformation with the truth when the misinformation is being promulgated by everyone. If you want to go to every supporter of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, you’ll have far more luck. Because the only thing that will kill Fox News and Limbaugh is if we all ignore them, and urge other influential sources to do the same. We all have to realize that Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are not pushing content that they actually believe in, they are simply pushing content that they know will sell. Whether or not Limbaugh or Hannity believe the bile that they spew forth is irrelevant. All that matters to them is growing their audience, and if you are part of their audience, you are part of the problem, in my opinion.

As Jeff Jarvis sums up so well: If I link to a story, “I’m recommending that you watch it. Even if I criticize the show, I’m saying there’s something worth seeing and discussing.” There is nothing worth seeing or discussing with partisan so-called “news”, this includes MSNBC just as much as Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. But, I’m willing to bet if you tracked the stories on both networks, MSNBC runs stories on Fox News much more often than Fox covers what’s said on MSNBC. And, in the end, all that does is bring more of the conversation towards Fox News.

Probably the best option would be to enact laws similar to England, where such stations wouldn’t legally be able to call themselves “news” organizations, but rather “entertainment” (one reason why BBC is one of the best true “news” organizations in the world,) but I have no faith in that ever coming to pass, because the people would never support government intervention into media like that. So, that leaves the work to us, and it’s not really difficult work. All you have to do is ignore it, don’t support it, and don’t support any supposed “news” outlet that does.

most people don’t share my dislike of LeBron and the Cavs, but here are my issues:

1) I hate the way LeBron plays. he is a freak athlete who is bigger, stronger, and faster than anyone else out there, so all he needs to do (and all he does) in big games is clear out his teammates and charge recklessly into the lane, because he will get the call. if everyone in the lane just jumped out of the way, LeBron would just run out of bounds because he’s not in control enough to actually finish without trucking someone.

2) Mike Brown is a terrible coach, because he fosters and encourages this behavior by LeBron. they lost to the Magic, because the rest of the team can be shut down, and LeBron can’t win by himself. The Celts reinforced that idea in game 1 this year, and the Raptors did the same in game 2.

it’s the Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell theory. Bill knew that if you let Wilt do what he wanted, but focused on stopping the rest of the team, then Wilt would lose. and what happened there? Bill won 11 rings, and Wilt won 2 (only 1 during the course of Russell’s career).

which leads to:
3) the supporting cast in Cleveland is infinitely underwhelming, and easily beatable. without LeBron, that team struggles to make the playoffs in the EAST. strip away KG, and the Celts still make round 2 of the playoffs, take away Kobe, and i’m willing to bet the Lakers make round 2 as well. the Magic played without Jameer Nelson for a long stretch and still made the championship game.

the only real scoring threats outside LeBron are two extremely undersized guards in Delonte West and Mo Williams. Shaq and big Z are too old and slow. Anthony Parker is good, but shouldn’t be more than an outside shot specialist. and Varejao is a streaky energy guy at best.

any of the elite level teams can shut down all of those threats when they need to, and no matter what LeBron puts on the board, it won’t be enough.