December 02, 2011
DeSean Jackson vs. Fred Barnett
No, not Mike Quick. No, not Terrell Owens either. It's Fred Barnett!!
Lets go to the numbers.
- Fred Barnett (First Three Seasons)
- Games Played: 42
- Receptions: 165
- Yards: 2752 (16.67 per)
- Touchdowns: 18
-
Longs in each year of 95, 75, 71
-
DeSean Jackson (First Three Seasons)
- Games Played: 45
- Receptions: 171
- Yards: 3124 (18.26 per)
- Touchdowns: 17
- Longs in each year of 60, 71, 91
Now, I liked Fred Barnett, he was a solid receiver, but no superstar. DeSean, you may look like you can become a superstar, but show me you are before you try and force me to treat you like one.
October 11, 2011
"If you buy only ONE comic this month... This is it!" and "Don't miss the 1st issue in Web's daring new adventures into mystery and suspense."
Yes, that comic was Web of Spider-Man #16 and it was the first comic I bought on my own and it created a comic book collector and fan for about the next 12-13 years. And as is want to happen when bills and mortgages appear in life, comic book buying left my weekly schedule. I would try and keep up with story lines, occasionally buy a few issues, and grab graphic novel collections when I saw something interesting, but for the most part I drifted away.
I always wanted to get back though, and now that I have an 8 year old girl who loves to look at anything I have, including my old comics, I was always waiting for a good time to introduce her to some comics.
When I heard about the New 52, and then realized what it was, I thought this might be the time. A new beginning with all of the biggest characters. New story arcs beholden to no history that would allow easy entrance to the DC Universe.
I wasn't about to dive right in though. I wasn't going to add comic book Wednesday to the calendar just yet. I wanted to sample some of the stories first and the day and date iPad publishing made that possible. So over the course of the first month, I purchased about a dozen titles, to get the lay of the land and see where this could head.
Cutting to the chase, I think my experiment is ending soon after it began. Most of what is being published can be split into two different categories. Inappropriate and crap.
Superman has been ruined. Completely ruined. At least I think so. It appears that there are two different Superman's to follow in different timelines, which I find completely annoying. Batman is a parent (I think) and possibly the worst one ever. Aquaman eats seafood and Green Lantern is a bit of an asshole.
And DC comics seemingly produces no regular title that I would ever consider showing my girl.
My little girl just happened over when I was reading Detective Comics (with the naked Joker), and she looked over my shoulder as I flipped to the last page and asked, "Is that the Joker's face?", which had just been cut off and hung on a wall. Check that from the list.
You may say, hey, buy the children's comics, they are safe for kids. No thank you. I am not buying the children's version, or the Ultimate version or the 2099 series, or any series that isn't canon. I like to know that what I am reading is part of the grander storyline. But then again, DC has killed any kind of grand storyline with a massive reboot.
I assume that the reason for the reboot is to bring in new readers and to get potential returning readers back to buying comics. I think that what we have here is a very large failure. There is a lot of excitement here at the launch; it got me excited. But that excitement is gone now, and I will be interested to see what it is like in the next six months.
You don't need a gimmick and new issue number to relaunch a comic book. You just need a good creative team and a character people care about.
Afterthought: The new 52 is supposed to represent the reboot of 52 titles, but part of me wonders if it just means that it lasts for 52 weeks, and that in a year we will merge back with the original stories
October 05, 2011
I truly feel like we have lost the Da Vinci of our time. He brought to us the way we all learned how to interface with computers almost 30 years ago, and completely redefined it over the last 10 years, with touch, gestures and now speech.
He brought to us new ways of creating and communicating.
He will be missed.
September 13, 2011
Film is especially favorable for me during scenes with intense action. The crystal clarity of the digital projection doesn't seem to handle motion as well as film. It is almost too crisp when I expect some blurriness.
That being said, I can not wait until my theater goes all digital. Why is that you ask? Why the contradiction? Well, I will tell you.
Quite simply, I am tired of watching movies in the theater that are completely off center. And for whatever reason, whatever the difference, this doesn't seem to happen with the digital projectors. I am assuming that running a film projector properly is a highly skilled position. I don't know much about it at all, but I get the impression it requires a lot of skill to do it right and is becoming a lost art. But the theaters near me have decided that they are not investing in this art anymore.
There is probably some goofy sixteen year old kid running the projector, and this problem would be easily solved if someone, ANYONE, would actually look at the screen after they hit play, but they don't. I hate when the theater manager tells me that it's not off center and they just forgot to put the bottom plate up. Really. It's just the bottom plate? Then why are the subtitles projected below the screen?
I am tired of movies that go off the top of the screen or practically project to the floor. You can see this within the first few minutes of the film, but no one bothers to check the quality of their work so it always goes unnoticed.
I am assuming with the digital projectors, that they have a nice crisp edge and once you point it properly there is no further adjustment needed. Either that or they are just so easy to work that any one can do it.
Anyway, at this point it seems, I am willing to sacrifice the quality of the movie to increase the quality of the experience.
September 07, 2011
Wired vs. Wireless Internet Connection
I have had wireless coverage over my house through an Airport Express and the stock router that comes with Verizon FIOS. Haven't had any real speed issues or problems, but with the addition of a few AppleTV's to the house and the sending of video from the computer to said AppleTV's, along with video transfers between Tivo's, I decided to go wired and see what would happen.
While having an electrician run a few new outlets, I had him take some Cat cable along with it and everything is hooked up and ready to go now.
Here are the differences in connectivity wireless vs. wired.
- Wireless - Ping 45ms, Download 30Mb, Upload 10Mb
- Wired - Ping 11ms, Download 38Mb, Upload 31Mb
Now, you will see that the wireless connection is great and perfect for normal household use. But if you are trying to get every last bit from your broadband provider, doing some heavy duty uploading or playing games online where Ping is important, wired is where you want to be.
I am assuming with the digital projectors, that they have a nice crisp edge and once you point it properly there is no further adjustment needed. Either that or they are just so easy to work that any one can do it.
Anyway, at this point it seems, I am willing to sacrifice the quality of the movie to increase the quality of the experience.