This is the official Web site for GuyOnTheAir. It is not intended to amuse, entertain, or be a useful or factual source for information. Thoughts recorded on GuyOnTheAir.com are just the streaming content of GuyOnTheAir's brain, nothing more or less. For more information, email Guy@GuyOnTheAir.com
GuyOnTheAir's Latest Projects:
Get deeper into the mind of GuyOnTheAir with private.GuyOnTheAir.com, the members only private blog of GuyOnTheAir. Sign up for access!
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
-
Prop 8 but a dying gasp...
Let us hereby be reminded, before sadness and frustration overwhelm once more: Proposition 8 and its ilk are merely the last, fitful gasps of a long-dying ideology, markers of a certain kind of sad, conservative desperation. They are the final clawings and scrapings of a reactionary worldview that attempts to outlaw and punish all it cannot, will not understand. Same as it ever was, really.
One of the parts of this article that is great is a comment made by a 60 year old white haired woman:
If I remember correctly, Jesus said, "Love one another." He didn't specify gender nor whom you should. Those words came from a man who hung out with twelve disciples and a prostitute. He never married nor had children. I look forward to the time in our lives when this will be a footnote in our history. Hold on.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
-
Four Lessons Gay Marriage Activists Must Learn From Obama
I really like what Lee Stranahan has to say over at the Huffington Post. Read the whole article, but to summarize:
1) Anger loses 2) Get organized 3) Outreach works 4) Pick your battles
A few words on Prop 8 (not my own)...
For fear that this may some day disappear from the MSNBC site, I've quoted the entire article referenced. From the Monday, Nov. 11 edition of "Countdown with Keith Olberman" on MSNBC, comes this*:
SPECIAL COMMENT By Keith Olbermann Anchor, 'Countdown' msnbc.com updated 6:13 p.m. PT, Mon., Nov. 10, 2008
Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.
Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.
And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics. This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.
If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.
Only now you are saying to them—no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights—even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?
I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage. If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967.
The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.
You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.
And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing, centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children, all because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage.
How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?
What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.
It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.
And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?
With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate.
You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know. It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow person just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.
This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.
But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:
"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge. It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all: So I be written in the Book of Love; I do not care about that Book above. Erase my name, or write it as you will, So I be written in the Book of Love."
If the mood so strikes me in the coming days, I may post some more of my own thoughts on the passage of Prop 8. But, so far, all I've been able to put together is the wording of my "status" on Facebook. It reads, "GuyOnTheAir is discouraged that people feel justified in their hatred, based on their religion, when no religion truly supports hatred of people."
I have not followed, nor seen any of the Michael Moore movies. I don't know if I respect the man, or what I think about him. But I have to tell you, this clip makes me laugh, and makes me so very happy!
Monday, April 21, 2008
-
Major GrandCentral outtage, and my response
I've become a huge user of GrandCentral, a service bought by Google, which claims to be your one stop shop for a phone number that won't change for life...
So, most people that know me now have my GrandCentral phone number. (Readers of private.GuyOnTheAir.com even have a button to click to call me directly from there...) And, overall, I like the features and service...except when it goes down, as it did on my birthday, just a couple weekends ago.
And, upon service restoral, shocker, they even posted something about it on the GrandCentral blog. So, I've posted my "comments" response. But, since my comments are awaiting "moderation", I have a sneaky suspicion they might never see the light of day. So, I publish them here, so that all the world can read, whether or not they become an "official" comment.
GuyOnTheAir Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. April 20th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
I find it astounding that this service seems to be no more than a “mom and pop” setup. Sounds like it’s coming from someone’s garage.
A number of things are disturbing:
1) A colo facility, apparently now contracted by Google, had a “power issue” that knocked the whole service offline. Any colo facility I’d ever do business with would have backup power, generators, something. Did all of those fail? Were they even in place?
2) Every guy deserves time with his family, and Craig should be no different. But, is Craig the ONLY guy running GC? Is there NOBODY else that could deal with problems? Would not a variety of people be paged and consulted in case of an issue? Craig says “we were able to restore the service”, implying it’s more than just him, but I’m starting to wonder.
3) Keeping us informed would be great. It seems that all communication, save one or two blogs, has been cut off ever since Google acquired GC. As an end user, it would appear the service is doomed, as there have been no major developments, and changes, other than the mysterious end being able to invite others to the service. That doesn’t bode well, either. Is the service doomed?
I do appreciate that at least SOMETHING was written about this outtage. I’m sure most people don’t even realize this blog is here, though, and it certainly hasn’t seemed to be a complete resource for all things GC in ages…
I do hope that things improve.
Finally, can we get a way to call our GC number, look somebody up in our Address book, and then be able to call them, if we’re not able to get the web interface? That and text messaging are the biggest hurdles to making this service truly replace all my other numbers.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
-
Duck, an HD Radio might be flying off a shelf and about to hit you!
Radio is in my blood. It's my everyday job, and it's something I do even in my spare time.
Now, it's possible you've heard of the "next-generation" of radio - HD Radio. Unlike HDTV, which every viewer can notice the dramatic change from a normal signal to the crystal-clear high definition images on the screen, HD Radio offers only a digital service for terrestrial radio, not necessarily any sort of improvement.
It's just like the switch from analog cellular phones to today's more popular digital services. Back a few years, everyone that had a cell phone, had an analog cell phone. Those sounded okay, but, if you started to get out of range, you could hear noise, or distortions based on other radio interference. Along came GSM, CDMA, and other digital phone technologies. Phone carriers sold these to us as an improvement, and wanted us to "listen to the difference." We were asked to "see how clear it sounds", and more. However, over time, carriers could greatly increase the number of users per cell, and then decrease and compress the digital signals, making each one use less bandwidth, and eventually making the signals sound worse. With digital, you either get it, or you don't. There's no fade-outs, there's just dropped calls, or no service.
So would seem the so-called "HD Radio." Stations that typically broadcast thousands of watts of power would be reduced to a mere fraction of that amount to spit out this digital signal. And, for upwards of $150, you too can buy an HD Radio and, if you hold the antenna just so, the phase of the moon is correct, and you've said the proper incantations, you can tune into these HD channels.
Oh, and there's more of them. You can have an HD-1 channel, HD-2 channel, or even HD-3. So, instead of (or alongside) one analog channel, you can now have up to 3 digital channels. You either get the signal, or you don't. For AM this could be good, as there's no fade-out as you pass under a bridge or venture too close to a building or other interference. For FM, you get about the same audio. But, the amount of available bandwidth is limited. For each additional channel you add, you've got to divide the total available bandwidth. So, those 3 HD channels now start sounding a lot like, um, digital phone service. In a case study in Radio Magazine, Certified Broadcast Radio Engineer (CBRE) Don Danko explains:
"The overall HD Radio data stream is set at 96kb/s. Streaming a second signal involves lowering the bit rate on the main channel and giving those saved bits to the second channel."
"Here’s what the industry wants you to get excited about: digital broadcast radio or HD (high definition) radio. It’s the worst of both worlds: Bad FM programming plus satellite-like digital audio quality. FM stations in your area will simulcast a digital signal in addition to the analog one you can listen to.
Bottom line: It means that you’ll be able to listen to mediocre-sounding digital music streams of the same horrible FM stations you can’t stand to listen to now."In other words, no one will ever walk up to your speakers and notice the "increased" clarity, cleanness, and fidelity like they do when they walk up to an HDTV and notice all the exciting new detailed images."
But, proponents of HD Radio, mostly the NAB and Ibiquity, the company that has a monopoly on making, licensing, and selling the technology, love to boast how HD Radios are "flying off store shelves", and how it's the greatest thing to happen to radio since transistors. In fact, although the HD Radio standard was approved by the FCC in 2002, 5 years later, it's still not in great use. Not according to Ibiquity, though.
In a article titled "HD Radio Gains Support", Jeff McGannon, Vice President of OEM Business Development at iBiquity Digital predicts, "By 2010, HD Radio will be offered on more than half the vehicle lines." Clear Channel President and CEO John Hogan, says "We fully expect receivers to start flying off the shelves because the audio quality of an HD digital radio broadcast is amazing."
So, if I am to understand correctly, 8 years after HD Radio is approved, only half of new cars will have it? That doesn't sound like anything is flying off of any shelves. An independant community station in the Boulder and Denver, Colorado area, KGNU, is telling it's staff of other issues with HD Radio, including:
For the broadcasters, HD is a chicken and egg deal. HD will cost a lot of money, and broadcasters don't want to spend it if HD if people won't buy HD receivers.
Listeners won't buy HD receivers (which cost at least $ 100 more than standard ones) if no broadcasters use HD.
Manufacturers have no incentive to develop HD receivers until they have reason to believe that HD will take off.
No one will embrace HD if it doesn't really improve the sound.
HD is meant to sound CD quality, but in reality it will sound like internet radio: low noise, but also digital artifacts. This may not be seen as any improvement at all compared to standard FM. (On the other side, it's going to be a great improvement in AM.) Two major examples of such conversions gone bad are AM-stereo and quadrophonic sound. Both promised great improvements in sound quality, and neither succeeded.
Organizations and consumers who bought the equipment found themselves with white elephants.
And the article lists whole sections of pros and cons for HD Radio. But, you certainly won't hear any cons from the NAB or Ibiquity. It's all butterflies and daisies.
An article in trade publication Radio World Newspaper from January, 2004 notes that WOR's Thomas R. Ray, III, believes "that HD Radios will be in stores in the first quarter of 2004." Or at least that's what he was told. And yet, to this day, I've yet to see any HD Radio in my local Best Buy, Target, or Circuit City. Of course, Thomas Ray repeats that often observed state of HD Radio proclaiming, "once the public hears the benefits of non-fading AM and multipath-less FM, I think you will see them [HD Radios] start flying off the shelves." That, of course, still in 2004.
But, let's update. What were they saying in 2005? Billboard Radio Monitor Paul Heine, in Nielsen's (of TV ratings fame) MediaWeek, says in an article from October 31, 2005, that "This year was tagged as the tipping point for high-definition radio," and goes on to note that "HD Radio missed the holiday buying season." That, in 2005.
So, when is this stuff actually going to catch on? Will it ever? Consumer Reports even recommends in 2006:
"...most people will want to wait before investing in HD-Radio equipment. At this stage, choices are limited and prices are high. More and cheaper HD-Radio compatible gear is coming soon, and analog radio isn’t likely to become obsolete within the lifetime of a new radio, receiver, or even a car."
Few opponents of the HD Radio system seem to exist in broadcast circles, or are published in widely read radio journals, but not everyone is blind. In a July 29, 2007 article in the Washington Post regarding the possible sale of Christian music station WGTS, Marc Fisher notes that "WGTS's current format could be salvaged even if the station is sold by putting the programming on a digital sub-channel that would be available to listeners who buy the HD or digital radios that came on the market last year. But sales of those radios have been slow."
Could it be that sales of the radios have been slow, because few are willing to purchase a radio for at least $150? Or are they reluctant to invest in a technology that supposedly missed the 2005 holiday shopping season, but just, then, came "on the market last year"? Or, are they too having a hard time even finding a radio for sale? But, hurry quick and buy one of these exciting radios, "since HD Radio is a free broadcast, all you have to do is get a new HD Radio receiver for your home or car. Prices are plummeting as more and more people are discovering what HD Radio is all about", at least according to Ibiquity's "consumer friendly" HDRadio.com. But what about those commercials on some regular, analog stations that promote these free new channels and content that are free of commercials and subscription fees? Yes, indeed, current HD-2, and even HD-3 channels are commercial free. But, more than anything else, it's because they aren't worth anything. Few are listening, and would-be advertisers don't generally want to market to just a few. If the whole HD Radio thing took off, do you really believe those channels would truly remain completely commercial free, forever? Anyone with a business mind can see notice the lack of a sustainable business model.
And what of satellite radio? Satellite radio was supposed to be the next big thing, and although satellite radio services now boast close to 10 million listener subscribers, it's hardly become a standard. You don't hear much talk these days of the CD-quality sound that satellite radio once tried to boast. Internet music streams aren't highly regarded, unless they're at least 128kbps. Says Gary Krakow:
"Satellite radio sound is, at best, barely passable. That’s because your satellite service provider sends only one digital signal to your receiver. The receiver then splits that signal into hundreds of audio streams: some, for voice, very narrow; others, for music, a little wider. I’ve been told these streams run from a few kbps for voice to something like 30 to 60kbps for music.
A typical music satellite radio station is thus compressed and expanded at a much lower rate than many MP3s. A reader will write me to defend the sound of a 128kpbs ripped music file (it’s not near-CD quality despite what anyone tells you) but I can’t believe anyone can defend the sound quality of a 36kbps satellite radio music stream."
Chuck Gage agrees:
"No one has mentioned the sound quality! Yes, it is all digital and there are none of the usual analog problems. However, the bandwidth and thus the fidelity, is quite bad in many cases. Both systems [XM and SIRIUS] talk about “CD quality”. Well, yes, CD clarity perhaps, but not CD quality. Both companies use compression techniques to cram as much as they can down that soda-straw of bandwidth."
And what about the commercials? An understanding of "Commercial-free" for the entire service (an understanding not specifically stated by the companies, but pretty much implied), paved the way for "100% commercial-free music". From there, suddenly XM Radio was boasting "…the most commercial-free music channels in satellite radio." About.com:Radio guide Corey Deitz understands the confusion there:
"Notice it doesn’t flat out state they are all commercial-free. Increasing the number of channels allowed the company to boast of quantity – which can easily be misinterpreted by an average listener to mean they are all commercial-free."
"A radio station (or stream) is entitled to promote itself but it’s also common knowledge in the Radio Industry based on perceptual studies that a typical listener perceives a promo as a commercial and does not differentiate between the two."
That fact, is reconfirmed by well respected radio consultant Mike McVay from McVay Media, as quoted by Mr. Deitz,
"[Radio stations]...run :15 promos, traffic commercials, weather commercials, sold and sponsored PSA's, and community activity calendars that are sponsored. They do not count these as part of their commercial load. The listeners always count them as part of the commercial load. Listeners hear anything that is not music or entertainment as a commercial."
So, as far as variety of content, satellite radio services win. Again, Chuck Gage:
"...Americans will go for quantity over quality, sadly, any day."
So what does this all mean? The advantages of HD Radio should be clear. There should be greater sound quality, more variety due to increased numbers of channels, and fewer commercials. But those advantages already aren't true, even as Ibiquity's shill site HDRadio.com still proclaims "CD-quality sound" and "crystal clear reception". Variety? Well, honestly, do you see more variety as the same people get access to more channels? Look at Clear Channel. They went from 173 radio stations in 1997, to 1,400 stations in 2004, and has the variety increased? No. Most stations are network downlinks, or voice-tracked remotely to sound identical to stations in other formats. And fewer commercials? Don't count on it.
So the verdict from a guy who has listened to, installed and maintained an HD Radio transmitter, and deals with this stuff on a daily basis? Stay away, and save your money. There's no need, at least yet, to update your radio facilities and broadcast sites for HD Radio, and there's even less need for you to dump your ghetto blaster in favor of an outrageously priced HD Radio. Forget the hype, and for a good laugh, go visit HDRadio.com. Or, just go listen to your AM-Stereo set, instead.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
-
Help Patti Fight the RIAA!
Patti is the New York working mother with five children who's decided she's not caving in to Sony BMG, Vivendi Universal, Warner Music or EMI, the multi-billion-dollar members of the Organized Music cartel which has been trying to extort 'settlement' money from her, and more than 17,000 others like her, including school kids.
She is NOT willing to be blackmailed for something she didn't do and when she presents her case to a jury on an as-yet to be determined date, she'll be the first to meet these hard-core, multi-billion-dollar bullies with their teams of PR hacks, their bought-and-paid for politicians, their unimaginably vast financial and legal resources, face-to-face.
And she's doing it alone, without expert help or legal representation.
