I've never quite been able to peg The Hold Steady. Listen to the music and not the lyrics, and they're a "fun" band – lots of uptempo guitar, jangling piano, and catchy hooks. Listen to the lyrics, though, and a powerful dissonance often shines through. These are not glittery songs about having fun and being famous. They're often as much about feeling lost as being found, and trying to get to where you want to be.
The Hold Steady's newest album, Heaven Is Whenever, doesn't do much to change that paradigm. The tight yet ebullient songwriting is still there, the sometimes melancholic, sometimes ecstatic lyrics keep you from locking down exactly where the band is coming from. And this complexity is no curse: it gives the album, like their impressive 2006 album Boys and Girls in America, a richness that stands up to repeated listens under any conditions.
— C.
First Listen: The Hold Steady's Heaven Is Whenever (NPR)
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
The iPhone 4
Over the weekend, the technology blogs Engadget and Gizmodo brought the world pictures of a prototype for Apple's next iPhone, presumably to be named the iPhone 4.
More than a few commentators have focused on what this leak says about Apple's legendary security, but I'd like to take a moment to focus on perhaps the most obvious physical upgrade that the prototype phone received since the iPhone 3GS: a front-facing camera. The obvious use for this camera, pointed out by Gizmodo in its dissection of the device, is for video chat.
I think the obvious question is worth asking: is it useful to have video chat capabilities on a mobile phone?
I'm a big believer in the iPhone; I've owned two. The hardware and software features of the iPhone 3GS have made it an indispensable device for me. But I can't ever see using my iPhone to video chat.
The first, and possibly most obvious, reason for this is that the ability to process two lines of streaming video over existing cellular data networks is basically non-existant. Even over 3G, my iPhone can take a little while to load a webpage – how can I expect it to stream anything approaching useable video? Let alone what a bunch of people trying to video chat will do to AT&T's already-overloaded 3G network in metropolitan areas.
But more importantly, I simply don't think video chat is congruent to the purpose of a mobile phone. The point of cellular phones is that they free you to be mobile, to talk and walk, to be disengaged from the process of a phone call. A video chat ends all that: you need to be stationary, you need to be focused on the phone.
Sure, there are times when you want to video chat, there are times when you can be stationary and want to see what's going on at the other end of the line. But at that point, you can probably open up your laptop. I think video chat functionality would make a lot of sense on the iPad, which to use means to focus on exclusively. I don't think it will prove to be a useful feature on the iPhone.
— C.
This is Apple's Next iPhone (Gizmodo)
More than a few commentators have focused on what this leak says about Apple's legendary security, but I'd like to take a moment to focus on perhaps the most obvious physical upgrade that the prototype phone received since the iPhone 3GS: a front-facing camera. The obvious use for this camera, pointed out by Gizmodo in its dissection of the device, is for video chat.
I think the obvious question is worth asking: is it useful to have video chat capabilities on a mobile phone?
I'm a big believer in the iPhone; I've owned two. The hardware and software features of the iPhone 3GS have made it an indispensable device for me. But I can't ever see using my iPhone to video chat.
The first, and possibly most obvious, reason for this is that the ability to process two lines of streaming video over existing cellular data networks is basically non-existant. Even over 3G, my iPhone can take a little while to load a webpage – how can I expect it to stream anything approaching useable video? Let alone what a bunch of people trying to video chat will do to AT&T's already-overloaded 3G network in metropolitan areas.
But more importantly, I simply don't think video chat is congruent to the purpose of a mobile phone. The point of cellular phones is that they free you to be mobile, to talk and walk, to be disengaged from the process of a phone call. A video chat ends all that: you need to be stationary, you need to be focused on the phone.
Sure, there are times when you want to video chat, there are times when you can be stationary and want to see what's going on at the other end of the line. But at that point, you can probably open up your laptop. I think video chat functionality would make a lot of sense on the iPad, which to use means to focus on exclusively. I don't think it will prove to be a useful feature on the iPhone.
— C.
This is Apple's Next iPhone (Gizmodo)
Sunday, April 11, 2010
The Problem with Political Journalism
In an otherwise-unremarkable process article about the primary race for the Democratic Senate nomination in Arkansas, Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times drops in this paragraph:
So how would Mr. Halter have voted on health care? When asked in the interview, he said, “You’re not going to like the length of my answer” and talked for four minutes without a specific answer. Asked again, he said, “Yeah, I would have voted for it.”
So how would Mr. Halter have voted on health care? When asked in the interview, he said, “You’re not going to like the length of my answer” and talked for four minutes without a specific answer. Asked again, he said, “Yeah, I would have voted for it.”
A political candidate attempts to give a nuanced answer to a complicated policy question, and this is explained essentially as an attempt to avoid the question. Rather than brush aside Mr. Halter's desire to explain his position fully, Mr. Zeleny focuses on the soundbite.
There's no question that it's interesting to investigate the dynamics of the primary races that are taking place right now, which have very real consequences for the composition of the Congress. But to do so at the expense of elucidating the policy debates that are shaping those races does a disservice to the reader and to the trade of journalism.
— C.
Family Feud Shaping Up in Democratic Senate Race in Arkansas (NYT)
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Net Neutrality: Not Optional
Very little needs to be said about the importance of net neutrality. The basic premise is that internet service providers (ISPs) should not be able to control the speeds at which certain data gets to consumers.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit handed down a ruling yesterday in Comcast v. F.C.C. that held the F.C.C. did not have the statutory authority to regulate ISPs and enforce net neutrality.
The D.C. Circuit is probably right, but the modern American administrative state is replete with examples of independent agencies skirting the outer limits of their authorizing statutes to regulate emerging or novel industries. If the Supreme Court doesn't grant certiorari to review this decision, or if it eventually upholds it, Congress should act immediately to give the F.C.C. the authority it needs to ensure that web traffic is not subject to any form of artificial policing or content control.
— C.
Comcast Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission (No. 08-1291) [PDF]
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit handed down a ruling yesterday in Comcast v. F.C.C. that held the F.C.C. did not have the statutory authority to regulate ISPs and enforce net neutrality.
The D.C. Circuit is probably right, but the modern American administrative state is replete with examples of independent agencies skirting the outer limits of their authorizing statutes to regulate emerging or novel industries. If the Supreme Court doesn't grant certiorari to review this decision, or if it eventually upholds it, Congress should act immediately to give the F.C.C. the authority it needs to ensure that web traffic is not subject to any form of artificial policing or content control.
— C.
Comcast Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission (No. 08-1291) [PDF]
Obama Administration Authorizes Targeted Killing of American
The Obama Administration has authorized the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. The Times article linked below doesn't come right out and say it, but there's no question that an order like this needed to come from Obama himself.
Stepping back from the predictable responses to an order like this, consider the most important thing it says about Obama himself: this closes once and for all the debate over whether Obama is a foreign policy dove. By focusing so systematically on his opposition to the Iraq War while a candidate, Obama gave many Americans the impression that he was anti-war. His recent moves, in concert with Russia, to reduce the nation's strategic nuclear arsenal – and concurrently to revise American nuclear response protocols – would give the same impression when considered myopically.
Authorizing what amounts to covert assassination of an American citizen, though, is not the move of a man who is unwilling to use necessary force. We can only imagine the kind of intelligence that Obama was presented during the decision-making process here. Given the nearly-unprecedented response, it surely describes the kind of events we hope never to see in the pages of newspapers instead of C.I.A. briefs.
— C.
U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric (NYT)
Stepping back from the predictable responses to an order like this, consider the most important thing it says about Obama himself: this closes once and for all the debate over whether Obama is a foreign policy dove. By focusing so systematically on his opposition to the Iraq War while a candidate, Obama gave many Americans the impression that he was anti-war. His recent moves, in concert with Russia, to reduce the nation's strategic nuclear arsenal – and concurrently to revise American nuclear response protocols – would give the same impression when considered myopically.
Authorizing what amounts to covert assassination of an American citizen, though, is not the move of a man who is unwilling to use necessary force. We can only imagine the kind of intelligence that Obama was presented during the decision-making process here. Given the nearly-unprecedented response, it surely describes the kind of events we hope never to see in the pages of newspapers instead of C.I.A. briefs.
— C.
U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric (NYT)
New Music from The Chemical Brothers
Back in the 1990s, the Chemical Brothers were one of the undisputed masters of the burgeoning electronic music art form. Their seminal album Dig Your Own Hole has more than stood the test of time. Stalwarts that they are, they've continued producing exceptional music long after the boomlet of purely electronic music has faded (though many of its hallmark features have trickled down into R&B, and house music has clearly transformed what constitutes 'danceable' hip-hop for the Top 40).
Their last two albums, Push the Button and We Are the Night both won Grammy awards for Best Electronic/Dance album, and this new 12-minute track off their forthcoming album Further (due out this June) indicates they're not giving up yet. With a two-minute intro that slowly builds steam towards a sophisticated, driving beat, the Chemical Brothers have once again used their considerable mastery of the form to drive their production forward without abandoning the elements that have made them so successful in the past.
— C.
— C.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)