I am actually starting on a Visual Studio 2005 project at work. The thing is barely in Beta 2, but enough people here are excited about the new features in the .NET Framework that we've been told to use that as the platform for our next project.

(Of course, it will have a SQL Server 2005 back end.)

I. Can't. Wait.

I read an interesting article that speculated that, at some point, Apple will stop making Macs and just focus on iPods and iTunes (iPictures, iMovies, etc.).

That will be quite the day. Not because I have some affinity for the machines (or have ever even used one), but because it is the kind of thing you could not have predicted even 2 years ago.

If it works, it will be a brilliant move. Almost everyone these days has a Home PC. The need to buy a new computer every few years will soon be over, as computers today are more powerful than the tasks they are being asked to perform (Word, Excel, Email, Web Browsing). The only need for power on the PC is games, but that market might soon move away from the PC.

So where is the growth in technology? Portable PCs. We have seen the rise and fall of the PDA - clearly noone wants to be able to create Excel spreadsheets on the bus. But have you seen the latest things from iPod and Playstation Portable (PSP)? The PSP, for instance, has games, movies, music, and wireless networking all bundled into one.

But you're not going to watch movies with your family on a PSP. So I think the home entertainment console is undergoing a lot of technological improvement to become the central technology device in the home. The XBox might be the gaming station, DVD player, email reader, web surfer, and more... all wrapped into one.

So where does that leave the PC? Well, I think people still need one. But why buy a new one except when the old one breaks? Assuming gaming moves to the Home Entertainment Console, what new killer app will there be to spur an upgrade in PC power? None can be seen at the present time.

Of course, this could all collapse and Apple's move away from the PC could be suicide. Who knows?

Some American politicians (and protesters) have labelled the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay a concentration camp, and have drawn parallels to how Nazi Germany treated prisoners during WW2.

Those type of statements are ludicrous, laughable, and no further time needs to be spent thinking that what the Americans have set up is a concentration camp. Clearly, it's not. American's don't hate Arabs and wish to extinguish them, as the Germans felt towards the Jews.

Instead, people should be asking themselves, “What is the Guantanamo Bay prison? What is it for? Why does the U.S. need a prison 50 miles off the coast of Miami?”

The answer to this is quite clear. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, 5 decades ago, that any prisoner kept inside the United States has the full protection of the constitution, including the right to counsel and the right to a speedy trial amoung others (called “due process“). It also ruled that U.S. prisoners kept outside the borders of the United States are not protected by the U.S. Constitution (see the 1950 Supreme Court ruling in Johnson v. Eisentrager).

Guantanamo Bay Prison is a perfect legal no-mans-land. It is under the full control of the U.S., yet it does not belong to any country. Some terror suspects are being kept imprisoned on U.S. Navy vessels in the Persian Gulf - similarly they are in international waters (not on U.S. soil) and do not get constitutional protection.

So that, there, is really the issue. The U.S. has found a legal loophole in the constitution. A place where it can detain people, yet reject their right to a lawyer, a trial, to talk to their families, or even to acknowledge that someone is in custody. It can stretch the boundaries by treating prisoners in a way that is not legal inside United States prisons - keeping them awake for 2 or 3 days in a row, verbal and mental abuse, etc.

The U.S. is not about to close this handy loophole it has found. I don't think prisoners are being physically tortured there (not in the Abu Gharib sense), but having a prison that has no rules certainly has its benefits in other ways.

Here's a nice editorial at Canoe that sums up how I feel about the U.S. Grand Prix exactly.

Had they REALLY cared for the fans, they would have found a way. Had they REALLY cared for the fans, there would have been 20 cars on the track. Had they REALLY cared, the future of Formula One racing in America would not be in doubt.

Basically, I don't blame Ferrari for not wanting to bend the rules to allow the Michelin cars to compete. But the fact that some compromise could not be reached inflicted a mortal wound into the sport. Ferrari apparently refused to go along with some proposed changes, while the FIA vetoed the other ones.

“Just drive slower” was the only possible solution the FIA would accept. I think that letting them switch to safer tires would have been the ideal solution for everyone.

If you haven't heard what happened in yesterday's United States Grand Prix, in Forumla One Auto Racing, I can't blame you. Formula One is mostly a European sport -- American's love their Nascar.

What happened is that, out of 20 cars scheduled to race, only 6 started. And so, the lamest race in automotive history took place at the Indy track, with Ferrari easily beating out the other two much weaker teams (Jordan and Minardi) for the so-called “win“.

Why this happened is fairly clear.

• There was a couple of accidents in practice, one serious
• It turns out the tires take some of the blame for these accidents
• Michelin, tire supplier to 14 out of the 20 drivers, warns the teams that it is not 100% sure the tires are safe
• The teams then ask for an exemption to the silly “one tire“ rule so that they can change the tires on their car to a safer type. That is rejected.
• The tires are failing because drivers are driving too fast through a tight turn - the tires can't take the pressure. So the teams ask for a slight change to the course to slow down cars through that turn. In fact, they offer to give up all the “points“ for winning to the teams that run on Bridgestone. (Essentially, they offered to play a competitive game for the fans, but concede the part that matters - the points.) This idea is also rejected.
• And so, left with no compromise, the 14 drivers are ordered by their owners into the pits at the start of the race, and F1 fans (particular the American fans watching live) are cheated out of a real competition
• The only two fast cars in the race, the two Ferraris, refused to pass each other (a practice called “team orders“)

It would seem to me, a fan of F1, that Formula One governing body (FIA) has an obligation to protect the sport from embarassments such as this. To go into a race knowing that the majority of drivers will pull out, and let it happen, is the real problem here.

I think everybody involved, including Michelin, is admitting that the tires were the original problem. But there was plenty of time to fix it, and lots of ideas on how to fix it. But they couldn't agree, and so the race went ahead. The race should have been cancelled, delayed, whatever.

I see this sometimes at work. Someone makes a mistake, but then instead of everyone rallying around and fixing the problem, people proudly announce “It's not my problem, I'm not going to do anything to fix it.” There's the crime of the original shooting. And then the crime of not calling the police while a person slowly dies out on the sidewalk. Michelin admitted to it's fault. Why doesn't Formula One admit it screwed up as well.

Anyways, what's done is done. Formula One looks dead at Indy. And it might take a few years to return to the United States. In fact, this might cause a rift that causes many teams to break away from F1 and form their own league. Man oh man. The implications of this farce are long reaching, unless the parties involved can kiss and make up quickly.

The other night, my wife and I were having a late dinner out. (Well, late for us, might be normal time for some people.) We drove up to a nice Italian restaurant north of Toronto called Il Fornello. (There is an Il Fornello 3 blocks from my condo, but we like to go a bit farther from home for dinner sometimes.)

Only a few minutes after we were seated, a nice family of 4 were seated near us. My wife remarked how good looking their children were, and I agreed. The kids appeared to be 6 or 7 years old, and both as cute as can be.

A few minutes later, I looked up to see that one of the kids had spilled their soft drink on the table. This is when the fun (for us) and misery (for them) began.

The mother was extremely upset. Some of the drink had apparently touched her jacket and came dangerously close to her purse. She immediately threw her purse at her husband, where he proceeded to keep it on his lap for the rest of the meal. She spent a couple of minutes attending to her jacket, although it seemed like she was spending more time looking at her jacket in an upset fashion and less time cleaning it. I think there may have been 1 or 2 drops of Coke on there.

As the family was moved one table over, the mother then took the opportunity to angrily scold both of her kids. Man, she was so pissed.

She spent the next 20 minutes (waiting for the meal to arrive), with her arms folded across her chest, staring into space. Her back was slightly leaning away from her family. The table was silent. As far as I could tell, no one spoke for the entire 20 minutes. The kids were quiet. The girl who spilled the drink appeared to be fighting back tears.

Every once and a while the mother would add a “flourish“ to her temper tantrum. She'd roll her eyes. Readjust her folded arms forcefully. Sigh heavily. Man oh man. She was upset, and she wanted everyone to know. I will say this, she never once screamed or shouted. She didn't lay one finger on her kids. But that's about the only nice thing you can say about her behaviour.

Then the meal came. Were things back to normal now? Had the incident blown over? Had she calmed down? Of course not. The little girl was too upset to eat very much, and of course the mother grabbed her food from in front of her and started eating it herself. A knife went flying onto the floor (I didn't see how that happened), and no one from that table even looked at it or bothered to pick it up. The son did have a shocked look on his face for a few seconds, like he couldn't believe what just happened. But everyone else at the table acted like flying knives were normal.

So here we sit, my wife and I. We've been trying to have kids for years, and am now spending tens of thousands of dollars in medical fees and drugs to make it happen. And we're watching this “family” (well, the parents) behave like this in a restaurant. Is this what it is supposed to be like?

So, even though this was a miserable situation for them, this incident provided my wife and I with some food for thought. Before we left, I felt like going over to their table and giving them some food for thought. I doubt my words would have changed anything, but geez... how can you watch an adult behaving worse than a 2-year-old child for 45 minutes and not say anything:

* “All this over a spilled drink? Seriously? My parents acted better than this when I came home and told them I wrecked their car and almost killed myself in the process.“

* “Hey, it looks like you have a couple of children here you don't love. My wife and I have been trying to have kids for years. We'd be happy to take them off your hands -- no charge!“

* “Hey, buddy. Why don't you grow some balls and protect your kids from your wife's nasty temper?“

I am sure we don't know everything that preceded this, but seriously... what the HELL is wrong with this woman? And why isn't the husband doing anything besides protecting his wife's purse? The kids are terrified. One of them is crying. And this couple sits there silent - extracting every last tear from their own children as payback for a $6 dry cleaning bill.

Sometimes I don't understand people.

Wil Wheaton makes an interesting post about how the actor's union (SAG) has just struck a deal with the video game makers for a new salary structure.

Video game programmers react with anger and bitterness that the spoiled actors are getting treated like kings while they “slave away” for years, unloved.

And I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

I think some important points are being overlooked here.
(1) Game makers are free to use anyone they wish to do voices for their game. As Wil said in his post, you can hire a real actor or you can hire Joe from accounting.
(2) Hiring a real actor has certain benefits over Joe from accounting. Actors have experience, so they will produce more quality work in less time. Actors have consistency in performance - being able to speak in a difficult voice consistently over an entire day or days.
(3) Actors have an established system for properly compensating their performances (known as scale) - both up front and over time. If a performance is so good that it deserves to be replayed again and again, then the actors are entitled to a small and limited additional income off those repeats.
(4) Actors make an inconsistent living. Most actors have to work at other jobs to make their rent. Only a small (< 1%) number of accreditted actors can afford to do nothing but acting for income.
(5) Programmers make a consistently good living. Let's say the average game developer makes $100,000 per year. If a game takes 3 years to make, an average programmer will rake in $300,000 in salary over that time, plus benefits. The actor who lends two or three voices to the project will make $700 total.

So why are so many $300,000 programmers so bitter about some $700 actors? I don't get the source of animosity here. Let's say the actor makes $700 initially, and if the game sells really well and makes a profit, he gets another $300? What's the big deal?