IN Commentary

I Was Once Big in Canada

Posted on Thursday, January 19th, 2012 @ 5:17 PM  |  Comments Off

Back in the late 1990′s I had a shareware (software) side business named M2 Software, which was later rebranded as PocketKaos. Shortly after the year 2000 Scott James, the host of the Cyberworld.ca radio show, called to let me know that he was going to review one of my apps. It was named Zipcat Pro and was a media cataloging tool. Back then people used CD’s, Zip disks, and other media to store their software and data, and needed a tool to search for things without having to insert each piece of media in order to find something.

So I got my minute of fame, but it was in Canada. Does that even count? I wonder if I’m still big there. Anyway, you can listen to the one-minute spot here: The Zipcat Pro Radio Spot.

 
 
IN Commentary

Cee Lo Green Ruins Lennon Classic, Panders to Religious Imperative of Conversion

Posted on Sunday, January 1st, 2012 @ 3:03 PM  |  Comments Off

Bestowed with the honor of singing Lennon’s famous solo-era tune on NBC’s New Year’s Eve show shortly before the ball dropped in Times Square, Green changed the lyrics from “Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion too” to “Nothing to kill or die for, And all religion’s true.”

Seriously, Cee Lo Green? Changing the lyrics to John Lennon’s “Imagine” is wrong on countless levels. Let’s focus on two.

  1. Artistic Integrity. You don’t change an artist’s work. And unless Josh Krajcik on FOX’s “X Factor” is a “hot-blooded woman”, he deliberately sang Alanis Morissette’s “Uninvited” keeping said reference to being female in order to maintain this integrity.
  2. Intended Message. John Lennon generally had a secular (though spiritual) message in his works. This one, in particular, was a message that the abolishment of all organized religions would yield a better, more peaceful world. Cee Lo Green’s is the opposite, and wrong I might add. As the artist, only Lennon has the right to make such a fundamental change.

It’s hard to tell if this was a gaff by someone who simply didn’t know or remember the lyrics well enough, or if it was a deliberate attempt to pander to those in the viewing audience who believe in Christian mythology. It could have even been an attempt by Cee Lo Green to change the lyrics deliberately such that it became more religiously inclusive. Perhaps he thought that he knew better than John Lennon, with regard to how a message of peace and love should be delivered within the context of a song by John Lennon.

 
IN Commentary

Thank You, Christopher Hitchens

Posted on Sunday, December 18th, 2011 @ 12:50 PM  |  Comments Off

I’m still upset by the passing of Christopher Hitchens; author, philosopher, erudite champion of the working class, enemy of tyrants, hater of ignorance, dialectic anomaly, someone I never met.

Hitchens was someone whose boisterous, peremptive, larger-than-life personality seemed poised to overtake any illness or challenge, regardless of how ridiculous and illogical that may have seemed to the various portions of the brain that provide the faculties of critical thinking and reasoning. That’s how powerful his intellectual contributions were to our world. He made us think, no, believe that he was a Homerian hero; a fixture, not a man.

But he was a man. An extraordinarily gifted man.

Many articles have been published before and after his passing which discuss his ability to smoke and drink us all under the table while effortlessly writing a few thousand words on the most complex topic, straight from his mind, at the speed of typing; never a braggart, a friend to every man. I won’t (and can’t) adequately discuss these things. They’ve been covered to the point of banality. What I will say is that he is one of a very few who truly mesmerize me in print and in debate. His ability for discourse equaled his ability to think. That mind. That voice. What a powerful, Orwellian combination. He had the intellectual equivalent of a nuclear arsenal, and he wielded it only for the enlightenment of those around him.

To describe him further risks the use of cant, overused and mostly meaningless metaphor. But his life and impact on lives makes the use of such phrases strangely appropriate. And so, he was a transformative figure. I’m sorry to see him leave us. But I’m equally happy to have been able to see him actively transform those lives, of which one was my own. He once said, “Being a writer is what I am, rather than what I do.” It was his life; his raison d’etre. He feared the inability to write more than chemotherapy, more than radiation treatments, more than losing his voice, and more than the threat of an impending death. So he wrote, and wrote, and wrote, through all of it, right up through his last days, transforming lives every step of the way.

His legacy will surely be one of continued transformation through his many works, as it should be. Would he have it any other way?

 
IN Commentary

An Open Letter to the NTSB Regarding Distracted Driving

Posted on Saturday, December 17th, 2011 @ 12:56 PM  |  Comments Off

Dear NTSB,

I recently read your recommendation concerning the complete ban of mobile phone use while vehicles are being driven. I’ve even heard talk of the potential use of technology to disable mobile phones entirely while a vehicle is in motion.

The evidence for the dangers of distracted driving are quite compelling. One such statistic from the NHTSA reads: “Some 3,092 roadway fatalities last year involved distracted drivers, although the actual number may be far higher”. They went on to note that this is an epidemic. “At any given daylight moment, some 13.5 million drivers are on hand-held phones”, according to a study released last week by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

I couldn’t agree more. Even hands-free use of mobile devices is distracting to a driver, though many might argue to the contrary.

But you’re not going far enough. Below, I have crafted “The Argentini Plan”, in which I seek to eliminate all significant distractions for drivers. My plan is based on research, as well as decades of experience driving on public roadways.

The Argentini Plan

The following shall be banned from use while a vehicle is in motion.

Embedded vehicle distractions. Any controls on the dashboard or console are to be banned as they distract the driver, taking their eyes and/or attention off the road for seconds at a time. These controls include, but are not limited to: air conditioning system and vent controls, radio/mp3/CD/DVD players, speedometers (and RPM displays), trip computers, GPS and navigation systems, fuel gauges. Other features of the typical vehicle that are distractions include side and rear-view mirrors, glove compartments, center consoles, door compartments.

Third party vehicle distractors: Additional significant distraction is caused by the following, which should be banned from being within a vehicle when in motion: passengers, pets, drivers who haven’t had enough sleep, drivers who don’t have a license, drivers who cannot properly control their vehicle (terrible drivers and those with sufficient driving impairment), thoughts not centered around the act of driving or desired destination.

Likewise, the following should be banned from being within the driver’s reach inside the vehicle while it is in motion: prepared foods, beverages, makeup, reading material, portable electronic devices, eyewear, hats, cigarettes (and sources of ignition), purses and other containers for personal belongings, medical supplies, groceries/packages, umbrellas.

So let’s get serious. Mobile phones are a cause of significant distraction to a driver who uses them improperly (a.k.a. while driving). But so are many other accepted amenities built into cars. For example, there have been cases where a driver was in a head-on collision with another vehicle simply because they glanced down at the speedometer to verify that they weren’t exceeding the speed limit in a residential area. Seriously.

So what’s the real answer? I think it’s fine to recommend and even enforce some common sense behavior, like not talking on a phone while driving, not texting, and so forth. There are short-sighted (or dim-witted) and selfish people who need this recommendation. But to cater to the absolute lowest common denominator by banning entire device use while driving, when they have perfectly legitimate uses for an active driver (e.g. GPS), is madness. That kind of thought process leads to the complete ban of personal driving privileges.

Perhaps you (the NTSB) should take all the time and energy devoted to the “madness”, and aim it squarely at technology and auto manufacturers to encourage them to build additional safety features into vehicles. Google has the patent on cars that drive themselves. Today. They have already logged over 100,000 miles of driver-less travel in California with existing technology. Many luxury vehicles already feature the ability to detect an impending impact and adjust the car’s trajectory to avoid it, or to alert the driver who may be falling asleep at the wheel. Wouldn’t it be great if all our vehicles could help to protect us from accident and injury in this fashion, as airbags have done?

Sincerely,
Michael Argentini