Hashemian Blog Web Tools, Financial Markets, Technology Sunday, March 25, 2007 Wikipedia via Google  The other day, after reading this article about factual errors on Wikipedia, it dawned on me how often my family and I uses Wikipedia to find information. It's an amazing tool and while the warnings about mistakes and misinformation have dogged it for years, it continues to be one of the most popular sites on the Web. I have seen comments from people who've claimed to have stopped using Google in favor of Wikipedia. It's hard to believe that at first, but even I have started doing the same thing, albeit in a more indirect way. When I need to look up something I start by searching Google, and generally Wikipedia is one of the top of results. In fact in most cases, that's the link I'm looking for. Why not search Wikipedia on Wikipedia site? Two reasons: I want to see other the other unbiased search results, and, Google search is way faster and better than Wikipedia's. Most of my searches are of no consequence. For example, when Syd Barrett died, I went to Wikipedia to learn more about the life of this Pink Floyd's founding member. I also used Wikipedia to find out more about the relatively new rock band, My Chemical Romance. In both case, Google was the point of entry for me. And if there were factual errors for those Wikipedia entries, it wouldn’t matter much. But suppose I was researching lung cancer or lymphoma, both of which have Wikipedia pages appearing high on Google results. Factual errors in those cases could result in catastrophic decisions being made by a potential patient, or even a health care provider in a third-world country who supplements Internet research with his own knowledge and judgment. I would have preferred a site like WebMD to upstage Wikipedia for those terms. Wikipedia has the vaunted position of dominating Google's best search results for many terms. I can imagine that a large portion of its traffic originates from Google. If the site wasn't not-for-profit, it might have been a formidable competitor to Google itself. But perhaps it is its non-profit status that gets it the favorable treatment from Google. That's just speculation on my part as Google always claims to be unbiased about its search results, using mainly popularity as a criteria. Whatever the case, the Google, Wikipedia virtual duopoly seems to be receiving some backlash, at least in the academic circles. For instance, my children's teachers, on a number of occasions, have forbidden their classes from consulting either site for their homework. I applaud them for that, as that sends a message to the youth that relying on a single source for information is not always wise. google,wikipedia Labels: google <Wikipedia via Google> // posted by rh 0 comments Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Parking Ticket  When a website welcomes its visitors, I consider it courteous. Not sure how I should consider a parking ticket payment site that welcomes me; patronizing perhaps? So I got this parking ticket at the town of New Rochelle, NY today. It's the dreaded stub tucked under the car's windshield wiper waiting to greet you as you return to your car. No point for me contesting this ticket. The meter was expired and I admit guilt. But as if paying the ticket isn't punishment enough, there's a labyrinth of procedures attached that makes one just want to rip up the ticket and forget about it. As I was getting ready to write a check, I decided to turn the ticket over to see the address I was supposed to mail it to. That's when I saw a long fine print scribble detailing the process. It started: For violations of meter, time limit, ticket time, and overtime parking only; a payment of one half of the fine will be accepted in full satisfaction if paid in person at the city court by 4:30 PM on or before the next day of business. Very smooth, so if I grabbed the ticket and walked into the court and waited in a long line, I could get off by paying $10, only to come back to my car and see another ticket. Then there was a stern warning about how a non-payment would double the charge and trigger an arrest warrant for me. Arrest warrant for a mere parking ticket? Why stop at that? Why not the death penalty by slow torture? Then there was a bunch nonsense about the appeal process, basically discouraging the ticket holder from entering a not-guilty plea. Okay, I can see that the town doesn't want its court system overwhelmed by parking ticket cases. I got that message pretty clear. And then I found out that personal checks or cash can not be used for making payments. That means dealing with the long lines at the bank or the post office to get a certified check or a money order to send along. Finally, there was a glimmer of hope when I noticed the part about paying via the Internet or a toll free call. As I surfed over to the website, I was greeted by the message: "Welcome to the Parking Ticket Payment System for the City of New Rochelle, New York." I don’t understand the meaning of this statement. This is not a travel and leisure site welcoming me to their home page. It's not like I have a choice to go to a competing site. I'm there because I am guilty of a "potentially arrestable" violation and I have to pay a fine, so please, dispense with the phony courtesy. Obviously this is an outsourced service for the city to collect the fines more efficiently, and they wanted to charge an additional $3.50 convenience fee (an 18% markup) to pay the ticket online. Whose convenience would that be? Yes, I knew the rule and I violated it and I shouldn’t be ranting here. But wouldn’t it be more "convenient" for the town to make the payment process a little smoother and less taxing? That way they can get their chunk of revenues faster and avoid having their jails filled with those dangerous parking ticket criminals. parking tickets,arrest warrants,new rochelle,parking meters Labels: cars <Parking Ticket> // posted by rh 2 comments Thursday, March 15, 2007 Boston, A Tribute to Brad Delp  To state that Brad Delp deprived his fans from his voice by committing suicide would be selfish. But at the risk of sounding self-centric I am going to declare that Brad Delp deprived me of his amazing voice by taking his own life. Back in 1976 when Boston's self-titled first album was released, I was a kid living far away from America and couldn't even speak English. My only knowledge of Boston was that of a city somewhere in the US. But all that changed when I arrived in the US as a student and was introduced to the band through friends and dorm residents in college. It was love at first hear and to this day I have never looked back. On November 2nd, 1987 I actually got to experience Boston in concert at the Hartford Civic Center in Hartford, Connecticut. That's almost 20 years ago and my memory of the act is hazy, but I can confidently say that it was the best concert I ever saw. In fact it remains the only concert I have ever been to. Some may dismiss Boston as an opening act to the hair band era of the 80's. Be that as it may, that doesn’t change the fact that for me Boston has always been one of the most admired bands, right up there with Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, and The Doors. I realize that to some comparing Boston with those rock legends is akin to heresy. I can appreciate the sentiment, but that's their opinion and this is mine. I didn’t know much about Brad Delp other than his voice delivery, and now, the way he died. Judging by what I've read in the media about the fact that he posted notes warning people of carbon monoxide, I can only infer that he was as dignified as he was talented. As I write this I am listening to the song "Hitch a Ride" from Boston's first album. It is one of favorite cuts from their work. The music is still as fresh as the first time I heard it. I don’t really care why Brad decided to take his own life. I can only assume that he must have had a good reason. A man's entitled to do what he wants with his life, including ending it. In the end he might have deprived me from his voice, but he lives forever as the unmistakable sound of Boston. Rest in peace, Brad. boston,boston music,brad delp,rock music Labels: music <Boston, A Tribute to Brad Delp> // posted by rh 9 comments Wednesday, March 14, 2007 YouTube Copyright Trouble  When Google bought the fledging, but popular video sharing site, YouTube, for $1.6 billion in early October of 2006, it created a firestorm of controversy surrounding the transaction. It seemed like we were back again in 1999, the height of the Internet bubble. Google itself had actually launched its own video sharing site months prior to the acquisition. I had actually never visited the YouTube site, but had begun to check out some of the Google videos, mostly motorcycle stunt and race clips. Some praised Google for its quick action in grabbing a popular site instead of pouring cash and resources in its own service. But many were convinced that Google had overpaid. The acquisition translated to instant wealth for the YouTube executives and employees. Even the administrative assistant there became an over-night millionaire. Then began the task of integrating YouTube into the Google roster of products, the way it had been done a few years earlier with Blogger. But it wasn't too long before the copyright monster started to rear its ugly head. Only a few days after the buyout announcement, YouTube acceded to the Japanese media's complaints by removing some 30,000 of their clips from its site. Obviously media companies weren't sanguine about having their work pirated and put on display on YouTube to begin with, but YouTube was a startup with little money. There was little to be gained by dragging a cash-poor company to court. But this was a different matter, Google was a titan, flushed with money and a rich valuation and the media was smelling blood. The next big copyright news came on early February 2007 when Viacom demanded the removal of 100,000 clips from YouTube that it claimed to have had copyrights to. Finally the hammer fell today as Viacom came out swinging with a $1 billion lawsuit claiming that YouTube and its parent, Google, had failed to protect Viacom's copyright interests in regards to 160,000 videos on its site. There is speculation that the lawsuit is sour grapes, stemming from the fact that the two companies had failed to reach a licensing pact. It's difficult to predict the outcome of this litigation, but for its part YouTube maintains that it has and continues to make all reasonable efforts in protecting owners' rights on its site. All this has some people questioning Google's initial decision to acquire YouTube and therefore find itself mired in the legal mess. But if Google had succeeded with its own video sharing site, it would have found itself in the same situation today, albeit at a lesser cost than the YouTube's purchase price. What I wonder is what effect all this distraction will have on nurturing and growing YouTube. I, as a user, have been on YouTube a few times now. The user-generated clips of practical jokes and humorous situations were amusing at first, but the novelty quickly wore off. What I have generally been viewing consists of bits and pieces of news, educational material (mostly technology related), music videos, and nostalgic clips of old Persian TV. I assume most of these videos are copyrighted, and if complaints and subsequent removals continue, YouTube would soon have nothing for me to watch. I admit, some user-created material there have redeeming quality. I found this one very thought provoking, for example. But I even wonder if at some point this video will be axed as it plays a Pink Floyd tune in its introductory portion. I have to admit that there was one genre of videos on YouTube I would watch for which I was labeled (deservedly) immature and childish by my family. These were clips of a popular 80's televangelist, Robert Tilton, embellished with audible flatulence perfectly synchronized with his contorted facial expressions. Guess what, those clips have also been removed, replaced by the following note: "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Reverend Robert Tilton." If the good Pastor succeeded in having YouTube delete these comedic but otherwise useless clips, I wonder if YouTube is on the proverbial slippery slope of losing the majority of its assets and thus its audience. youtube,google,copyright laws,viacom,online videos,robert tilton,pink floyd,hubble Labels: google, law, music, space <YouTube Copyright Trouble> // posted by rh 2 comments Sunday, March 11, 2007 Energy Policy? Daylight-Saving Time (DST)  Here we go again. As if this whole idea of daylight-saving time (DST) wasn't bad enough, this year the US has decided to tweak the time-shift and spring forward 3 weeks in advance. I received an email from one of our vendors a few days ago regarding the change and this was a part of it: On August 8, 2005, President George W. Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This Act changed the time change dates for Daylight Saving Time in the U.S. Beginning in 2007, DST will begin on the second Sunday in March and end the first Sunday in November. The Secretary of Energy will report the impact of this change to Congress. Congress retains the right to resume the 2005 Daylight Saving Time schedule once the Department of Energy study is complete. What kind of moronic "Energy Policy" is that? Someone's ought to tell these people in charge that wasting time with a stupid idea is not a good use of our tax dollars. Those dollars can be used for better ideas than just fiddling with a bad idea. I wrote about this 2 years ago and I grumble about it every year. Some may say, why waist time complaining, or just do as you're told like the rest of the people, herd mentality. Here we are, in a democracy, and we're expected to follow a lame idea like sheep in a herd. Only those with narrow intellectual capacities would buy the energy conservation claims. There has been no credible evidence linking energy conservation with DST. Even if there are miniscule savings, they can never outweigh the negative effects, namely the so called mini Y2K issue that many people have been busy averting. The mini Y2K refers to the problem of computers losing and gaining one hour during these time changes. A lot of time and resources have gone into making sure that critical systems are not adversely affected because of this latest change. What a waste. In my view, the real answer behind the DST is the same answer behind just about any other question, money. I've always known that the DST had little to do with saving energy and more to do with profits. Maybe kicking people out of bed earlier and having them outside for longer hours translates into more opportunity for spending. It could also mean more hours of work for employees, many of whom will see little compensation for the additional work. Always follow the money, it'll lead to the truth. So while you're yawning in your car driving to work on Monday with bloodshot eyes, consider that fact that you (and I) are nothing but sheep in a big herd driven by the big business and their insatiable quench for more money. And the guard dogs? Politicians, of course. dst,daylight saving time,politicians,business,money,mini y2k Labels: business, business-finance, money, politics <Energy Policy? Daylight-Saving Time (DST)> // posted by rh 1 comments Thursday, March 08, 2007 Marriage Proposals by Email?  Maybe I'm over the hill, or perhaps being married for years has blinded me to newer dimensions of matrimonial romance. An online dating site is one thing, but an online marriage site is a completely different matter, at least to me. So imagine my surprise when I saw this Google Ad (to the right) on this very site tonight. I believe Shaadi is an Indian site. Actually the word in Persian translates to "happiness". Maybe the process of finding a bride is different in India. Perhaps this site is more frequented by parents looking for suitable spouses for their children than potential bachelors and bachelorettes. Maybe this is just a gimmicky marketing line to draw people into a dating site. Whatever the case, the site seems to be a popular one, judging by its Google and Alexa rankings. I just can’t see how one can meet a potential life-long mate online and send a proposal via an email. Well, going by the tag line, not just one proposal, but multiple ones. It's like a statistical dartboard. Throw enough darts at the board and one is bound to hit bull's eye. If I were single, I might've given dating sites a try. I'm sure in some instances people end up finding a partner through those sites. But I would hesitate using a site like this one to find a wife. This site certainly ups the ante, by purporting to take care of the whole process, save the actual vows. On second thought, many marriages are long distance these days, so maybe a site like this can handle all the details, complete with a virtual ceremony. Come to think of it, this could be an appropriate complement to a site like Second Life where a bunch of avatars get together to witness two avatars exchange their vows in a virtual chapel. They could buy a house and furnish it using Linden dollars, have a bunch of avatar kids and grow old together in virtual bliss. Who knows, divorce rates could be much lower in the land of flying sprites than that in the real world. What would the virtual divorce and prenup lawyers do with all their free time? marriage,online dating,divorce,second life,shaadi Labels: social <Marriage Proposals by Email?> // posted by rh 1 comments Sunday, March 04, 2007 Houses, Roofs, and Snow  There's an old Persian adage that states: "The bigger one's roof, the more one's snow". Living on America's east coast the adage doesn't really apply. The roofs are generally pitched and snow simply thaws and slides off. Back in Iran where most roofs are flat and building structures are of questionable soundness, people are forced to shovel the snow off the tops or else face a collapse or at least water damage, so the phrase fits well. But what the metaphorical phrase tries to convey is that bigger assets bring bigger hassles. Ironically this wisdom also fits the recent trend in the US housing market. America is a culture of consumers, the bigger and the more luxurious, the better. Some may argue that it is the consumer that drives the mammoth economy here, but considering the troubles brewing in the subprime mortgage markets, there is also a dark side to out-of-bounds consumerism. For the past few years the housing market has been one of seemingly endless growth. That lulled many to jump into the market without much consideration for a possible downside. Bigger homes (known as McMansions) sprang up everywhere and builders couldn’t keep up. People kept snapping up ever bigger and more expensive homes. The general belief was to hold on to the house for a short period, then sell for a handsome profit, rinse and repeat. Now that the housing market has gone limp, it has dragged many into hard times and many may owe more than the current value of their homes, the so called upside-down position. Owning a bigger home is not necessarily an American invention. People do it all over the world, but many fail to consider the real cost of having a bigger home if they are forced into a long-term ownership. The general financial approach is a foolishly simple one. You look at the price, then figure out the monthly payments and if it seems to fit one's monthly income, then it's a go. But there is quite a bit more there than meets the eye. Let's take a quick inventory: Initial fees: For that bigger house you will be paying higher fees to the real estate broker, the mortgage banker, the inspector, and the lawyer, just to name a few. Mortgage payments: Unless you're locked in a long-term fixed mortgage (like a 30-year variety), the assumption should be that the variable rate will eventually kick in and in most instances that means higher monthly payments. In some cases the monthly payments could outpace one's income quickly. Taxes: A bigger home means higher taxes. Even if you know what your tax liability is at the time of purchase, there is no chance it'll stay the same for long. There are two forces working against you there. The higher the assessed price of your home goes, the more your town will charge you in property taxes. Also tax rates (known as mill rates around here) never stay in one spot. As the town cost rises, so does the mill rate. It's inevitable. Energy: the bigger the house, the more the cost of heating and cooling it. Unless, of course, you cordon off parts of the house, in which case what's the point of living in a bigger house to begin with? Water and sewer: Many water companies charge homes for water and sewer services based on square footage, not actual usage. In any case, if you are in a bigger home, you will use more water and produce more waste. Just think of watering a larger front lawn as one instance. Repairs: A bigger home simply contains more stuff and therefore more chances for breaks and malfunctions. It's the law of probability. More toilets, more electrical wiring, more piping, more doors and windows, etc. And each one adds an additional risk of needing repair at some point. Maintenance: A bigger property requires more maintenance (think of the snow metaphor.) More gutters to clean, more windows to wipe, more rooms to dust, more lawn to mow, and more driveway to plow. You might need to hire a helping hand or two to cover the maintenance, thus having to part with more money. Furnishings: A roomier house means more volume to fill. That leads to trips to furniture stores to buy more couches, a bigger TV, and more decorative items to hang on the bare walls or fill the corners, or more rugs to throw on the bare floors. Even more closet space means more shopping for clothes and shoes and accessories, and of course more organizers to sort them by color or size. Don't laugh, this is just human nature. I know, I know, enough already. I'm sure this list is not even close to being complete. But there is no escaping the consequences of owning a bigger home. And if more snow won't faze you, the bigger pile of dead leaves in autumn will. homes,mortgage,subprime mortgage,tax,money,housing market Labels: business-finance, money, tax <Houses, Roofs, and Snow> // posted by rh 1 comments

Links Technorati Profile TMCnet.com ARCHIVES 09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007 05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007 11/01/2007 - 12/01/2007 12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008 01/01/2008 - 02/01/2008 02/01/2008 - 03/01/2008 03/01/2008 - 04/01/2008 04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 - 06/01/2008 06/01/2008 - 07/01/2008 07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008 08/01/2008 - 09/01/2008 09/01/2008 - 10/01/2008 10/01/2008 - 11/01/2008 11/01/2008 - 12/01/2008 12/01/2008 - 01/01/2009 01/01/2009 - 02/01/2009 02/01/2009 - 03/01/2009 03/01/2009 - 04/01/2009 04/01/2009 - 05/01/2009 05/01/2009 - 06/01/2009 06/01/2009 - 07/01/2009 07/01/2009 - 08/01/2009 08/01/2009 - 09/01/2009

هاشمیان.com

 Home

 Blog

 Web Tools
Usage

 News

 Articles

 FAQ

 About

 Contact

 Financial Markets Book
Read Complete Book

Search Amazon: