Nice points, except: Sony only sells the TiVo for DirecTV users, and as I noted earlier in the thread, I cannot get DirecTV. And the only store that sells TiVo is Best Buy, 'nuff said about return policies.
And as noted, this hidden feature was once disabled, and might again be disabled with an upgrade. Hardly a strong endorsement.
Look, I am not an idiot, I just act like one sometimes. I am confident that I could go out and buy one of these things and get it to work, and maybe it would be 80% what I wanted and expected, or maybe 90%. Or I could go buy the Hauppauge card for my computer, too.
But what I am looking for is something simple, that doesn't require work-arounds or tricks. And damn it, I'm sick and tired of being told by a manufacturer that their product is great, I should buy it, but they won't let me see the damn thing in use, which almost always means it does NOT do the things they promise, or is not as helpful or convenient.
> Best Buy has an exclusive contract with TiVo.
> So go to Best Buy and demand to use the product
> in action. Inform them of the demo account above.
> If that fails, try another store. Or call TiVo
> and tell them that Best Buy refused to show you
> the product in action.
Good advice -- and this is exactly what I did, back in April. After running in circles with store staff and store manager, and TiVo's low-level support folks, I ended up speaking with some pretty high-level folks, including the actual TiVo buyer at Best Buy (whose butt is on the line with this exclusive deal) and his contact at TiVo. They agreed: no demo accounts, period. They were abused (as you noted) and store personnel couldn't be trained adequately to show the unit's features anyway, and the stores all power down nightly so data got lost. There are no store demo accounts any more, period (maybe there are store demo units for the DirecTV version of TiVo, but I couldn't find any in my area).
Best Buy shows a canned video demo on a TV monitor (with intense static that makes it almost unwatchable).
Finally, the issue of TiVo "dying" is exactly the issue I'm concerned about. No, they don't want to annoy their customers, but my understanding is that at any moment they could cease operating, and then I'd have a worthless box. I could deal with that, indeed was prepared to deal with that risk, until I learned that I simply cannot see a TiVo in actual operation. As I explained, I've been burned so many times by false promises that I will not trust that the TiVo unit I buy will do what they promise, unless I actually see it in use.
First, my friends who love TiVo are in other states, and are techno-geeks, so I'm not sure their love of TiVo will turn into my love.
Second, I spent lots of time at the web site, and I still can't determine what TiVo offers in terms of "fast forward." What I want is a "skip 30 seconds" button, or something like that, apparently that's not available for TiVo so I'm stuck with using a generic fast-forward button that apparently has three modes, but since I have never been able to touch a TiVo remote, I really don't even know how this works.
On the dishwasher front, I don't own one, but if I bought one I'd expect it to work as promised, and I would not worry about having it simply stop working 34 days after purchase, leaving me with no recourse but to throw it away. That's a very real option with TiVo and ReplayTV.
Next, I don't have DirecTV and the only reason I would get it would be to use UltimateTV or TiVo, but you can't order it that way: you have to get them separately, then if one or the other doesn't work, you are stuck with the other. In my case, I have trees in front of my condo and cannot get a dish signal, so it's moot anyway.
A dishwasher is well-established technology, proven; I've used dozens of different dishwashers in my life and the all work pretty much the same. PVRs are a new technology, and I'm really not sure how they will work, or how they differ. And given my experience with unmet promises from most other technology products, I'm not willing to trust companies whose futures are likely measured in months, not years.
What store is going to sell a $400 product where the consumer must pay another $250 to use the product? I expect the return rate will be huge for this product.
The stated reason for reducing the pricing was because the extra $250 for a "prepaid lifetime subscription" was reducing sales (especially since the product's remaining lifetime seems likely to be substantially less than a year), so they were going to switch to a monthly subscription model. Instead, they are just playing a "hide the fee" game, hoping that idiots who get the box home will agree to pay another $250 instead of returning the box.
If the fee is properly disclosed (to avoid lawsuits), then nobody will buy this version if they didn't buy the prior version, since the features are unchanged and the net price is unchanged. But we all know that the fee will not be properly disclosed, so there will be many returns and there will be lawsuits by various consumer groups and state AGs, which may be simply part of ReplayTV's "publicity" strategy.
And as noted, the deal is basically that if the company folds, the box can self-destruct and you have nothing, period, for your $650.
In April, I wrote an essay chronicling my efforts to buy a PVR, and nothing has changed since then. Nobody sells PVR technology to consumers, period. For those who are willing to do a lot of "do it yourself" work, and who trust that the companies will "do the right thing" despite the lack of any legal obligation to provide service, it is technically possible to get PVR technology working.
I would gladly pay $300 to $500 for something like a TiVo or ReplayTV, plus $10 to $15 per month for programming data, if I thought I could get an actual service that would last for a year or more. I am absolutely unconvinced that any company can or will provide service for a year.
They made me buy cable TV to get cable modem
on
What Free Cable?
·
· Score: 2
I assume this is a change? Back in January 1998, when I signed up for cable modem service (here in Pleasanton, California), I was required to pay for Basic Cable also, whether I used it or not -- internet service was only available to current cable customers.
I had assumed, all along, that this requirement remained. But now that I think about it, that was TCI back then, and of course now it's AT&T.
The notion that I'd have to pay for basic cable whether I used it or not, had contributed to my decision not to buy DirecTV. But honestly, I also am reluctant to order DirecTV since nobody can assure me that I will actually be able to get a signal at my location due to trees, and I'm not interested in paying a professional installer several hundred dollars just to confirm that I can't get DirecTV.
(I'm one of those folks who believes it's wrong to steal, even from an incompetent, unethical corporation, so the question isn't whether I'd do so, it's simply whether I can have AT&T Broadband Cable Modem service while getting my TV signal somewhere else -- and an antenna isn't an option, all I can get with an antenna is one TV station.)
> However, if as you say, there is NO POSSIBILITY of recovering damages from a frivolous lawsuit then why did you have to defend yourself from HIS frivolous lawsuit?
The issue is not the type of lawsuit, it is who has money to collect against. I have assets, and a reputation to protect, so I had to defend against his suit (else he'd get a judgement and attach my assets). To my knowledge, Wallace has no assets and of course his reputation was worthless long before I learned his name.
I don't understand your response. Are you suggesting a file a lawsuit just for spite, when I know that there is NO POSSIBILITY of recovering damages? That is, in my opinion, the very definition of a frivolous lawsuit.
I certainly was not suggesting that I not defend against his lawsuit -- I did that, spending $5,000 in legal fees and costs before he abandoned the suit.
Sue him for what reason? Spite? Self-inflicted torture?
I'm sure Wallace is judgment-proof (e.g. if I won a damage award, he'd have no assets to pursue to collect damages. I understand that's what happened to my attorney's earlier client who obtained a judgment against Wallace (and indeed, had I wanted to sue Wallace, my interests might have conflicted with those of my attorney's earlier client, which might have precluded him from successfully representing me).
Ask all the (many) other folks who've sued or been sued by Wallace, and who were awarded damages or costs -- I'm pretty sure none of them ever collected a penny.
Sorry, but this is an understandable decision. I assume there was a union contract that included provisions for dealing with substance abuse or addiction by a teacher (hey, teachers are human, and are no less likely than anyone else to develop an alcohol, drug, or gambling problem that may need treatment, and like any other group of employees, teachers are entitled to negotiate for a contract that includes such benefits).
The contract probably said that if a teacher has a drug problem, there would be a series of steps which the teacher must go through (certainly the first step when a teacher is on campus under the influence, would be removal from school and suspension, perhaps requiring an immediate check-in to a treatment program, followed by compliance with the treatment regimen, and consent to drug testing).
The contract, if it follows the usual policies of large corporations and government agencies, might impose all kinds of special conditions, perhaps even a "two strikes and you're out" rule, but the contract says whatever it says. You can't change the terms of a contract by having the administration or school board unilaterally announce a "zero tolerance" school policy (any more than the school board could unilaterally announce that all teachers must teach one more hour per day without additional pay). And even if the state legislature passed a law requiring that the teacher who uses drugs must immediately be fired, that law cannot impair a previously-executed contract (read your U.S. Constitution).
Note also that the student who is expelled under the "zero tolerance" policy will still be able to enroll at another school -- the state does have an obligation to provide an education to children. The notion behind "zero tolerance" is good, but there are a lot more ridiculous stories about zero-tolerance.
As noted by others, this was an "urban legend" invented by the U.S. insurance industry while they were seeking liability limits for lawsuits.
At one time, when confronted, the insurance industry cited a Canadian (Ontario) lawsuit, which they said involved "burglars falling through a skylight." In fact, the case involved student atheletes who had been locked out of their gym, and who were asked by the coach to enter through the roof. Someone had painted over skylights with black paint, and one of the students stepped onto the black surface, not realizing it was glass (after all, the student knew from being in the gym that there were no skylights), the painted glass broke, and he fell through and was seriously injured. The case was settled (quite properly, since the school clearly was negligent both through the coach's direction to students to engage in a a dangerous activity (climbing on a roof) AND by painting a skylight black without posting warnings for persons who were properly on the roof.)
This certainly isn't new. I was privileged to be sued by the "Spam King" himself (Sanford Wallace) in mid-1999. He blamed me when his internet connection was cut by Verio after I informed Verio that Wallace was sending spam through their network. (Verio had knowingly agreed to sell service to Wallace, on the condition that he not send any unsolicited commercial email, which is like hiring a vampire to work in a blood bank and telling him he'll be fired if he drinks any blood -- it's not a question of "if," just a question of "when.")
I think Wallace may have deliberately sent me spam in order to provoke me -- he knew I'd complain since he was breaching his earlier promise to block my email addresses after earlier complaints. By provoking me to complain, he could claim a "victim" role, by falsely stating that I had "asked" to receive the emails and then unfairly complained and caused his business to lose its only internet connection (every other ISP and backbone provider had blacklisted him years earlier).
Spanford Wallace filed his suit in Pennsylvania (despite lack of jurisdiction) because he knew I'd have to hire an attorney there and spend thousands of dollars in legal fees and court costs to dismiss the suit. He knew the suit would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and he chose not to sue me in California because he knew that California has a SLAPP statute that would have permitted me to collect attorneys' fees and damages (Pennsylvania didn't have a SLAPP statute).
The spammers' only goals in filing lawsuits are to gain "unfair advantage" -- adverse publicity for the opponent, and deliberate choice of an inconvenient and expensive forum.
It worked for Wallace: I stopped making spam complaints for many months because I was so distracted by the lawsuit. And he also deterred others from reporting spam complaints, by loudly and publicly announcing that he (and other spammers) would not hesitate to deliberately abuse the court system in order to punish honest people who make valid complaints.
Wallace's publicity campaign was transparent: he decided to file the lawsuit one day after I appeared on CNBC regarding another consumer advocacy issue; he wanted to "piggy-back" by suing a well-known consumer advocate. He posted a copy of the lawsuit on his web site and emailed dozens of reporters just minutes after the complaint was filed (of course, I learned of the suit only when the reporters called me, and since I couldn't respond to a suit I hadn't seen, Wallace's false and malicious claims were republished as if they were true -- with no follow-up when the suit was abandoned and dismissed several months later.
Although Wallace's suit was filed in Pennsylvania despite the absence of jurisdiction, I was forced to spend $5,000 to hire a Philadelphia attorney to prepare and file a motion to dismiss (I chose an attorney who had previously obtained a judgment against Wallace). As soon as we filed the motion to dismiss, Wallace simply abandoned the lawsuit (he submitted papers to the court claiming that a "settlement had been reached," though there was no settlement.
The only good news is that I haven't heard from him since then, but of course the bad news is that he drained $5,000 of my money and a lot of my time, and simultaneously scared off someone interested in buying a web site I owned (the offer to buy my business for $350,000 was withdrawn the day after the suit was filed, and five months later I sold the business to another buyer for $175,000).
Wallace also successfully deterred many spam complaints by proving his continued willingness to abuse court processes for personal gain.)
I assume that the spammer in the current case filed a suit in the hopes of driving up others' costs and extorting a settlement.
Eh? I panned a lot of products, both as a reviewer for magazines (including InfoWorld during my first year of law school from 1986-87) and later as a syndicated columnist (a negative review is, of course, so much more fun to write than a positive review, see my recent work at http://www.MarkWelch.com/perspective/), but I can't recall ever reviewing any "Greeting Card" programs that I can recall. The only possibility I can think of is that my co-author may have included your product in one of our "pre-holiday" columns (this would have been the "Law Office Technology Review" column that was syndicated to legal newspapers, which I co-authored with Barry Bayer from 1987-90).
California also allows schools to hire folks like me under "emergency credentials" for several years. For those students not already teaching, student-teaching is required.
I think I'd be more inclined to try substitute teaching first, to at least see how I like being in the classroom, though I doubt it would really be a fair comparison to being a "real" teacher. I would certainly not want to start teaching a full-year class and then decide this is just the wrong thing for me -- I'd feel pretty awful abandoning "my" students at that point.
I would much prefer to at least attend some kind of basic education about teaching styles, child development, administrative processes, etc., before walking into a classroom as The Guy In Charge. Of course, I assume that the New Guy isn't going to be teaching AP English to the best students, so I think some better training is important. But this is all pretty early-stage for me, we'll see how things go.
>> By your logic, why would law students have been eligible for federal loans when you earned your J.D.?
Well, one obvious reason would be in order to get new attorneys to represent chronically-under-represented groups, but of course that's not a requirement. In fact, student loans are available for nearly all accredited post-secondary educational programs, including fields like art history, which have extremely high percentages of graduates who can't find work in their speciality.
Forgive me, but it basically sounds like the question is, "how can some working dads get money for college, without affecting their ability to support their families?" And the answer is, they really are no different from other students - if they don't have income or assets, they can get financial aid but not money to support their families (except in some very rare situations). If they want to go to school full time (and have not already exhausted available financial aid), they are eligible for the same programs as other students. If they want to attent part-time, their options are much more limited and of course if they earn money they will be eligible for less "free" money (likely none at all).
What's the issue here, really? Time and money, right? If a working dad (or mom) wants to go back to college, and still see the kids once or twice a week, full-time employment probably isn't an option, and that probably means a huge cut in lifestyle.
Well, I have lots of time these days, and I am considering changing my profession (again).
Last time, I quit my job as a reporter for InfoWorld (in 1986) and went to law school, where I don't think I got any financial aid except federal student loan program. I attended a public university (UC Berkeley) before the state of California jacked up tuition beyond reach, I moved into a tiny shared apartment, and I worked full-time (as a syndicated columnist) while also attending law school full-time. Of course, I didn't have a family to deal with, I know my fellow students who did went through hell, especially the single moms. Then, in
I am now considering making another change: I am seriously considering teaching high school. To my surprise, getting a teaching credential requires quite a bit of effort and time, and of course money. (For a 41-year-old with a B.A. and a J.D., the prospect of going back to college again is a bit unsettling.)
Finally, to answer the question posed:
I doubt these "non-traditional students" are willing to go the ROTC route, which someone mentioned, since this would mean committing to low-paying work for the armed services for several years. There are also age limits.
Loans are almost always available, but while they provide a rope to lift you into college, after college a heavy debt burden may look more like a noose (especially if the student chooses not to pursue employment in the college-trained career, or worse yet if the student drops out without a degree).
As noted, working is the most logical strategy. Enroll in classes at a public university or college, indeed some classes can be taken at a community college very cheaply.
There are still a few companies that offer educational assistance, for work-related course work and sometimes even for non-work-related courses. These are mostly big corporations (or recent spinoffs from big corporations who've carried their programs along). Alas, the current economy doesn't leave many of these jobs open.
I hesitate to mention it, but it is theoretically possible that a "non-traditional student" with kids might find some benefits under the "Welfare-to-Work" programs that many states are offering. That doesn't mean they must apply for welfare -- check out the state's programs, schedule appointments, wait in the lines, and maybe there might be a program that could provide some help.
Of course, I wish that someone would offer me some financial assistance if I do decide to enroll in a teacher preparation program (after all, I surely believe that our society needs more teachers with backgrounds like mine, or at least I might say that if it gets me some money). And you certainly should be aware that there are all kinds of programs that could provide support for people who are planning a "public service" career (teaching, social work, etc.), and even private associations like my local Rotary Club provide assistance for several types of college and post-graduate scholarships.
But at some point, we really shouldn't expect help to continue. After all, I already have the training and skill to get full-time employment in at least two different professions (journalist or attorney, and of course I already work as an internet marketing consultant), and I already got LOTS of "free money" financial aid as an undergraduate, plus interest-subsidized and low-interest student loans during both undergraduate and law school (all repaid a while ago), and of course the states of Massachusetts and California each spent more money on my education than I ever paid in tuition anyway (well, technically I didn't pay tuition as an undergraduate because I qualified for a special merit scholarship from the state, which was not need-based).
Finally, aren't programmers a dime a dozen right now? Why would anyone want to subsidize education of programmers (other than through loans), if there are already many programmers who are not employed?
It's amazing that this keeps coming back, time and again. Back in 1988-89 (my final year of law school), I wrote a 150-page "research pathfinder" (annotated bibliography) and a lengthy thesis (70+ pages) on this subject. (Irony: after spending 8+ hours per day typing these materials at my computer, I began to exhibit many of the physical ailments, including wrist, elbow, shoulder, and back pain. Remember, there was no public internet back then, so I couldn't cut and paste so much, and I think I was still using WordPerfect 5 or 6.)
I haven't followed this field closely, but from what I've seen, the science hasn't seemed to advance since then, mostly because companies are spending big dollars to prevent studies from going forward, and the Republicans want to keep the government off our backs by preventing any regulation or much research into ergonomics. (In my paper, I noted that legal tort-liability rules were shifting so that manufacturers -- who would almost certainly have been held liable if their appeals reached the courts in the early or mid 80's -- would probably win their appeals in the 90's, which is mostly what happened.)
My own opinion is that the number one ergonomic problem today is the desk. Despite study after study showing that worker injuries are reduced if desks are adjustable, nobody (including me) wants to spend a thousand bucks more for an "ergonomic" desk that allows for adjustment of the surface and especially the keyboard level. (Instead, we spend much more on lost work time and on chiropractors, etc.)
Adjusting the chair (though important) is not enough since lowering the chair means awkwardly repositioning the legs, and the torso follows into a poor position.
An aside: The height of the "typing surface" (which is traditionally lower than a desk surface) was originally designed for a typewriter, in which the keyboard was raised further above the surface than the keyboard is today.
And of course, these surface heights were designed for the average woman, at a time when average heights were a bit shorter than today. Of course, anyone who is shorter (or "differently proportioned") than the average, is going to experience problems when using equipment designed for the "average" person.
And let's be fair, many folks haven't got a clue about the proper adjustment of their adjustable chairs (or desks, if they have them), nor the proper settings for best ergonomic benefit. And just try to hire a competent consultant to come train your staff (blow the budget in a day).
Of course, one problem is that nobody offers an ergonomic desk at a reasonable price. Are there patents or something preventing someone from selling a $500 adjustable-height desk? Instead, whenever I've shopped, prices start somewhere north of $1,000, for the flimsiest adjustable desks, and $2,000 for anything decent.
Another ergonomic problem that I've quickly solved was the mouse. After many months of shoulder and elbow pain, I switched from a mouse to a trackball (I think it was in 1992 or 1993), and the pain simply vanished. Sometimes I do get wrist and finger pain, but that fades if I remember to switch regularly between two slightly different style trackballs. (But please don't use a lousy trackball, stick to the Logitech red-ball trackballs.)
Finally, things like posture and work breaks are absolutely essential. Any employer who allows employees to sit hunched over a keyboard for hours without a break, probably deserves to pay immense sums for insurance (workers' comp and health). It is not an employee's right (even a self-righteous coder) to sit hunched over the keyboard for hours. Breaks MUST be taken, in which the employee at least stands up and raises her arms!
Finally, let me recall my favorite case in researching ergonomic liability lawsuits. One of the phone companies (I think it was US West) had instructed its consultants/contractors to design a 411/directory/information-service terminal that did NOT display characters as they were typed, because their research showed that employees slowed down their typing speed if they waited to see if the correct character was displayed. Of course, once the employees couldn't see what they were typing, their natural tendency was to pound the keys harder to be sure the character was being recorded (since there was no feedback about what level of keystroke pressure was enough). The result was a 100% injury rate (RSI/carpal tunnel).
>> Oh, and btw, when the check-in person asks you if you packed your own luggage and watched it at all times, "I didn't bring any luggage" is not the answer they want to hear.
Imagine the response if you just said, "All I'm taking on the trip is my prayer rug, as carry-on."
Huh? I am not afraid to fly because of terrorists - I am simply unwilling to devote MORE time to flying than it would take to DRIVE to the same destination.
During the past decade, I have generally flown about once per year to another state or Canada, and once or twice per year to Los Angeles.
I am certainly less likely than ever before to take a "weekend trip" (like one I took to Seattle last August), since I don't generally want to invest 4 to 6 hours each way on travel for a 40-hour visit. The extra airport time wouldn't make nearly much difference for my next trip to New York or London (from San Francisco).
FYI, I took the Eurostar train from London to Paris through the "Chunnel" in the early morning on Monday, September 10, and returned to London on the train early on Wednesday morning, September 12 (about 18 hours after the WTC towers fell). Security appeared nearly non-existent on the trip to Paris (no luggage inspection at all, and just a quick passport check in Paris). But I was checked by THREE SEPARATE PEOPLE on the morning of September 12. Security was lax there, too, and changed after 9/11.
I assume that you're right, and that security in Europe has always been and still is tighter than in America -- this was my first trip to Europe so my experience is quite limited, but I didn't notice any significant security difference between going and coming back -- there were obvious differences (notably the long line) but no substantive difference I could see.
The notion that someone will repeatedly be "identified" as matching a particular face, is a very real concern for travelers. Already, we find that Americans with brown skin and beards, and especially persons who "look" Muslim, are hassled every time they enter an airport and often miss their flights. Non-citizens who "appear Muslim" should probably just give up on any idea of flying in the next few years.
As noted, there can be no "get past ID check free" letter or ID card, since those would immediately be forged. And with a 50% false negative rate (missing a suspect 50% of the time), the system seems hardly worth using.
I have not traveled by air since returning from Europe on September 19 (delayed from Sept. 12).
In the past, I would have flown between the San Francisco Bay Area and the Los Angeles area (a 1-hour flight, using any of the airports on either end), but now it's actually likely to be faster to drive (around six hours each way), after including all the "waiting in line time," the increased flight delays, and of course the time to get into and out of the airports (park here, rent a car there).
To be fair, of course, a system with a 50% false negative rate is presumably able to detect "known suspects" 50% of the time, which is almost certainly much better than human beings will ever do. Of course, the tests are probably being conducted under very favorable conditions, with an extremely small sample of "suspects." And of course, if the false-positives were equally distributed, we'd all be willing to suffer a one-in-a-thousand delay, if it actually had any meaningful benefit. (But we know that the false-positives won't be equally distributed, they will mostly affect persons in certain ethnic groups or with beards, etc., and while that means I'm less likely to be inconvenienced, I can't tolerate a system that punishes people for their skin color or ethnic background.)
What's scary, to me, is that we are giving up so much (in many little bits and pieces) for so little benefit. On Saturday, I discovered that I couldn't use the restrooms in the BART (train) stations again, because they were closed to prevent someone from planting a bomb in them. Okay, so I had to hold it for an hour until I got home, big deal. And armed troops in the airports, and on bridges, okay, I can live with that one thing. And I can't drop off my express mail without handing it to a postal clerk now.
But ding, ding, ding, we add up all the little "show-off" gimmicks and what we face is a huge impact that provides pretty much zero actual benefit. All the gimmicks combined might provide about 1% or 10% improved safety, at a much greater cost.
While I was stuck in London during the week after September 11, I worried that things would change for the worse, not because of things that terrorists did, but because of the things we would do out of panic and fear and prejudice and idiocy. Things are nowhere near my worst fears, but I think things are very bad, and ultimately I believe that the terrorists have already "won" by causing most Americans to change multiple aspects of our "way of life."
As noted, the practice is not illegal, and the article also notes that the researcher doing this work has actually left the US in order to continue the research to reduce the risk of having his work quashed. And of course, if it matters, the work was unsuccessful in that the researcher was unable to successfully clone tissue using the methods that were being tested.
I also don't understand the notion that cloning is such an awful thing. "Why doesn't the government just get off our backs?"
In reality, what this is about is religious fervor: don't let cloning happen because some religious fanatics believe it is "unnatural" and defies God. Just like in-vitro fertilization, sperm donation, and surrogate mothers.
For those who fear the creation of new breeds of super-babies, or other nightmares, cloning is NOT the thing to worry about. Genetic engineering is permitted in much more dangerous areas.
I was surprised at how much it jarred me to learn of Gould's death today. After all, it was not really a shock or surprise, since he'd written of his diagnosis and earlier remission, and he'd stopped writing his essays last year.
Ultimately, his death made me realize how much Gould's writing have affected my thinking in the past decade. Quite simply, he was a very good writer, perhaps the best science writer I've had the privilege to read.
I discovered one of Stephen Jay Gould's books in the early 1990's and was captivated by his unique writing. His essays mostly were about correcting misunderstandings, or reporting on misperceptions in the past or present. His writing made complex subjects seem accessible, and he drew my interest toward topics I would never otherwise have considered. He often used his narrow specialty to shed light on broader human themes.
Writing about science is usually quite difficult, and until I read Gould's words, I had believed that the subject of paleontology (and any natural history topic of any depth) was beyond my grasp (at least, my interest didn't justify a considerable investment in further education). While very few of Gould's essays are "easy" to read, all are well-crafted and many led me to better understanding and deeper thought. And he even managed to entertain and amuse.
I've heard a few vicious comments about Gould -- all of them from people I didn't respect. I'm sure Gould made mistakes, and perhaps he slighted some other scientists, and I'm certain that many other science writers must have been jealous of Gould's writing skill and intellectual depth and breadth.
Gould's words often made clear when his views differed from others. On those rare occasions when I knew enough about a subject to disagree with something Gould's wrote, I still found much to respect in his words.
Perhaps most important, Gould's essays were never just about natural history: they were most often about human misperceptions, biases, politics, and foibles. Like many great writers, Gould did not just focus on the narrow and often arcane subject matter he selected, but instead used obscure scientific facts and natural history as a lens on broader human themes.
Don't get me wrong: some of Gould's essays ring quite hollow. Sometimes, he seems to pander. But in one essay out of three, perhaps more, Gould left me thinking and making mental connections for many days or weeks. Is there any greater compliment to any writer, teacher, or friend than to say "he made me think" ?
If you have not read any of Gould's essays or books, I strongly recommend that you pick up one of his earlier books of collected essays (I particularly recall liking 'Bully for Brontosaurus' and 'The Flamingo's Smile'). This afternoon, I found Gould's most recent collection of essays, 'The Lying Stones of Marrakech,' on the remainder shelf of a bookstore for $5.98 (I bought it, even though I'm only halfway through his prior title).
Finally, I'd like to point out that the AP obituary of Gould is one of the better-written and well-researched obituaries I've seen recently.
Given the choice between having skills and experience that make me over-qualified, and having no meaningful skills or experience, I'd prefer the former over the latter.
People who have no meaningful skills or experience (especially those with limited education, limited language and math skills, and no specialized training) may not "share the pain" in being hired to flip burgers, but they surely suffer more in life, and would prefer to be in the shoes of someone with better education, skills, and experience, even if that meant having some trouble getting a burger-flipping job in hard times.
The "proper authorities" would be law enforcement or prosecutors, which (quite rightly) does not view these calls as a priority. They spend their time pursuing burglars and other criminals, and police also deal with domestic violence and dangerous drivers and so on.
So there is no way that the call data can be extracted other than through a private civil suit. I'd spend thousands of dollars, with nearly zero chance of recovering a penny.
The consumer shows on TV never do much to investigate -- if more than a phone call to a known merchant is required, they don't pursue the matter. For the "complex" stories you see, they are almost always just recycling other people's efforts (private lawsuits or law enforcement).
Slashdot Mirror
Nice points, except: Sony only sells the TiVo for DirecTV users, and as I noted earlier in the thread, I cannot get DirecTV. And the only store that sells TiVo is Best Buy, 'nuff said about return policies.
Look, I am not an idiot, I just act like one sometimes. I am confident that I could go out and buy one of these things and get it to work, and maybe it would be 80% what I wanted and expected, or maybe 90%. Or I could go buy the Hauppauge card for my computer, too.
But what I am looking for is something simple, that doesn't require work-arounds or tricks. And damn it, I'm sick and tired of being told by a manufacturer that their product is great, I should buy it, but they won't let me see the damn thing in use, which almost always means it does NOT do the things they promise, or is not as helpful or convenient.
This Way to the Great Egress.
> So go to Best Buy and demand to use the product
> in action. Inform them of the demo account above.
> If that fails, try another store. Or call TiVo
> and tell them that Best Buy refused to show you
> the product in action.
Good advice -- and this is exactly what I did, back in April. After running in circles with store staff and store manager, and TiVo's low-level support folks, I ended up speaking with some pretty high-level folks, including the actual TiVo buyer at Best Buy (whose butt is on the line with this exclusive deal) and his contact at TiVo. They agreed: no demo accounts, period. They were abused (as you noted) and store personnel couldn't be trained adequately to show the unit's features anyway, and the stores all power down nightly so data got lost. There are no store demo accounts any more, period (maybe there are store demo units for the DirecTV version of TiVo, but I couldn't find any in my area).
Best Buy shows a canned video demo on a TV monitor (with intense static that makes it almost unwatchable).
Finally, the issue of TiVo "dying" is exactly the issue I'm concerned about. No, they don't want to annoy their customers, but my understanding is that at any moment they could cease operating, and then I'd have a worthless box. I could deal with that, indeed was prepared to deal with that risk, until I learned that I simply cannot see a TiVo in actual operation. As I explained, I've been burned so many times by false promises that I will not trust that the TiVo unit I buy will do what they promise, unless I actually see it in use.
Second, I spent lots of time at the web site, and I still can't determine what TiVo offers in terms of "fast forward." What I want is a "skip 30 seconds" button, or something like that, apparently that's not available for TiVo so I'm stuck with using a generic fast-forward button that apparently has three modes, but since I have never been able to touch a TiVo remote, I really don't even know how this works.
On the dishwasher front, I don't own one, but if I bought one I'd expect it to work as promised, and I would not worry about having it simply stop working 34 days after purchase, leaving me with no recourse but to throw it away. That's a very real option with TiVo and ReplayTV.
Next, I don't have DirecTV and the only reason I would get it would be to use UltimateTV or TiVo, but you can't order it that way: you have to get them separately, then if one or the other doesn't work, you are stuck with the other. In my case, I have trees in front of my condo and cannot get a dish signal, so it's moot anyway.
A dishwasher is well-established technology, proven; I've used dozens of different dishwashers in my life and the all work pretty much the same. PVRs are a new technology, and I'm really not sure how they will work, or how they differ. And given my experience with unmet promises from most other technology products, I'm not willing to trust companies whose futures are likely measured in months, not years.
The stated reason for reducing the pricing was because the extra $250 for a "prepaid lifetime subscription" was reducing sales (especially since the product's remaining lifetime seems likely to be substantially less than a year), so they were going to switch to a monthly subscription model. Instead, they are just playing a "hide the fee" game, hoping that idiots who get the box home will agree to pay another $250 instead of returning the box.
If the fee is properly disclosed (to avoid lawsuits), then nobody will buy this version if they didn't buy the prior version, since the features are unchanged and the net price is unchanged. But we all know that the fee will not be properly disclosed, so there will be many returns and there will be lawsuits by various consumer groups and state AGs, which may be simply part of ReplayTV's "publicity" strategy.
And as noted, the deal is basically that if the company folds, the box can self-destruct and you have nothing, period, for your $650.
In April, I wrote an essay chronicling my efforts to buy a PVR, and nothing has changed since then. Nobody sells PVR technology to consumers, period. For those who are willing to do a lot of "do it yourself" work, and who trust that the companies will "do the right thing" despite the lack of any legal obligation to provide service, it is technically possible to get PVR technology working.
I would gladly pay $300 to $500 for something like a TiVo or ReplayTV, plus $10 to $15 per month for programming data, if I thought I could get an actual service that would last for a year or more. I am absolutely unconvinced that any company can or will provide service for a year.
I had assumed, all along, that this requirement remained. But now that I think about it, that was TCI back then, and of course now it's AT&T.
The notion that I'd have to pay for basic cable whether I used it or not, had contributed to my decision not to buy DirecTV. But honestly, I also am reluctant to order DirecTV since nobody can assure me that I will actually be able to get a signal at my location due to trees, and I'm not interested in paying a professional installer several hundred dollars just to confirm that I can't get DirecTV.
(I'm one of those folks who believes it's wrong to steal, even from an incompetent, unethical corporation, so the question isn't whether I'd do so, it's simply whether I can have AT&T Broadband Cable Modem service while getting my TV signal somewhere else -- and an antenna isn't an option, all I can get with an antenna is one TV station.)
The issue is not the type of lawsuit, it is who has money to collect against. I have assets, and a reputation to protect, so I had to defend against his suit (else he'd get a judgement and attach my assets). To my knowledge, Wallace has no assets and of course his reputation was worthless long before I learned his name.
I certainly was not suggesting that I not defend against his lawsuit -- I did that, spending $5,000 in legal fees and costs before he abandoned the suit.
I'm sure Wallace is judgment-proof (e.g. if I won a damage award, he'd have no assets to pursue to collect damages. I understand that's what happened to my attorney's earlier client who obtained a judgment against Wallace (and indeed, had I wanted to sue Wallace, my interests might have conflicted with those of my attorney's earlier client, which might have precluded him from successfully representing me).
Ask all the (many) other folks who've sued or been sued by Wallace, and who were awarded damages or costs -- I'm pretty sure none of them ever collected a penny.
The contract probably said that if a teacher has a drug problem, there would be a series of steps which the teacher must go through (certainly the first step when a teacher is on campus under the influence, would be removal from school and suspension, perhaps requiring an immediate check-in to a treatment program, followed by compliance with the treatment regimen, and consent to drug testing).
The contract, if it follows the usual policies of large corporations and government agencies, might impose all kinds of special conditions, perhaps even a "two strikes and you're out" rule, but the contract says whatever it says. You can't change the terms of a contract by having the administration or school board unilaterally announce a "zero tolerance" school policy (any more than the school board could unilaterally announce that all teachers must teach one more hour per day without additional pay). And even if the state legislature passed a law requiring that the teacher who uses drugs must immediately be fired, that law cannot impair a previously-executed contract (read your U.S. Constitution).
Note also that the student who is expelled under the "zero tolerance" policy will still be able to enroll at another school -- the state does have an obligation to provide an education to children. The notion behind "zero tolerance" is good, but there are a lot more ridiculous stories about zero-tolerance.
At one time, when confronted, the insurance industry cited a Canadian (Ontario) lawsuit, which they said involved "burglars falling through a skylight." In fact, the case involved student atheletes who had been locked out of their gym, and who were asked by the coach to enter through the roof. Someone had painted over skylights with black paint, and one of the students stepped onto the black surface, not realizing it was glass (after all, the student knew from being in the gym that there were no skylights), the painted glass broke, and he fell through and was seriously injured. The case was settled (quite properly, since the school clearly was negligent both through the coach's direction to students to engage in a a dangerous activity (climbing on a roof) AND by painting a skylight black without posting warnings for persons who were properly on the roof.)
I think Wallace may have deliberately sent me spam in order to provoke me -- he knew I'd complain since he was breaching his earlier promise to block my email addresses after earlier complaints. By provoking me to complain, he could claim a "victim" role, by falsely stating that I had "asked" to receive the emails and then unfairly complained and caused his business to lose its only internet connection (every other ISP and backbone provider had blacklisted him years earlier).
Spanford Wallace filed his suit in Pennsylvania (despite lack of jurisdiction) because he knew I'd have to hire an attorney there and spend thousands of dollars in legal fees and court costs to dismiss the suit. He knew the suit would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and he chose not to sue me in California because he knew that California has a SLAPP statute that would have permitted me to collect attorneys' fees and damages (Pennsylvania didn't have a SLAPP statute).
The spammers' only goals in filing lawsuits are to gain "unfair advantage" -- adverse publicity for the opponent, and deliberate choice of an inconvenient and expensive forum.
It worked for Wallace: I stopped making spam complaints for many months because I was so distracted by the lawsuit. And he also deterred others from reporting spam complaints, by loudly and publicly announcing that he (and other spammers) would not hesitate to deliberately abuse the court system in order to punish honest people who make valid complaints.
Wallace's publicity campaign was transparent: he decided to file the lawsuit one day after I appeared on CNBC regarding another consumer advocacy issue; he wanted to "piggy-back" by suing a well-known consumer advocate. He posted a copy of the lawsuit on his web site and emailed dozens of reporters just minutes after the complaint was filed (of course, I learned of the suit only when the reporters called me, and since I couldn't respond to a suit I hadn't seen, Wallace's false and malicious claims were republished as if they were true -- with no follow-up when the suit was abandoned and dismissed several months later.
Although Wallace's suit was filed in Pennsylvania despite the absence of jurisdiction, I was forced to spend $5,000 to hire a Philadelphia attorney to prepare and file a motion to dismiss (I chose an attorney who had previously obtained a judgment against Wallace). As soon as we filed the motion to dismiss, Wallace simply abandoned the lawsuit (he submitted papers to the court claiming that a "settlement had been reached," though there was no settlement.
The only good news is that I haven't heard from him since then, but of course the bad news is that he drained $5,000 of my money and a lot of my time, and simultaneously scared off someone interested in buying a web site I owned (the offer to buy my business for $350,000 was withdrawn the day after the suit was filed, and five months later I sold the business to another buyer for $175,000).
Wallace also successfully deterred many spam complaints by proving his continued willingness to abuse court processes for personal gain.)
I assume that the spammer in the current case filed a suit in the hopes of driving up others' costs and extorting a settlement.
Eh? I panned a lot of products, both as a reviewer for magazines (including InfoWorld during my first year of law school from 1986-87) and later as a syndicated columnist (a negative review is, of course, so much more fun to write than a positive review, see my recent work at http://www.MarkWelch.com/perspective/), but I can't recall ever reviewing any "Greeting Card" programs that I can recall. The only possibility I can think of is that my co-author may have included your product in one of our "pre-holiday" columns (this would have been the "Law Office Technology Review" column that was syndicated to legal newspapers, which I co-authored with Barry Bayer from 1987-90).
I think I'd be more inclined to try substitute teaching first, to at least see how I like being in the classroom, though I doubt it would really be a fair comparison to being a "real" teacher. I would certainly not want to start teaching a full-year class and then decide this is just the wrong thing for me -- I'd feel pretty awful abandoning "my" students at that point.
I would much prefer to at least attend some kind of basic education about teaching styles, child development, administrative processes, etc., before walking into a classroom as The Guy In Charge. Of course, I assume that the New Guy isn't going to be teaching AP English to the best students, so I think some better training is important. But this is all pretty early-stage for me, we'll see how things go.
>> By your logic, why would law students have been eligible for federal loans when you earned your J.D.? Well, one obvious reason would be in order to get new attorneys to represent chronically-under-represented groups, but of course that's not a requirement. In fact, student loans are available for nearly all accredited post-secondary educational programs, including fields like art history, which have extremely high percentages of graduates who can't find work in their speciality.
What's the issue here, really? Time and money, right? If a working dad (or mom) wants to go back to college, and still see the kids once or twice a week, full-time employment probably isn't an option, and that probably means a huge cut in lifestyle.
Well, I have lots of time these days, and I am considering changing my profession (again).
Last time, I quit my job as a reporter for InfoWorld (in 1986) and went to law school, where I don't think I got any financial aid except federal student loan program. I attended a public university (UC Berkeley) before the state of California jacked up tuition beyond reach, I moved into a tiny shared apartment, and I worked full-time (as a syndicated columnist) while also attending law school full-time. Of course, I didn't have a family to deal with, I know my fellow students who did went through hell, especially the single moms. Then, in
I am now considering making another change: I am seriously considering teaching high school. To my surprise, getting a teaching credential requires quite a bit of effort and time, and of course money. (For a 41-year-old with a B.A. and a J.D., the prospect of going back to college again is a bit unsettling.)
Finally, to answer the question posed:
- I doubt these "non-traditional students" are willing to go the ROTC route, which someone mentioned, since this would mean committing to low-paying work for the armed services for several years. There are also age limits.
- Loans are almost always available, but while they provide a rope to lift you into college, after college a heavy debt burden may look more like a noose (especially if the student chooses not to pursue employment in the college-trained career, or worse yet if the student drops out without a degree).
- As noted, working is the most logical strategy. Enroll in classes at a public university or college, indeed some classes can be taken at a community college very cheaply.
- There are still a few companies that offer educational assistance, for work-related course work and sometimes even for non-work-related courses. These are mostly big corporations (or recent spinoffs from big corporations who've carried their programs along). Alas, the current economy doesn't leave many of these jobs open.
- I hesitate to mention it, but it is theoretically possible that a "non-traditional student" with kids might find some benefits under the "Welfare-to-Work" programs that many states are offering. That doesn't mean they must apply for welfare -- check out the state's programs, schedule appointments, wait in the lines, and maybe there might be a program that could provide some help.
Of course, I wish that someone would offer me some financial assistance if I do decide to enroll in a teacher preparation program (after all, I surely believe that our society needs more teachers with backgrounds like mine, or at least I might say that if it gets me some money). And you certainly should be aware that there are all kinds of programs that could provide support for people who are planning a "public service" career (teaching, social work, etc.), and even private associations like my local Rotary Club provide assistance for several types of college and post-graduate scholarships.But at some point, we really shouldn't expect help to continue. After all, I already have the training and skill to get full-time employment in at least two different professions (journalist or attorney, and of course I already work as an internet marketing consultant), and I already got LOTS of "free money" financial aid as an undergraduate, plus interest-subsidized and low-interest student loans during both undergraduate and law school (all repaid a while ago), and of course the states of Massachusetts and California each spent more money on my education than I ever paid in tuition anyway (well, technically I didn't pay tuition as an undergraduate because I qualified for a special merit scholarship from the state, which was not need-based).
Finally, aren't programmers a dime a dozen right now? Why would anyone want to subsidize education of programmers (other than through loans), if there are already many programmers who are not employed?
You said "legal only" but I thought that possession of a lock-picking kit is not legal in some places?
I haven't followed this field closely, but from what I've seen, the science hasn't seemed to advance since then, mostly because companies are spending big dollars to prevent studies from going forward, and the Republicans want to keep the government off our backs by preventing any regulation or much research into ergonomics. (In my paper, I noted that legal tort-liability rules were shifting so that manufacturers -- who would almost certainly have been held liable if their appeals reached the courts in the early or mid 80's -- would probably win their appeals in the 90's, which is mostly what happened.)
My own opinion is that the number one ergonomic problem today is the desk. Despite study after study showing that worker injuries are reduced if desks are adjustable, nobody (including me) wants to spend a thousand bucks more for an "ergonomic" desk that allows for adjustment of the surface and especially the keyboard level. (Instead, we spend much more on lost work time and on chiropractors, etc.)
Adjusting the chair (though important) is not enough since lowering the chair means awkwardly repositioning the legs, and the torso follows into a poor position.
Of course, one problem is that nobody offers an ergonomic desk at a reasonable price. Are there patents or something preventing someone from selling a $500 adjustable-height desk? Instead, whenever I've shopped, prices start somewhere north of $1,000, for the flimsiest adjustable desks, and $2,000 for anything decent.Another ergonomic problem that I've quickly solved was the mouse. After many months of shoulder and elbow pain, I switched from a mouse to a trackball (I think it was in 1992 or 1993), and the pain simply vanished. Sometimes I do get wrist and finger pain, but that fades if I remember to switch regularly between two slightly different style trackballs. (But please don't use a lousy trackball, stick to the Logitech red-ball trackballs.)
Finally, things like posture and work breaks are absolutely essential. Any employer who allows employees to sit hunched over a keyboard for hours without a break, probably deserves to pay immense sums for insurance (workers' comp and health). It is not an employee's right (even a self-righteous coder) to sit hunched over the keyboard for hours. Breaks MUST be taken, in which the employee at least stands up and raises her arms!
Finally, let me recall my favorite case in researching ergonomic liability lawsuits. One of the phone companies (I think it was US West) had instructed its consultants/contractors to design a 411/directory/information-service terminal that did NOT display characters as they were typed, because their research showed that employees slowed down their typing speed if they waited to see if the correct character was displayed. Of course, once the employees couldn't see what they were typing, their natural tendency was to pound the keys harder to be sure the character was being recorded (since there was no feedback about what level of keystroke pressure was enough). The result was a 100% injury rate (RSI/carpal tunnel).
During the past decade, I have generally flown about once per year to another state or Canada, and once or twice per year to Los Angeles.
I am certainly less likely than ever before to take a "weekend trip" (like one I took to Seattle last August), since I don't generally want to invest 4 to 6 hours each way on travel for a 40-hour visit. The extra airport time wouldn't make nearly much difference for my next trip to New York or London (from San Francisco).
FYI, I took the Eurostar train from London to Paris through the "Chunnel" in the early morning on Monday, September 10, and returned to London on the train early on Wednesday morning, September 12 (about 18 hours after the WTC towers fell). Security appeared nearly non-existent on the trip to Paris (no luggage inspection at all, and just a quick passport check in Paris). But I was checked by THREE SEPARATE PEOPLE on the morning of September 12. Security was lax there, too, and changed after 9/11.
I assume that you're right, and that security in Europe has always been and still is tighter than in America -- this was my first trip to Europe so my experience is quite limited, but I didn't notice any significant security difference between going and coming back -- there were obvious differences (notably the long line) but no substantive difference I could see.
As noted, there can be no "get past ID check free" letter or ID card, since those would immediately be forged. And with a 50% false negative rate (missing a suspect 50% of the time), the system seems hardly worth using.
I have not traveled by air since returning from Europe on September 19 (delayed from Sept. 12).
In the past, I would have flown between the San Francisco Bay Area and the Los Angeles area (a 1-hour flight, using any of the airports on either end), but now it's actually likely to be faster to drive (around six hours each way), after including all the "waiting in line time," the increased flight delays, and of course the time to get into and out of the airports (park here, rent a car there).
To be fair, of course, a system with a 50% false negative rate is presumably able to detect "known suspects" 50% of the time, which is almost certainly much better than human beings will ever do. Of course, the tests are probably being conducted under very favorable conditions, with an extremely small sample of "suspects." And of course, if the false-positives were equally distributed, we'd all be willing to suffer a one-in-a-thousand delay, if it actually had any meaningful benefit. (But we know that the false-positives won't be equally distributed, they will mostly affect persons in certain ethnic groups or with beards, etc., and while that means I'm less likely to be inconvenienced, I can't tolerate a system that punishes people for their skin color or ethnic background.)
What's scary, to me, is that we are giving up so much (in many little bits and pieces) for so little benefit. On Saturday, I discovered that I couldn't use the restrooms in the BART (train) stations again, because they were closed to prevent someone from planting a bomb in them. Okay, so I had to hold it for an hour until I got home, big deal. And armed troops in the airports, and on bridges, okay, I can live with that one thing. And I can't drop off my express mail without handing it to a postal clerk now.
But ding, ding, ding, we add up all the little "show-off" gimmicks and what we face is a huge impact that provides pretty much zero actual benefit. All the gimmicks combined might provide about 1% or 10% improved safety, at a much greater cost.
While I was stuck in London during the week after September 11, I worried that things would change for the worse, not because of things that terrorists did, but because of the things we would do out of panic and fear and prejudice and idiocy. Things are nowhere near my worst fears, but I think things are very bad, and ultimately I believe that the terrorists have already "won" by causing most Americans to change multiple aspects of our "way of life."
I also don't understand the notion that cloning is such an awful thing. "Why doesn't the government just get off our backs?"
In reality, what this is about is religious fervor: don't let cloning happen because some religious fanatics believe it is "unnatural" and defies God. Just like in-vitro fertilization, sperm donation, and surrogate mothers.
For those who fear the creation of new breeds of super-babies, or other nightmares, cloning is NOT the thing to worry about. Genetic engineering is permitted in much more dangerous areas.
Ultimately, his death made me realize how much Gould's writing have affected my thinking in the past decade. Quite simply, he was a very good writer, perhaps the best science writer I've had the privilege to read.
I discovered one of Stephen Jay Gould's books in the early 1990's and was captivated by his unique writing. His essays mostly were about correcting misunderstandings, or reporting on misperceptions in the past or present. His writing made complex subjects seem accessible, and he drew my interest toward topics I would never otherwise have considered. He often used his narrow specialty to shed light on broader human themes.
Writing about science is usually quite difficult, and until I read Gould's words, I had believed that the subject of paleontology (and any natural history topic of any depth) was beyond my grasp (at least, my interest didn't justify a considerable investment in further education). While very few of Gould's essays are "easy" to read, all are well-crafted and many led me to better understanding and deeper thought. And he even managed to entertain and amuse.
I've heard a few vicious comments about Gould -- all of them from people I didn't respect. I'm sure Gould made mistakes, and perhaps he slighted some other scientists, and I'm certain that many other science writers must have been jealous of Gould's writing skill and intellectual depth and breadth.
Gould's words often made clear when his views differed from others. On those rare occasions when I knew enough about a subject to disagree with something Gould's wrote, I still found much to respect in his words.
Perhaps most important, Gould's essays were never just about natural history: they were most often about human misperceptions, biases, politics, and foibles. Like many great writers, Gould did not just focus on the narrow and often arcane subject matter he selected, but instead used obscure scientific facts and natural history as a lens on broader human themes.
Don't get me wrong: some of Gould's essays ring quite hollow. Sometimes, he seems to pander. But in one essay out of three, perhaps more, Gould left me thinking and making mental connections for many days or weeks. Is there any greater compliment to any writer, teacher, or friend than to say "he made me think" ?
If you have not read any of Gould's essays or books, I strongly recommend that you pick up one of his earlier books of collected essays (I particularly recall liking 'Bully for Brontosaurus' and 'The Flamingo's Smile'). This afternoon, I found Gould's most recent collection of essays, 'The Lying Stones of Marrakech,' on the remainder shelf of a bookstore for $5.98 (I bought it, even though I'm only halfway through his prior title).
Finally, I'd like to point out that the AP obituary of Gould is one of the better-written and well-researched obituaries I've seen recently.
People who have no meaningful skills or experience (especially those with limited education, limited language and math skills, and no specialized training) may not "share the pain" in being hired to flip burgers, but they surely suffer more in life, and would prefer to be in the shoes of someone with better education, skills, and experience, even if that meant having some trouble getting a burger-flipping job in hard times.
So there is no way that the call data can be extracted other than through a private civil suit. I'd spend thousands of dollars, with nearly zero chance of recovering a penny.
The consumer shows on TV never do much to investigate -- if more than a phone call to a known merchant is required, they don't pursue the matter. For the "complex" stories you see, they are almost always just recycling other people's efforts (private lawsuits or law enforcement).