Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
None
Lamb and Rolland are correct. I wasn't sure it was satire until almost the bottom of the article. That's because it just isn't very funny. The first concept is okay, (a golf tournament wasting water to point out water waste ha, ha!), but the execution just isn't that good. The last two bits are far too insiderish to make much sense to anyone who hasn't followed the online comments in the wake of Josh Board's departure. So when you've got one joke poorly executed, and two insider snark attacks, which aren't even funny to the insiders who know the background, I think it is time to bring out the sparkles and bold italicized "Warning" labels letting the Reader's readers know what they're reading is meant to be "funny". Best, Fred— January 28, 2010 10:54 p.m.
The Mad Hatter’s Chula Vista council meeting
Revenue: $15,047,299 Staff costs: $5,728,194 Benefits to community: $748,691 I think you'll find similar numbers for CCDC and SEDC too. In short, "redevelopment" is a scam. The staffers are paid to lobby the elected officials to get more money from the tax payers while delivering almost nothing to the communities they claim to serve. Time to abolish redevelopment in California. It simply doesn't work.— January 28, 2010 12:01 a.m.
NFL lies about Super Bowl benefits
Don, I wonder if anyone has done a comparison of these two similar businesses: 1. NFL Franchises 2. Strip Bar Franchises They both use athletic young people to entertain men drinking beer. Which business pays more in taxes? Which business requires more police attention? Which business gets more government subsidies? Which business brings more tourist revenue? While this may look satirical, it's pretty straightforward. Which business is better for the financial health of a community? Yes, it's a given that both have enormous health risks for their employees. The average NFL player and average stripper both experience job related injuries, substance abuse problems, and forego educational opportunities to pursue their short-lived careers. But let's put that aside and just focus on the economics...which one brings in more tax dollars after we look at the civic costs of hosting such a business? If it comes out the way I think it should, the city would be better off financially building the world's finest strip club than another stadium.— January 27, 2010 11:58 p.m.
Watch Your Butts
Pete, you can kid yourself all you like, but even CNN is getting onto the story of how the infrastructure is itself riddled with these backdoors, created specifically for law enforcement: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/23/schneier.go… The article neglects to mention that the servers, switches, routers, gateways and other hardware manufactured by Russian and Chinese companies, in addition to the Swedish and US models, also have these backdoors. And if you knew something about networking, you'd also know that your message to your friend that you're kidding yourself is oh-so-secure can be routed through Mongolia as easily as through Montana... On another note, I'm seriously considering stopping any more contributions like this. Teaching pigs to sing, as Robert Heinlein said, is a waste of time and it annoys the pigs. I really do have better things to do than educate the ungrateful.— January 25, 2010 9:33 a.m.
Watch Your Butts
Pete, You want to stay out of jail. So you owe it to yourself to dig a bit deeper. Basically, it works this way. ALL of your electronic based communications, even including traditional telephony (when digitized as it almost always is nowadays), uses IP. This means that each and every packet of information you send and receive, whether downloading a website, uploading a file, sending/recieving email, using VOIP, IRC...just about everything, MUST have an identifying sequence at the beginning which provides the routing information. This includes both the sending and receiving IP addresses. (For the geeks out there, please forgive me for simplifying.) The cops wanted in on this. So as a result of pressure from the Feds, every system deployed today, whether made in China, Russia, or in the USA, has a specific module that allows them to identify both individual and ranges of IP addresses for interception. The data is stored on a database that only law enforcement (and recently, the Chinese Google hackers) have access to. The ISP doesn't even know which IPs are being monitored. So, here's the use case: Agent Friendly notices that a certain guy is bragging about breaking the law in comments on the Reader. He asks (or orders with one of those secret letters you've heard about) the admin to give up the IP address of the guy who writes the posts. With this information, he uses the Lawful Intercept Module (part of the architecture of the backbone of the system) to record all the traffic associated with that IP. He can then add all the IPs that receive/send anything to this IP address. This is all recorded in log files, useable in a court of law. Both routing headers and the actual content itself is saved. Voice streams are saved as .mp3. The only limit is on the capacity of the law enforcement databases. Again, even the owners of the network cannot know (by design) who is being monitored. Eventually, when Agent Friendly has enough to hang you and your friends, he has you arrested. He shows these logs to a judge, proves it was you doing it, and you go to FMITA prison, where you make the acquaintance of a large man who declares you his wife. Check it out Pete. Welcome to reality. EVERYTHING you write online is traceable. Everything you say on a phone is traceable. Encryption can help, but I doubt you have the discipline to use it. Even then, though, the routing info remains wide open...so the fact of the communication CANNOT be hidden. If you think I'm making this up, then do a bit more research. I've documented the architecture of these systems and know what I'm talking about. It's been the subject of some controversy and protest in the tech community for years, and just last week another challenge to ATT's use of this was thrown out of court for "lack of standing" by the litigants. It's scary stuff. Anything you do online can be monitored. Watch out...— January 24, 2010 12:04 p.m.
Wall Street is feasting off Main Street’s pain
BTW: Don, did you see this article in the Economist? http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displa… It explains a lot about how the slime at the top can simultaneously claim the moral high ground while condemning others for petty crimes. Lord Acton was right... Best, Fred— January 24, 2010 9:35 a.m.
Watch Your Butts
SDaniels wrote: "you clearly have ripped off from my 'one-acts in a comment'" Huh? Get over yourself. I've been writing stuff like that online since at least 1993... You can see my latest one over at Bauder's blog...demanding an apology for those of you who compare the Fed, Sallie Mae, Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac, and their ilk to prostitutes. Prostitutes are FAR more honorable and honest than those scum! Anyway, I hope Pete wakes up soon, realizes that IF what he described is true, and he HAS been scamming with dead folk's SS#'s, then he'd better go back and delete all those comments because otherwise, he's going to find out how a little something called the "Lawful Intercept Module" works. Best, Fred— January 24, 2010 9:18 a.m.
Wall Street is feasting off Main Street’s pain
Sirs, I am OUTRAGED that you would dare to drag the good name of prostitutes in the mud by comparing them to those awful Federal institutions! Apologize, all of you, for besmirching the good name of working girls everywhere. They might occassionally roll a drunk or con a John, but they'd NEVER behave as horribly as the Feds have in the last few decades. And if they did, they'd at least have the common humanity to feel sorry for it afterward. No woman in a little red dress on El Cajon Blvd ever did as much damage to San Diego as former city manager Jack McGrory, for example, and you'd never see them parading around proudly touting their magnanimity like Padres and Peregrine owner John Moores. You owe the ladies of the night an apology for even putting them in the same class as those lowlifes on Wall Street and K Street and C Street. Sincerely, Hugh G. Rection President, Project for International Monetary Protection Services (PIMPS)— January 24, 2010 9:12 a.m.
Watch Your Butts
SDaniels, you bet on the wrong guy. I only told you to stick with what you know...textual analysis and literature. If that's somehow brutal, well, you need to get a thicker skin. Again, it IS offensive to see someone claiming technical knowledge when he's clearly full of shiate. This stuff cannot be faked, and he was trying... To then see you egging him on (subtext, "Yeah, show that Fred that he doesn't know anything...I'm tired of his bragging when YOU Pete are clearly more knowledgeable) irritated me. My apologies if you felt "brutalized" by key strokes, but maybe you should stay out of squabbles where you don't have any business joining in?— January 24, 2010 3:24 a.m.
Watch Your Butts
Which one did you find? Zoominfo, or Linkedin? Did you see the wikiversity stuff too? I have been busy. I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to certain subjects, like technology and politics. I also sing, write songs, paint and draw, and shot a bow and arrow with considerable accuracy. As Ali said, "It ain't bragging in you can do it." best, Fred (So, gonna say "uncle" Pete?)— January 24, 2010 3:18 a.m.