Monday, February 28, 2005
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Googling Yahoo
I'm out driving around earlier today, with the radio on, and after hearing 1-2-Step and Let Me Love You for like the 10 millionth time since I've been in Albuquerque, I decide I need to find a better radio station. So I go home, Google "albuquerque radio stations" and which link do I find helpful in finding a new station to try? Yahoo Directory.
Monday, February 07, 2005
Thursday, February 03, 2005
CBS, NBC, whoever...
Ok, so I kind of blew it with last night's rant about CBS. The original Star Trek was on NBC, not CBS.
CBS we can blame for ripping off Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek concepts for Lost In Space.
CBS we can blame for ripping off Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek concepts for Lost In Space.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
CBS Still Sucks
They cancelled Star Trek again. Only this time, they did it as the show was getting better, not worse.
The TrekToday article indicates that it was CBS president Les Moonves that made the decision, so I think it's fair to blame them. It's also interesting to note that both times Star Trek has been cancelled (as opposed to the series simply ending after seven years), CBS did it.
This may not be all bad, though. New episodes could be produced in syndication, like The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine. Or perhaps on SciFi (or another cable channel).
Though perhaps the best thing for Star Trek is to give it a few years off. No TV, no movies. Get rid of Berman; I'd much rather see Manny Coto take over, and lanuch a new series in about five years.
Live long and prosper, Captain Archer.
The TrekToday article indicates that it was CBS president Les Moonves that made the decision, so I think it's fair to blame them. It's also interesting to note that both times Star Trek has been cancelled (as opposed to the series simply ending after seven years), CBS did it.
This may not be all bad, though. New episodes could be produced in syndication, like The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine. Or perhaps on SciFi (or another cable channel).
Though perhaps the best thing for Star Trek is to give it a few years off. No TV, no movies. Get rid of Berman; I'd much rather see Manny Coto take over, and lanuch a new series in about five years.
Live long and prosper, Captain Archer.
Monday, January 24, 2005
Monday, January 10, 2005
Monday, January 03, 2005
Thursday, December 30, 2004
Even Microsoft Uses Firefox
Look closely at the screen shot showing off the new MSN Search. That's Firefox, not IE.
Sunday, December 26, 2004
Another Way the Airlines Screw Passengers
A conversion my father had with a Continental Airlines gate agent yesterday lead to my realization of another way the airlines are screwing passengers. You see, the airlines have put Regional Jets on a lot of routes, not only those formerly operated by turboprop aircraft, but also those formerly operated with larger jets like 737s and DC-9s.
So why is this a problem? It's simple. There's not a lot of space for carry-on luggage in the cabin of RJs, so like on turboprops, most "carry-on" bags need to be checked. The airline will let you drop off your bag on a cart next to the aircraft, and you pick it up on another cart after the plane lands. Different airlines have different names for this. For example, Horizon Air calls it a la cart.
So how does this screw the passenger? As my father learned, the airline will not be responsible for damage to bags checked plane side. Most passengers know that fragile items should be carried on, to avoid the possibility of their items being damaged when passing through the baggage systems or as a result of rough handling by airline employees. Checking a bag plane side helps as it avoids some of the machinery, but it is still subject to rough handling when being loaded into the aircraft's cargo compartment. By using RJs instead of larger jets, the airlines force passengers who had hoped to avoid damage to fragile items by carrying them on to check them anyway, with the bonus that the airline will not pay for any damage that results.
So why is this a problem? It's simple. There's not a lot of space for carry-on luggage in the cabin of RJs, so like on turboprops, most "carry-on" bags need to be checked. The airline will let you drop off your bag on a cart next to the aircraft, and you pick it up on another cart after the plane lands. Different airlines have different names for this. For example, Horizon Air calls it a la cart.
So how does this screw the passenger? As my father learned, the airline will not be responsible for damage to bags checked plane side. Most passengers know that fragile items should be carried on, to avoid the possibility of their items being damaged when passing through the baggage systems or as a result of rough handling by airline employees. Checking a bag plane side helps as it avoids some of the machinery, but it is still subject to rough handling when being loaded into the aircraft's cargo compartment. By using RJs instead of larger jets, the airlines force passengers who had hoped to avoid damage to fragile items by carrying them on to check them anyway, with the bonus that the airline will not pay for any damage that results.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)