In all likelihood, this will be my last blog post for a while--possibly until mid-October.
You see, I'm getting married.
Tomorrow marks one week to the day that me and my best friend will agree to drive each other crazy for the rest of our lives.
So between the prep, and the big day, and the honeymoon, yeah, I won't be back for a bit.
--
After the tremendous success of my last post, I decided to go a similar route. And really, what better way to go out then with a bunch of delicious shit to read to tide you over until my triumphant return from Spain, armed with food porn-alicious shots of seafood?
Anyhow:
This is a piece called, "So You Wanna Be a Chef." It's by Anthony Bourdain, taken from his latest offering Medium Raw: A Bloody Valentine to the World of Food and the People Who Cook. It's a fun piece that offers some serious advice to those considering culinary arts school, offered up in the usual Bourdain manner.
Next is a couple of pieces by Austin Seraphin, a blind Apple fan. This is from June, a post about his first week with his new iPhone, and this is from September, a post about his purchase of a new iMac. Both will put Apple products, and technology in general, in a whole new perspective for you. Fascinating reads, seriously.
This is a short, but mind-blowing piece about the REAL rules of Monopoly, or at least, one rule in particular. I am one of the many who hasn't been playing by/with this rule, like, ever, and could see how adapting it would change the game entirely.
I debated including this piece from New York Magazine about Machiavellian pizza-maker Anthony Mangieri for a couple of reasons--first, it's old, from July of '09. But it's such an intense read, I just couldn't resist. Also, after I read it, and went to look up when and where I could get some of his uber-authentic pizza, (CAUTION--DO NOT READ THE NEXT SENTENCE UNTIL AFTER YOU'VE READ THE ARTICLE) and saw that he'd followed-through on his threat/promise to close up shop and move to the West Coast, I was heartbroken. I didn't want the same to happen to you. But then I realized it almost makes me appreciate his efforts even more. It's rare that you see people stupidly sticking to their guns, even in the face of a bunch of truth and reality that you should do otherwise. Kudos, Mangieri. Kudos.
Hey, look--a negative review of Jonathan Franzen's "Freedom."
This oral history of the making of Goodfellas from GQ has been making the rounds on the internet for a few days now, but it's so good, I can't afford to not re-post it. God, I love that movie.
This week was Food Week at Gizmodo, which is way better than any of the other themed-weeks, including Shark. This is one of the many awesome pieces they posted, an explanation of how food cooks.
So it came out this week that Joaquin Phoenix's beard/rap career/retirement was all part of an elaborate film project, and I, for one, think it's awesome. I don't care how many people say now that they knew it was fake the whole time--you motherfuckers thought it was real and you know it. And the internet hate of it just goes to show how on-point the idea was in the first place. Anyway, here's Casey Affleck dishing on all the details to Roger Ebert, and here's Joaquin's recent interview with Letterman where he makes amends for the last one.
Using the two words "French" and "Laundry" in succession to any foodie sparks an immediate reaction. Thomas Keller's Yountville, California restaurant isn't just a restaurant--it's a food mecca, the closest thing we have in this country to a landmark culinary destination. Sophie Brickman was granted inside access to write a piece on working there and this is what she produced.
The NBA will be using a new type of jersey this year, made by Adidas, and Paul Lukas, uniform guru, has an inside look. The jerseys are cut slimmer than in the past, which means it's going to be rough shoving your gut into one, although the grounds for a grown man/woman to wear any jersey of any type while not actively engaged in the sport is shaky at best.
In what will probably be a weekly trend, here's another article on why Android's openness is not really that wonderful of a thing.
And here's a video for you--The Get Up Kids performing "I'll Catch You," the song that Danielle and I predicted almost a decade ago would be the first dance at our wedding:
In eights days we get to see our prediction come true.
More soon (ish),
JS
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Joe,
ReplyDeleteWhat's up? Sorry to write a novel, but I have to take issue with the comment and article about Android's openness somehow being a bad thing. My bad if this comes off as nerd-rage, but it has to be said. No offense to you is intended.
Open means a lot of things to a lot of people, and there's a lot of confusion. I'd like to define two forms of openness (there are more), but they're really only loosely related and very different and things.
- Open Source software means that the source code to the software is available. This allows outside developers, including other companies, to modify the software. Android is open source software, because developers can get the code and modify their copy of it. This means that the features people care about can be created by folks who are motivated enough to do so. You don't have to ask anyone's permission or getting some company's blessing to do what you want. If your modification is good, it may be included in a future release of the software.
- Open hardware allows you to change out the system software on your device without hacking (jailbreaking) it. Basically it means that the manufacturer won't try to stop you from modifying the system software on your device. An example would be a PC or a Mac.
So basically all forms of openness give users and software developers freedom. In a fully open system, no corporation tells you what you can and can't do with your stuff. Indie developers have the freedom to create features users care about, and fix bugs. How can this be a bad thing?
As for the article you linked to, it actually has nothing to do with Android's open source nature. It's about his poorly executed hack on his device, which happens to be a locked down, closed-hardware phone. He rooted ("jailbreaked") it and took his fate into his own hands. Worse, the author made an even more very questionable move by downloading and installing a leaked, unfinished copy of a system update made by the manufacturer. The manufacturer specifically warned the public not to install it, or they will run into problems.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone is to blame for that sad story, it is:
- The phone's manufacturer (Motorola) for locking down the phone, not providing a way to reset to the original firmware, and having quirky battery behavior.
and
- The author for not being careful enough while hacking it (while drinking, mind you). Also, he seems to be confused about what Open Source means, and thus blames Android instead of his own bonehead actions.
The fact that the Android software is Open Source has nothing to do with it. The same thing would have happened to a closed source system such as iPhone, Windows Mobile or Blackberry.
Anyway it might surprise you to know that Mac OS and iOS contain open source software too. They are based on an OS called Unix, which has a decades-long heritage of openness. Mac OS X also contains Darwin, Python, Bash, and a ton of GNU software, all of which are open source. There are closed source components as well.
ReplyDeleteFunny story. Safari, the iPhone browser, Blackberry's browser, Android's browser, and Chrome all share the same guts: a piece of open source software called Webkit. Webkit is primarily made by... Apple! And get this, Google and RIM help them improve it! Your iPhone browser contains some code written by Google and RIM, all due to its open source pieces.
So is Apple's limited degree of openness is also bad?
Both Android and iPhone have their advantages. It's apples and oranges, and neither is objectively "better". It's a pointless argument because, at the end of the day, everyone should use what they prefer. We all benefit from the competition.
But it makes no sense to claim that openness (ie freedom) is somehow a bad thing.
-Mark G
Mac user, of Minor Minor and Mr Meihl's class.
Mark,
ReplyDeleteNo need to apologize--that was really informative. I'm the one who should really be apologizing for my poor phrasing.
I'm not nearly educated enough about the actual processes you're referring to, besides what I'm fortunate to soak in when people like yourselves take the time to explain, to really be making some grand statement. I think my frustration comes more from the marketing side of things--where Android's "openness" gets touted as something the collective you needs to have, when the reality is that a fraction of the users are actually going to take advantage of it.
Frankly, Apple, RIM, Google--whoever--you can throw them all in the same box as far as I'm concerned, because they can use these terms and phrases all they want, but the reality is that they're all looking to make money somehow.
But again, thanks for weighing-in.
JS
Sounds good, bro.
ReplyDeleteIt's true that most folks aren't software developers, and so the ability to download the source code and make changes means nothing to them. They still do benefit from it, indirectly, because when they get updates they receive the improvements that contributors make to the software.
As far as selling points go, there's also another definition of open that gets thrown around. This is the power to install software from outside sources, outside of the normal "Android Market" app store.
Google probably draws attention to this because of Apple's controversial App Store policies. Apple has been known to arbitrarily reject or remove applications from the store, and has not defined very well what is and is not allowed. This is sometimes used in an anti-competitive way, an example being the Google Voice app. In any case, it rubs some people the wrong way and thus open becomes a selling point.
The other side of it is that developers are never sure if Apple will accept or reject their app. I dunno about you, but I wouldn't like it if I spent 50+ hours writing an application, and then find out Apple rejected it. I'd be shit outta luck.
Some folks even have more rigid, sometimes extreme, standards for what they consider to be open. So anyway the water's muddy and it's sometimes not obvious what people mean when they say "open".
Mark
This is another example of the kind of stuff that irks me:
ReplyDeletehttp://gizmodo.com/5670812/big-brother-apple-and-the-death-of-the-program
I hear ya. I must admit I felt some degree of fear when I heard about the mac app store. I love my mac and you couldn't pry it from my cold dead hands, but I would be pretty upset if one day the app store the only way to install mac apps. Thankfully that doesn't seem to be the case at this time.
ReplyDeleteAnyway don't let fanboy banter bother you. Its not worth it.