Maybe it’s happened to you before - you have 4 different computers that you like to listen to music on, each one having a slightly different library filled with slightly different songs, metadata, and cover art, which can infuriate OCD music organizers like myself to no end. Personally, I have 3 computers I regularly use, each with a different set of playlists and songs, making consistency between systems hard to achieve. What I’ve come to realize is that the paradigm of storing music locally on each system is outdated and inefficient, and Apple already has a tool at their disposal to fix the problem: The Cloud.

You may have heard the term before, but if you haven’t the Cloud simply represents a service that keeps track of all your data (including email, photos, and documents), and makes all of it available to any device that can connect to the Internet, including computers, mobile phones, or other media devices throughout your home. It’s an ingenious method for keeping one’s information syncronized and readily available, but Apple hasn’t leveraged the power of the Cloud in iTunes yet, and I’m here to ask “why?!?”

Let’s lay it all out there: iTunes is the largest online music retailer, and keeps track of every purchase made by every individual user, although once a piece of media is purchased and downloaded, there’s no way to get it again from Apple if you happen to lose it.  The Cloud provides a means of disseminating data to any number of devices, including media such as photos and video clips (both of which can be much larger than a music file), and has the ability to be dynamically updated if the user decides to modify their library or buy new songs from the iTunes store. So here’s the bottom line: shouldn’t the Cloud serve any and all music that a user has purchased from the iTunes store, eliminating the need to copy and share files between multiple music-playing devices?

Instead of boring you with implementation details, I think some ideal use cases would be better served here. Imagine being able to sit down at any computer that has iTunes and instantly access your entire iTunes library, not to mention play songs, edit playlists, and make even more purchases.  Imagine purchased iTunes media being immediately accessible on your iPhone after purchasing them from your personal computer. Imagine being bored at work and reorganizing one of your favorite playlists, and finding the updated playlist waiting for you when you get home.  Imagine never having to worry about having the disk space necessary to hold your entire library, because songs could be streamed in real-time whenever you wanted to listen to them. These are only the most basic examples I could come up with - but they are some of the most powerful. 

While I’m sure Apple has a slew of reasons to keep the Cloud away from iTunes, I think the model is the ideal future of media management. Being able to access any of your media whenever and wherever you like shouldn’t be a long-term future enhancement - the technology and bandwidth necessary for the change is already omnipresent, and I think Apple could make a killing by being the first, and perhaps only, Cloud-based music provider in the industry, making them even more unstoppable in the market than before.

So, Apple, the ball is in your court - show us the way.

If you’re a fan of zombie movies, you know that there are some constants in the equation that aren’t typically toyed with. Usually there’s little or no explanation as to why things went haywire or where the zombies came from. Survivors are usually found in small groups, and while they might not have known each other before the apocalypse, they’re extremely loyal to those they’re stuck with. Most importantly, the Zombies are plentiful, cunning, ruthless, and ugly, making them frightening to face and difficult to beat. It speaks volumes about the developers at Valve when I state that these elements of classic Zombie movies were translated perfectly into Left 4 Dead, and to top it all off, the game is just plain wicked.

When you turn on the game, the only pre-rendered cut scene in the entire game begins to play. While it’s extremely entertaining, it also serves as a tutorial of sorts to get you familiarized with the 4 survivors you’ll control, the available weapons, and the special zombies you’ll encounter as you play the game. Once that’s over, the menus make it pretty easy to hop into the game where you’ll find tips on the screen explaining the other details necessary to play. Right away, the atmosphere of the game makes itself known - the music is ominous, you can hear feint screams and growls off in the distance, and the survivors occasionally throw out suggestions in the form of one-liners that help you figure out just what the heck you’re supposed to be doing. Suffice it to say at a certain point you start feeling like the character, and not just the person controlling him or her.

Each campaign consists of 4-5 chapters followed by a “finale,” and the goal of each chapter is to advance from one safe room to the next, just trying to survive the inevitable zombie attacks you’ll face along the way. The finale is where you find a way to call for help and try to hold your ground against an impossible number of infected until they arrive, which is an extremely satisfying experience worthy of the name “finale.” One of the game’s major flaws is that it only has 4 campaigns, each one providing about 1.5 hours of game play to complete. But the game’s ace in the hole is it’s AI-based spawn algorithm, which dictates when, where, and what zombies appear throughout the level, as well as what weapon upgrades, health packs, and explosives you’ll find along the way. While it would be a lie to say that the campaigns are completely different on each play-through, it’s not a stretch to state that this mechanic provides plenty of pleasant surprises along the way, which will be enough to keep many players immersed and engaged in the game for some time.

But at the heart of Left 4 Dead is a multiplayer experience that demands teamwork and cooperation in order to survive the zombie onslaught. Every special zombie encountered throughout the game’s chapters have the ability to decimate one of the survivors while they helplessly squirm with no means to free themselves. This may sound like a cheap way to give the zombies an advantage over the survivors, but it forces players to adhere to a “live together, die alone” mentality that is unforgivingly strict. I’ll admit that my first games were spent hearing the cries of my teammates to get back with the group and take things slower, but before long it was easy to see that they were yelling at me for my own good - I wasn’t 50 feet in front of them before a hunter zombie had pinned me and slashed me into oblivion, a fate easily avoided if I had stuck with the group like my teammates knowingly suggested. 

Whether you’re playing online or solo, the game is identical - there are always 4 survivors and the ones that aren’t player controlled are AI based, and rarely does the computer do something stupid or selfish. One major complaint I have with Left 4 Dead is the lack of a 4-player split screen mode - after all, the game centers around four people forced to work together to survive… why shouldn’t those four people be able to huddle around the same television? But this gripe isn’t unique to Left 4 Dead, in fact it’s a problem that’s becoming more prevalent throughout this generation’s games. Still, it would’ve been a worthwhile addition to an already stellar game. On a final multiplayer note, the versus mode is also a ton of fun. Two teams of four alternate between acting as the survivors and the infected, with the infected controlling the special zombies spawning along the survivors’ route. It’s very well done, but only 2 campaigns can be played in versus mode, leaving it with a gimped and unfinished feel to it.

Still, the problems with Left 4 Dead are ones that could easily be remedied by DLC packs, which Valve has said will be forthcoming in the future. With the aforementioned lack of content, it would’ve been nice to see the game priced at $40 or even $50, with DLC packs costing $5-$10 per new campaign - as it stands now, the game feels a bit overpriced with only 4 levels to keep you busy. But the innovative game play and engaging and immersive atmosphere make Left 4 Dead hard to complain about, and it’s one of those “wait ’till you try this” games that will hook you right away and keep you occupied for a decent amount of time.

Coke: Side effects include epiphanies regarding the human race

After enjoying an ice-cold Coca Cola last night (although I wish it had been a Pepsi), I casually strolled into my kitchen and tossed the empty can aside into the garbage. I’d barely walked a foot before I realized that the trash was no place for a recyclable aluminum can, so I turned back around and moved it to its correct resting location. I had a bit of an epiphany at that moment, and reached the conclusion that what I had just experienced was a simple example of “active evolution,” or the “act of evolving.”

How does active evolution differ from the evolution that’s (supposedly, after all it’s still labeled a theory) been occurring for millions of years across our little planet? The simplest way to differentiate the two is to understand that traditional evolution is a result of environmental factors affecting biological entities – a passive form of change – whereas active evolution is a result of choices made again and again, until the behavior is second nature to the individual. Look at it this way: is recycling a Coke can built into my genome? Probably not. But can I condition my mind to recognize that recycling and reusing in any form is a better alternative to simply throwing things out? Most certainly.

While conditioning a mind to remember to recycle is a worthy endeavor, the true potential of active evolution lies in the changes it can bring to the facets of the human race most in need of a kick in the right direction. Discrimination still plays a prevalent role in much of America through racism, sexism, and sexual intolerance. You need look no further than to California’s last election results to observe that gay individuals are still treated differently than those who meet the “traditional definition” of two people in love – a marriage between a man and a woman. The U.S. has made steady strides towards greater equality in its government, but representation percentages are still far behind what they should be if we indeed live in a truly representational government. As an example, 16% of congress is represented by women despite the 51.6% majority they hold in the United States. African Americans and Hispanics each constitute about 12% of the population, but only account for 6% and 3% of congress, respectively.

Aside from these discrimination issues, it’s quickly becoming obvious that Earth’s population as a whole can’t continue to function in the traditional egocentric manner that we have for so long if we plan to continue to grow and thrive on this planet. The human civilization is reaching a point where the issues that threaten our survival can’t be solved by one or two global superpowers, but by pooling the resources of all of Earth’s nations. Poverty is rampant across the globe, wars are constantly being fought over money and religion, innovation in space exploration is stagnant, and even the countries that aren’t fighting with each other often deadlock progress because they’re only concerned with their best interests (of course the world’s superpowers tend to top that list). These qualities also dictate much of the politics throughout the United States – when was the last time a representative supported a bill because it was good for the country, and not because they were sly enough to get riders on to the bill in question. Just take a look at the recent $750 billion bailout package if you need an example – it was laced with tax breaks and incentives for a multitude of industries, including Hollywood producers, that are unrelated to the economic meltdown the bill is supposed to address.

With all that said, a global community working to solve this array of issues must be based on the concepts of true personal and national accountability, a genuine acceptance for all types of people and walks of life that exist around the world, and an agreement of trust between nations that what’s best for the Earth is best for those that inhabit it. Will this happen overnight? Certainly not. But (theoretically, of course) birds didn’t develop 500 different beaks that enable them to eat the fare they’re presented with in their habitats overnight either. Evolution is about little steps leading up to the ultimate big picture – the prosperity and advancement of the species, and each person on Earth should be responsible for their own personal active evolution to reach that end. Whether it’s catching your mind falling back on stereotypes based on a person’s race, gender, or sexual orientation, realizing that your carbon footprint is higher than it could be for no valid reason, or just working to train yourself to think about recycling and reusing things before dumping them in the trash. The potential for active evolution is everywhere – you just have to be strong enough to change yourself over time and lead by example for the greater good.

I, for one, will continue to accept the challenges of active evolution.

Anyone that’s known me since my video game beginnings is probably aware that I’ve had a long-standing bias against the Mortal Kombat series. I believed that MK was only successful because of its excessive violence along with a simplistic and accessible game-play style, so I never bothered to buy a single MK game over the 18 years the franchise has been around. When Midway made the announcement that the next MK iteration would include characters from the DC Universe, I think my reaction fell somewhere between utterly confused and extremely uninterested. I’m happy to say that I’ve been pleasantly surprised 

But instead of dwelling on the past, I’ll start focusing on the present. Midway is in dire straits. Since Mortal Kombat 3, they’ve released a slew of sequels across numerous platforms, each of which have seemed to detract farther from the heart and soul of the first 2 games. Shaolin Monks made character movement completely 3-D. Armageddon contained a whopping 63 playable characters. Deception made it possible to beat your opponent by pushing them off the side of the level. And while some of these mechanics may have been new and noteworthy, none of them were very successful at making the franchise better than it was before.  With MK vs. DC Universe, Midway appears to have returned to the roots of what made the series popular: a mix of the classic 2-D game-play with a few tricks to keep matches exciting and unpredictable.

The character roster is split down the middle between MK and DC notables. The Mortal Kombat fighters are all franchise classics (not a single one was introduced past MK2), and there is a healthy spectrum of DC combatants to choose from. At first, I was skeptical that a fight between Superman and Scorpion would be any fun – after all, the “Man of Steel” fighting against a hell-born ninja didn’t sound groundbreaking to me. But the key to the successful mixture of these two universes is the similarities you start to draw between them. After all, the characters from Mortal Kombat fit the bill of comic book creations extremely well, while any comic reader knows that the DC heroes have the ability to open a serious can of whoop ass when the situation calls for it. And how often have you had discussions with your buddies about who would win in a fight between Superman and Captain Marvel, or the Green Lantern and Batman. With MK vs. DC Universe, you don’t have to wonder anymore, and the results are extremely satisfying.

The DC Universe characters are also significantly different than the Mortal Kombat characters in terms of their special moves and abilities, so they don’t feel like carbon copies of each other, and this makes getting the hang of a new character both challenging and refreshing. Superman has a calm, brutal, unyielding style of fighting, The Flash is constantly unloading a flurry of punches and darting from side to side, and Batman is a heavy utility player with 4 different Batarang attacks in his arsenal – in fact, one of the most satisfying elements of the game is enjoying how polished every character ended up.

Unfortunately, the Xbox 360 controller suffers from a sub-par directional pad, which can make it difficult to stay precise during heated battles. I haven’t yet had a chance to try out the game on the PS3, but I’m assuming the controls are a bit more forgiving. Graphically, the game looks great – the graphics may not be groundbreaking but they certainly get the job done. The sound is equally satisfying, and hearing Scorpion’s trademark “Get over here” after spearing an opponent from afar is never a bad thing.

All in all, Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe is a must-play for lots of different types of people. If you’re a long-time MK fan, you owe it to yourself to check it out. If you’re a DC fan, then it can’t hurt to see your favorites in action against truly evil opponents. If you’re a fighting game fan in general, then there’s no reason to pass over what could be the best fighting game of 2008 – although MK vs. DC is arguably one of the only fighting games released in 2008, but that doesn’t mean it’s not fantastic. With Midway’s future in peril, it makes me pleased to see that they can still get an original franchise right if they focus, keep what’s good, and find new ideas to breathe new life into the series.

My first iPhone application is finally up on iTunes! it’s totally nerdy and I don’t expect many people will actually buy it, but hey, I figured out the iPhone SDK enough to actually publish an application on iTunes.

BAM!

Take a look here.

While I haven’t been an avid hockey fan my entire life, there’s no debating that my love for EA’s NHL franchise dates back to when I was a kid. I still remember hacking away on a PC joystick while my friend was begrudgingly confined to using the keyboard as we checked each other senseless, sometimes being treated to the visual splendor awarded by checking someone through the glass. While this experience has transformed tremendously over the years, I think my love for the series has peaked this year, due to the addition of some new game modes and the overall polish and quality of the game – but it’s not without its flaws.

The major differences between NHL ’08 and ’09 are actually quite minor – skaters control more realistically, goalies are smarter and less prone to idiotic mistakes, and some fun game modes were thrown into the mix. Checking in the game also received a few tweaks, so the physics defying takeouts that defined the game for the last 2 years now take a back seat to realistic momentum and size considerations. The skill stick also has a few new tricks up its sleeve, making it both easier to control and better than ever. To round out the changes, poke checking has been tweaked a bit to make it less dominant, and a “stick lift” button has been added to help disrupt passes and puck control.

At the heart of NHL ‘09 is the “Be a Pro” mode, the goal of which being to take a user-created player from the minor leagues to the NHL. Your player can fill the role of any position on the ice, and in the mode’s truest form he’s the only one you can control, so be ready to watch the game from the bench whenever your pro gets tired. I found the game mode to be a nice change of pace from the norm, but it’s main problem is the AI discrepancy between your teammates and your opponent. On one hand, the opponent AI seems to hit every check, realistically anticipate passes, handle offensive advantages correctly, and aggressively controls the slot in their defensive zone. Conversely, it consistently appears that your teammates’ AI does its best to avoid doing all these things, leading to extremely frustrating games of hockey. I find that when I get frustrated, I try to control the defensive slot in the same manner that the opponent AI does, only to be slapped with a cross checking or holding penalty on the second or third check. As an example, I uploaded two replays to make my point. The first shows a teammate scoring an own goal with no attackers around, while the second shows what kind of genius the CPU demonstrates on a 2 vs. 0 breakaway. It’s rare to play an entire game without running into a half-dozen of these snafus, but somehow the game still retains its enjoyability - perhaps because you feel more like a pro when you win despite your teammates’ best efforts.

The ability to save an instant replay is a welcome addition to the series, although it’s frustrating that the files are encoded videos rather than raw game data, so you won’t be able to catch a different point of view of the action when you watch the replay the second time around. Being able to upload replays to EA Sports’ website is also a welcome addition, and many users have submitted hilarious, frustrating, and painful videos for general public consumption.

All in all, NHL ‘09 is a notable improvement over last year’s iteration, but there’s still room for improvement for the franchise. The new game modes add new life into the single- and multiplayer modes in spite of your frustrating AI teammates, and the gameplay is both fun and realistic enough to keep you engaged if you’re an avid hockey game fan. If you’re considering whether to throw down the 60 bucks to upgrade from NHL ‘08, then you have to consider how much you want the new features - if you play the game enough, then the minor gameplay changes will be enough to keep you satisfied until NHL ‘10 makes its way onto the market.

I just hit up this deal and figured there might be a few others out there interested in taking advantage of it. I’ve never used Amazon.com’s digital download service, but it was extremely fast and the music files are simple DRM-free VBR .mp3 files, so you can’t really go wrong. 

Here’s the link: http://www.amazon.com/Fearless/dp/B001KPK6Q2?tag=slickdeals

Enjoy!

Dear California voters,

You’ve done it. I didn’t think it was possible, but you’ve finally made it happen. You’ve approved a proposition into law that takes away the privileges of same-sex couples who love each other enough to want to get married. At the same time, you overwhelmingly approved another proposition granting animals the privilege to lie down, turn around, and stretch their limbs fully. To paraphrase a sentiment that’s been permeating Facebook, you’ve decided that “animals are the ones that deserve rights in this election, not homosexuals.”

That quote may be a bit extreme, but that’s really what it came down to. Proponents of 8 are declaring that this is now the second time Californians have voted to eliminate same-sex marriage, although it’s important to note that their numbers have dwindled about 10% since an identical proposition, Prop 22, was passed back in 2000. Supporters also tout the fact that this proposition was merely a response to the California Supreme Court decision allowing same-sex marriages as a fundamental right under the law, which directly contradicted the voters’ will demonstrated with the approval of Prop 22. And most of all, they want to maintain the sanctity of marriage and keep the traditional spirit and definition of it alive, which they claim same-sex matrimony will destroy. Unfortunately, these arguments are fundamentally flawed.

As a preface, I should note that I’m against the state determining what does or does not constitute “a legal marriage under the law”. In fact, that statement is a contradiction in itself – marriage is a concept created and popularized by religion, and shouldn’t be subject to government control under the concept of separation of church and state. I believe it’s important for the state to keep records concerning civil partnerships, since marriage carries with it many obvious economical implications that often require the law behind them to make them legally valid. But determining exactly who has the right to be married should lie with the churches. And as much as it pains me as a human being to concede it, the precedence of court decisions have dictated that churches have the power to discriminate how they see fit.

But back to the matter at hand: why Prop 8 supporters are wrong to try to prevent homosexuals from entering into a marriage. Through the evolution of the U.S. government, many benefits and consequences are attached to couples engaging into marriage. Ranging from tax penalties and rebates to property and visitation rights, married couples are subject to certain rules than those who are not. Prop 8, to quote a line that opponents have been using for quite some time, essentially destroys “equal treatment under the law” for homosexuals – and while this country’s forefathers probably had no idea that homosexuality would be such a divisive issue in their nation today, that doesn’t change the fact that equal rights are the cornerstone on which this country was built. That shouldn’t change simply because an individual is a homosexual. And while marriage is not a right, every person receiving the same benefits and penalties under the law is. The last time I checked the Bill of Rights, the 14^th amendment clearly stated that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges… of citizens of the United States,” regardless of whether voters say otherwise. That was essentially the basis of the California Supreme Court’s decision to allow gay marriage, and it was the right one under the law. Should a gay marriage be called a marriage under the law? Perhaps not – like I said, the churches should be the ones to decide that. But that isn’t what is truly at issue here, even though supporters of Prop 8 would tell you otherwise – this is about the right to equal treatment under the law, which in America is non-negotiable.

I think the argument I find the most ridiculous being trumpeted from the supporters of Prop 8 is the desire to maintain the “sanctity” and “traditional definition” of marriage. Sure, one could assume that they’re talking about a traditional Christian marriage based on love between a man and a woman with the purpose of procreation of the species, but that’s a closed-minded view when you look at the rest of the world. Some people in the United States believe that marriage is an economic agreement between two families that is meant to be arranged by the parents, but those marriages are still recognized. Some marriages are haphazardly entered into when two people elope without knowing if they truly love the other person, and those marriages are still recognized. Some marriages are the result of the couple needing a green card, or an inheritance, or a stake in the family business, and even those are recognized. Not to mention the fact that 41% of marriages in the United States end in divorce, which itself seems to detract from the “sanctity of marriage” and the definition of a “traditional marriage.” Many marriage vows contain phrases like “for life,” and “till death do us part,” and the bible even declares that “what God has joined together, let no man separate.” It appears that 41% of America disagrees with that definition of marriage – isn’t it only fair that the requirement that it must be between a man and a woman be reexamined as well?

With the election over, it’s easy to forget the messages that were being thrust upon the constituents of California regarding Prop 8. But if you examine the points that each side presented in order to try and snatch up voters for their cause, the campaign run by the supporters of Prop 8 can only be described as “sleazy.” Quoting San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom’s speech in which he declares that “whether you like it or not, this is happening,” was the first strike against the campaign. A few years from now, we quite possibly could be looking back on that speech in the same way we look back at Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King Jr. regarding racial segregation in the U.S.  Clearly Newsom’s contributions can’t be compared to those of Parks and King Jr., but his attitude that “this is right, so it’s only a matter of time before it happens,” runs parallel to those visionaries.  Another dirty trick by the supporters of 8 was to imply that schooling would be required to accommodate lessons about gay marriage. While I’m not qualified to say if that’s actually true or not, I can say that tolerance of lifestyles that are different than ours has as much place in schools as it does in our homes. Since I grew up in a diverse area, going to school meant interacting with kids of different ethnicities and religious backgrounds, which helped me understand that the kids around me weren’t at all different from myself in regards to their rights, privileges, and how they should be treated. Luckily for me, I had parents that thought the same way and taught me that treating others differently for any reason was a bad thing. Sadly, I worry that a number of the proponents of Prop 8 that don’t want gay marriage taught in schools are the same people that shelter their children by avoiding the subject, or who casually verbally belittle homosexuals while their children are quietly listening and learning the language of discrimination.

Even though I wish I would’ve written this before the general election this past Tuesday, I’m convinced that state and federally recognized same-sex marriages are an inevitability. Perhaps it won’t be called a marriage – if I had my way both homo- and heterosexual unions would be classified as such in the government’s eyes – but that shouldn’t detract from the agreement that couples enter into. After all, even though marriage is similar in many different religions around the world, there are too many subtle differences in philosophy and practice to label all partnerships under the law as a “marriage,” and it’s time to put a stop to it. But one step at a time…

This is more of a cheat sheet for me than an actual story… but I do a bit better thinking out loud than I do silently. So here’s what I’m thinking for tomorrow’s election:

Prop 1A: Yes
I want a high speed railway through California and I’m willing to pay for it. If you’re not, then you’d obviously vote otherwise.

Prop 2: No
Ironically, this is a “chicken or the egg” dilemma for me. I believe all animals should be treated humanely even if it increases the cost of the goods by 20%. There’s no doubt that’s a hefty increase, but maybe that just means veal and eggs should cost a bit more for the consumer. Based on a Davis study I found, the problem would lie in how the farming companies will handle the burden of Prop 2 - they’ll simply move to another state. That’s not good for us, no matter how you look at it. If Prop 2 presented some tax incentives to those farms that upgrade and stay in California (which must be completed in under 7 years), then perhaps more companies would stick around. Then the companies could offset the cost of the upgrade a bit, the state would receive higher taxes when the price of these goods increases, and the people would benefit because over the next 7 years jobs would be created to upgrade the facilities in question.

 Prop 3: No
I really can’t decide on this one. The opponents of this prop note that a similar bond passed in 2004 that awarded $750 million still has nearly half the pot left, but they’re unclear as to whether that money has been earmarked for short-term improvement projects. The supporters seem to omit facts and merely display pictures of children and happy people to get the message across that money for these things should never be denied. While I don’t want to be the type of guy to deny money to the subject of the previously mentioned imagery, I feel that the supporters didn’t do sufficient work to deserve my tax money. I just hope they didn’t neglect the promotion of their prop because they figured no one would be cold-hearted enough to deny money to children’s hospitals…

Prop 4: Abstain
I’m in no position to tell a woman how they are required to handle an abortion. Nor should I dictate whether a child should be forced to communicate to their parents if they’re having an abortion. While this may affect me much more in the future, for now there are others who should have more of a say on this proposition than me.

Prop 5: No
After reading stuff on this, all I can say is something Stewie said at one point: “This guy don’t sit right wit’ me, Lois. He don’t sit right wit’ me.” The drug law reforms being proposed and the list of the prop’s largest supporters left me decidedly opposed to it.

Prop 6: Yes
If I’m reading this right, a Yes on this would mean: children 14 and up involved in a “gang-related” felony would be tried as adults, those living in public housing are subject to yearly criminal background checks and lose subsidies if infractions are found, and denies bail for illegal aliens charged with violent or “gang related” crimes and requires notification to customs of the arrest. Opponents note that individuals may be falsely entered into the gang database, which could be used to determine if a crime was “gang-related.”

Prop 7: No
I’m for renewable energy, but this prop doesn’t seem to be the way to do it.

Prop 8: No
Duh

Prop 9: No

Prop 10: Yes
It’s easy to want to vote yes after noticing that OPEC is a major opponent of this proposition, and more reading let me to the conclusion that this bill offers some good incentives for cleaner energy for everyone in California.

Prop 11: Abstain
If you vote no, you’re with Democrat incumbents who seem to want to keep their jobs. if you vote yes, you’re with newspapers that want fairness and Republicans who seem to want a piece of the representation pie. I’m not really sure what to vote here…

Prop 12: Yes
Voters have never denied a proposition rewarding funds to veteran’s affairs, and I see no reason to stop now. I do think that there should be a bit more accountability regarding usage of the funds, but voting no on this bill doesn’t seem like the way to do that. 

If I’ve fibbed on the information on any of these props, please let me know - I like to vote based on TRUE information, rather than what’s shown on campaign commercials.

As I enjoyed this week’s Office episode, I was unusually receptive to two commercials that happened to fall immediately after the show went to a break: one for the iPhone and the other for the Google phone. Both struck a note with me…

The iPhone commercial appeared first. This was the first one I had ever seen, and I was impressed by how similar it was to an Apple commercial. The two are very similar in their simplistic “i wonder if” scenarios that entice you to buy their device, but I felt that the Google phone’s commercial should have demonstrated more of the device’s features - instead I was left with the notion that the gPhone’s strongest feature was something readily available on the iPhone since its initial launch. I can tell you from experience that I picked up a gPhone and I couldn’t even unlock it and the interface impressed me because of the locking mechanism alone. I was prompted to draw a picture through a 4×4 dot matrix to unlock the phone, which I can only describe as simplistic in an extremely obvious fashion, as if the iPhone should’ve been doing this for years.

Then, during the next break, and iPhone commercial was presented to me. It demonstrated the ability to instantenously download applications that were ready for use within seconds of it being requested. As a 3-month old 3G iPhone user, I can tell you that this is certainly not the experience that should be expected during normal use of the phone. Apps take anywhere from 20 to 60 seconds to install, and often delay normal operations until they’re complete. And while I do agree that getting and using iPhone apps is as simple as buying a song on iTunes is, the user experince being presented in the commercial is simply not true to actual behavior. Much like car manufacturers must present sales in an honest and upfront manner, Apple should be held to the same standard, notifying potential buyers that, at best, what is being presented is partially a fabrication of actual truth.

Now that I’ve written out those thoughts, it’s clear that there’s nothing similar in the two - I guess what struck me as interesting was the fact that two commericals, which I religiously skip thanks to TiVO, caught my attention enough for me to form an opinion on them.

Plus I’m a bit tipsy from Light’s birthday Sake bombing. So I guess it’s time to go kill Alex in Halo.