Lost in HD is a beautiful sight. Unless it's a shot of Ben's bloodied face. Then it's a vividly gory sight. Ever since we got our HD Tivo in December I've been waiting for the chance to watch the new season of Lost in HD. It didn't disappoint. Too bad we'll only see seven more episodes for the time being. Here's some interesting tidbits. Hurley is part of the "Oceanic Six". We can assume this means exactly six survivors made it off the island. This includes Hurley, Jack, and Kate. It's also reasonable to assume that whoever was in the coffin at the end of Season 3 is also part of the Oceanic Six. Or not. Who knows? There's still people living on the island after the six were rescued and the Oceanic Six are keeping that a secret. It seems those who got off the island eventually regret it and want to return. Will we see a flash-forward where Kate goes crazy and wants to go back to the island also? It was cool to see Charlie in the episode but that does bring up an interesting question. Jack had a vision of his dead father on the island. Other survivors have also had visions or heard things. So is Hurley seeing Charlie the same phenomena as Jack seeing his dad on the island. If so then that may be the first time we've seen the "specialness" of the island manifest itself in the real world. They seemed to go to great lengths to connect Hurley getting lost and seeing Jacob's shack with his seeing Charley. Just thinking out loud here. Anyway, can't wait for the next seven episodes.

I had to go to Safeway to get Cream of Wheat this past weekend. There were four different kinds on the shelf and the only difference between them was the time required to cook. The times included, "Instant", "1 Minute", "2.5 Minutes" and "10 Minutes". Does this make sense to anybody? Do the first three cooking times really need to be that granular? Is there a significant taste or nutritional difference between the instant, 1 and 2.5 minutes versions? I don't actually eat the stuff myself. Emily is the one who wanted it and she only wanted the 10 minute version.

I got Guitar Hero 3 (Xbox360) for my birthday last Wednesday. I plowed through career mode on Easy and Medium. Now the fun begins. I've heard Hard is disproportionally harder than Medium. :) I'm kind of bummed that some songs can only be unlocked in co-op career mode though. Still, a great game that was worth waiting for. My plan is to play the heck out of GH3 for about a month and then pick up Rock Band. I got the 500 note streak achievement in some song on Easy. Can't remember which one though. Also, Star Power seems to activate itself a lot without me doing anything. I don't know if it's the way I'm holding the controller or what but it may make the "Who Needs the Power" achievement a little difficult.

Obi-wan Kenobi: "Look at these blast points. Too accurate for sand people. Only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise." Riiiiight.

It's been almost a year since the Burning Crusade expansion has been available and my wife and I finally walked through the Dark Portal to Outland together last night. It's been a long road leveling up for us but we're starting to have some real fun with this game again. The speedier leveling improvements Blizzard introduced in patch 2.3 helped out too. With only about a hour spent questing in Outland we already have upgraded a couple pieces of armor and a weapon each. Expect more World of Warcraft related blog entries to come.

So my wife (level 58 Rogue) and I (level 58 Warrior) are killing stuff up in the Noxious Glade when she gets an Orb of Deception. Hmm. Look innocuous enough to her at first. After handing it off to a friend for a short period of time she does some research on the web and learns it is worth quite a bit of gold. She politely asks for it back and now has a pending offer for it on the auction house for 950 Gold! Talk about hitting the jackpot! I thought I pulled in a lot of dough by selling mineral bars. She blew away my income over the last few months with one sale! And to think we were worried about not being able to afford epic mounts when we reached level 60.

I have a legitimate question I'd like to ask without sounding like I'm taking sides. Net neutrality is generally considered a positive thing by internet activists. And by internet activists I mean people who spend a lot of time using and working on the internet. People like me. People like the readers of Digg and this site. People who work here or at, Google, Yahoo, etc. These people generally consider it a bad thing if a network provider like AT&T or Verizon were allowed to give preferential treatment to certain online companies for a fee. Now consider this question CNET News asked to a variety of presidential candidates recently as part of their Technology Voter's Guide. Congress has considered Net neutrality legislation, but it never became law. Do you still support the legislation that was re-introduced in 2007 (S 215), which gives the FCC the power to punish "discriminatory" conduct by broadband providers? Now the popular answer among the internet kids would to to say, "Yes, I support that. The Internet should be kept network neutral as it is and has always been." That's what Barack Obama said in his answer.

"Yes. As I stated during my visit to Google on November 14, I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality. The Internet is the most open network in history. We have to keep it that way. I will prevent network providers from discriminating in ways that limit the freedom of expression on the Internet. Because most Americans have a choice of only one or two broadband carriers, carriers are tempted to impose a toll charge on content and services, discriminating against Web sites that are unwilling to pay for equal treatment. This could create a two-tier Internet in which Web sites with the best relationships with network providers can get the fastest access to consumers, while all competing Web sites remain in a slower lane. Such a result would threaten innovation, the open tradition and architecture of the Internet, and competition among content and backbone providers. It would also threaten the equality of speech through which the Internet has begun to transform American political and cultural discourse. Accordingly, network providers should not be allowed to charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some Web sites and Internet applications over others. This principle will ensure that the new competitors, especially small or nonprofit speakers, have the same opportunity as incumbents to innovate on the Internet and to reach large audiences. I will protect the Internet's traditional openness to innovation and creativity, and ensure that it remains a platform for free speech and innovation that will benefit consumers and our democracy." -- Barack Obama

John McCain being a Republican takes a different approach. While giving sort of a non-answer to the question it's pretty clear he's opposed to net neutrality.

"In general, I believe that we need to move to a different model for enforcing competition on the Internet. Its focus should be on policing clearly anticompetitive behavior and consumer predation. In such a dynamic and innovative setting, it is not desirable for regulators to be required to anticipate market developments, intervene in the market, and try to micromanage American business and innovation." -- John McCain

What about the candidate who seems to be the favorite among heavy Internet users. Here's how Ron Paul answered when asked if he supports net neutrality legislation.

"No. Net neutrality legislation will hamper the development of new Internet services and harm consumers in the long run. The best way to address the concerns of proponents of Net neutrality is to remove government-imposed barriers to entry into the Internet provider market." -- Ron Paul

I was amazed when I read that. This is the candidate who has so much support from technically savvy people. People who are extremely in favor of net neutrality. And he comes out and says he against it with an unambiguous "No." So again I ask, why is the Internet crowd so in love with this guy? I'm not taking sides here. I'm just trying to make sense of this apparent paradox.

Yes, I paid $9.99 for Radiohead's In Rainbows on the iTunes Store. Here's why. 1) I chose to pay nothing at all when they offered it on their own website knowing full well I'd buy it in some other format later. 2) The tracks are 256K DRM-free AAC. Pretty cool. 3) I want to encourage Radiohead to be on the iTunes Store and hope someday they'll expand their offerings there. Thom York, please lose the notion that Radiohead's albums are such works of art that they must be taken in as a whole instead of individual tracks. Most of your fans will buy the whole album anyway but some people are going to just want the "Green Plastic Trees" song and nothing else. That's perfectly okay. Deal with it.

The A's trade Nick Swisher for 3 freakin' prospects!? You have to be kidding me! Chronicle Article

So Leia ends up following Wicket back to the Ewok village where they just happen to have a dress on hand that fits her perfectly.