When is suicide funny?

I don't have too much to say about this, but I just wanted to comment.  Recently I read an article about how a car manufacturer had to pull an ad because it depicted a man trying to kill himself in his garage with one of their vehicles that apparently has very clean emissions, so, naturally, he wasn't able to succeed.

And, naturally, this sparked outrage and seemed to have offended many people.  Not a surprise, really, and sure, if I had to be honest, if I were in advertising I would probably adopt a conservative attitude as well and not make fun of something that is so controversial.

The question that is on my mind, though, is exactly why this is perceived as wrong.  Because the thing is, the topic of suicide is already dealt with in a lighthearted manner in many scenarios, especially comedy.  Isn't this something that is already the subject of jokes in popular culture, especially movies and television?  So if we can laugh about it in one context, it seems hypocritical of us not to apply that rule to every form of human expression.

Reminds me of the one Seinfeld episode where he said "Aren't we getting a little too sensitive?" when he bought the statue of the wooden Indian for the Native American woman that he had a crush on.  Still, I think hardly anyone is truly immune to this, and I'm probably no exception -- sometimes the things I hear or see bother me as well.  The question is, does the world end or the universe explode every time that happens.

Office Subscription and Linux: Okay, I Can't Be Trusted

Funny how things change.  Two things I wrote about recently included my feelings about the transformation of Microsoft Office into more of a "subscription-based" format, and how I abandoned Ubuntu Linux because I bought a new motherboard that incorporates UEFI.

Well, forget I even said anything about it.

Number one, because I couldn't even activate my copy of Office 2010 on my new system, I basically felt like I didn't have much choice other than to surrender to the whole new way that Office is being delivered.  Which I did -- I finally went ahead and signed up for Office 365 Home Premium.

And you know what?  I'm actually okay with it.

As my original blog post indicated, I was not crazy about the idea at first.  However, I guess once I started to look at it from a value and mathematical standpoint, it made just as much sense economically to do it this way as opposed to buying it the old-fashioned way on disc in a retail box.  I get the entire suite, with 20 GB of extra cloud storage, and the allowance of five licenses means I don't have to worry about running out of activations or installs.  The $99 per year means that it's going to cost roughly the same, since up until now we've basically been shelling out more than that every few years when Office gets refreshed anyways.

And I love the enhancements and the sleek evolutionary improvements to the appearance of the apps.  In short, I guess I was wrong.

And what about Linux?  Well, like I said, it wasn't that I was taking a position that I now hated Linux, it's just that I didn't want to bother with the possibility of it being a real headache to get Ubuntu working with my new hardware.

But ... that's what virtual machines are for!

Yes, that's why I'm quite firm in my belief that we are living in great technological times, with PCs that are just oozing with power and built-in technology that actually facilitates things like virtualization.  So I downloaded the new version of Linux Mint KDE and Virtual Box, and I once again, after a brief absence, have Linux in my life.

The new version of Mint looks so darn cool, and it runs great in the virtual machine.  When I set the thing to run in full-screen mode, you'd be hard-pressed to tell that it's an operating system running on top of another operating system.  It's that seamless.

In short, I'm glad, because I do want to continue to give Linux some consideration.

So I reversed my position on two recent significant issues.  Remember to always take me with a grain of salt.

The Irony of Bringing Back the Start Button

Well, as you may have already heard, rumor has it that Microsoft might cave in to the vociferous masses that have been complaining about Windows 8's user interface, and with the upcoming release of Windows 8.1 (or "Blue," or whatever its name might be), actually provide a Start button and the ability to bypass the Start screen and go straight to your desktop when you first log into your machine.

Here's what I think is interesting about this.  What people seem to neglect to acknowledge is the fact that, in a technical sense, it would be inaccurate to say that Windows 8 in its current form doesn't already have a Start button.  It's just that it's not visible in the same way that the "classic" Start button was.  In order to see it, you have to move your mouse into either the lower-left corner of your desktop, or into the upper-right or lower-right corner (via the Charms bar).

Some people may argue that this means it's "hidden," and therefore, gone.

But I say we need to think about what "hidden" means.  In many cases, "hidden," or to "hide something," means that, well, you don't want the item in question to be discovered.  Think about it -- if you were to hide some cookies that you didn't want your children to eat before dinner because they'd spoil their appetite, you would hide them extremely well hoping that that they wouldn't be found, correct?

But with Windows 8, this is not the case.  Virtually everything that the old Start button used to do is still there, the only difference is, the user interface mechanism has to be triggered with a new behavior.  In fact, Windows 8 has two locations for "Start" on the desktop -- one in the lower-left corner (that acts as a hot spot) and the other via the Charms on the right -- whereas Windows 95, 98, XP, etc., had only one -- the Start button, in the lower-left corner.

Granted, it was, "visible."  Not "hidden."

But Windows 8 still leads with two Start locations, versus one for previous versions of the OS.

Two versus one.

So Microsoft might be bringing back the Start button, even though there is not one, but two clickable areas that already exist in Windows 8's current form for this very function.  You are meant to know that they are there!  (There is even an animated demo showing you how to use these features that runs during the Windows 8 installation.)

And remember folks, you can also press the Windows key on your keyboard.

I guess I have to admit that I may not be in the camp alongside those that think this needs to be done.  I adjusted to the new behavior in Windows 8 because I understand the vision of unifying the entire platform, from desktops to laptops to tablets to phones.  It makes sense to me.

I don't deny that perhaps Microsoft should have, all along, at least allowed the option to keep elements of the old user interface alive so that people could adjust at their own pace.  But in the end, I can't help but think that the public has over-reacted to all of this.

Saying Goodbye to Linux (Again)

Well, I'm very excited because I just upgraded my PC with a new motherboard and CPU.  One negative aspect, however, is the fact that since it incorporates a UEFI BIOS, using Linux (I had a whole separate hard drive dedicated to running Ubuntu) now becomes a bit of a thorny issue.

Of course, if I were to just follow these (cough) simple instructions, I should, in theory, be able to get it to work:

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UEFI

But you know what?  Forget it.  I'm not going to bother.  Now, that doesn't mean that I hate Linux now or that I think it's not a good match for certain people in certain scenarios.  It simply means that, for the time being, I'm fed up with stuff like this.  I try to be so open-minded toward this platform, but the plain truth is that I'm having a much smoother time living within the Microsoft ecosystem at the moment where I don't have to jump through all these silly hoops.

Good luck, Linux.  I might be back.  Someday.

A Must-Have Tool: Metro Vacuum DataVac Pro MDV-1BA

Attention all computer owners: I highly recommend this vacuum I just bought.  It's the DataVac Pro MDV-1BA by Metro Vacuum.  Not only is it a vacuum, but it's also a blower, so it's perfect for those times when you want to clean the dust out of your PC.  Finally I don't have to buy cans of compressed air over and over again!

The construction of the machine seems very solid, and it comes with quite a few accessories.  And it's MADE IN THE USA, BABY!  Who says America can't produce anything anymore?

Give it some thought -- I think it's worth it.

Possible Flaw in Gun Proponent Reasoning

I had a thought the other day about all the gun nonsense that has been going on in my country lately.

Now, I actually do believe that 99% of those people who want to legally and safely own a gun are not crazy nutjobs who plan on conducting shooting sprees at their local mall.  I'm sure the vast majority of gun proponents simply want to own them because they see it as a hobby, for sport, hunting, or self-defense.

But that last argument -- self-defense -- may have some holes in it, and I think I thought of at least one.

For example, one of the common arguments I hear is that it takes a good person with a gun to stop a bad person with a gun.

Okay, I can see the logic there.  Sort of.

But what about other situations where a suspect is perhaps engaging in a type of behavior that requires intervention, but is not armed?  Doesn't that upset the balance in favor of the person with the gun?  Bullets vs. no bullets?

I mean, sure, a situation where somebody comes up to you and tries, with force, to take your wallet or purse is an awful scenario.  I wouldn't want it to happen to me, and I don't want it to happen to anybody else.

But if a supposedly "good" citizen decides he's going to dispense justice with his weapon -- directed at the thief, who is in extremely close physical proximity to the victim -- then who's to say that this won't have unintended consequences?  Could the victim get shot?  Could innocent bystanders be harmed?

What if someone with a borderline personality has an emotional crisis and then a public meltdown, followed by yelling and screaming, but no actual plan or intent to kill anybody?

My mother once told me that in post-war times in Europe (before she came to America), she once stole some food.  A lot of people would probably do that in order to survive.  But she wasn't armed.  What if somebody put a stop to that with a gun?

Maybe Barack Obama is not a terrorist?

Okay, first off, let me say that I'm rather bad at politics to a certain degree.  So I'm not going to go on some kind of tangent where I say that Barack Obama is a saint, or that Democrats are all good and Republicans are all bad.  For all I know, maybe Barack Obama sucks in more ways than one.

But I'd like to propose something: Because we can't always trust what we read on the Internet (apparently), is it acceptable for me to come to the conclusion that Barack Obama is actually not a terrorist?

Here's the reasoning behind it.

Not too long ago at work I was talking with my fellow coworkers as we were conducting our business.  I happened to mention something that I read online that I thought was interesting, a bit of "wisdom" that somebody had shared in their signature.  It was this simple, one-line statement: "Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light."

I think that's neat.  Do I think this is an absolute truism?  Probably not, but I think it's thought-provoking, and I shared it with my coworkers.

At that point, one of them decided that he didn't agree, and supported his view by citing the somewhat universally accepted notion that "You can't believe everything you read online."  And this same coworker happens to be someone who has, on multiple occasions, voiced his disapproval about many of the things that Barack Obama has done (or is doing).

But here's the thing ... on another occasion, I also once read online that the media in the United States was disgusting because they were going out of their way to force a "known terrorist" at us ... the terrorist being Barack Obama.

This was written by someone in the Usenet newsgroup comp.sys.mac.advocacy.

Okay, so there you have it.  I read it online.

But ... I can't trust everything I read online.

If I explained this to my coworker, would that change his mind?