I must be a "throwback"

I'm a computer guy, which nigh on guarantees that I'm a caffeine fiend. My method of choice for getting that caffeine has always been through canned soda (which, among its other virtues, ensures "portion control"... no aimlessly wandering back and forth to the coffee pot for the umpteenth time for me). Thanks to my past military life, it doesn't even need to be "cold"... I'm quite happy drinking room-temperature soda (something that will make many readers here cringe, I'm sure).

Of course, in certain circles, that brings into play the whole "High Fructose Corn Syrup" thing... which can range from the simple "sugar tastes better" to the extreme "HFCS is the root cause of all obesity in America these days" conversations, often with somebody else handy taking the extreme end of the argument, be that "HFCS and sugar are indistinguishable by taste" or "HFCS is totally harmless". Being pragmatic, I take what I can get, and that has meant the HFCS version of soda for the most part.

Pepsi just released "throwback" (read, sugar-sweetened) versions of some of their sodas, including my perennial favorite, Mountain Dew... so, now we all have a unique opportunity to try both versions, head-to-head if you so choose, and determine for yourself the truth on the taste issue, at least. On Mountain Dew, at least, the sugar version is definitely superior to the "standard" version to my tastebuds... plus, it doesn't leave nearly as much of a syrupy film behind once you've finished a can.

Of course, I could be biased... one of the things I noticed was that it tasted very much like the Mountain Dew I had over in Japan, which was a visit I thoroughly enjoyed, so there could be some of that "nostalgia" creeping in. For me, though, the question of how much what your soda's sweetened by matters has been answered... kick that HFCS to the curb, and make the "throwback" version the standard.

If it's a small, call it a small.

So yeah, I eat a lot of fast food for lunch. Most places have stayed reasonably constant over time, menu-wise... the evil that is McDonalds, for example, has pretty much always had Big Macs and Quarter Pounders, for all that quality might have taken a slide.

Not so with Arby's. There was a time when they had a small, medium, and large roast beef sandwich. Then, they started shrinking the size of the sandwiches to eke out a few more cents per customer. Then, to fill out their top end, they came up with the Big Montana. Then, apparently they weren't interested in offering a White Castle-sized sandwich, so they dropped the small, leaving them with Medium, Large, and Big Montana. Then, somebody decided that was silly, so they renamed them Small, Medium, and Large.

Now, apparently, somebody decided that they just don't like the word "small"... so their basic lineup of sandwiches are now listed as Regular, Medium, and Large. Here's a little hint for anybody from Arby's corporate management that stumbles on this post... if you focused a little more on the product you're selling, and not what it's called, you might do better.

Internet as utility

So, in case you hadn't heard, Time Warner Cable wanted to test-drive a tiered Internet pricing plan... and customer response, naturally, was howls of outrage. Not being a customer of theirs, I wasn't directly affected... but the abhorrent concept could certainly sweep into other Internet providers, should TWC succeed.

Today, I stumbled across somebody actually defending TWC's attempts, on the basis that TWC needs to recoup money they're losing from their cable business, and that the Internet is now more utility than luxury, so should be metered and priced accordingly. Here is the original article.

So, first off... TWC (or any cable company, for that matter) isn't entitled to their cable revenue. They're a private entity, and need to provide value for money paid to succeed in the market place. I'm sure the analogy isn't exactly right, but if, back in early automobile days, a company sold both gasoline and buggy whips, thinking they're entitled to jack the price of gas to offset the fallout of their buggy whip line would have been meet with well-deserved scorn.

Second, I'm all for treating Internet access as a utility. Of course, that means that access should either be provided by a public entity at cost, or that prices should be monitored and regulated by some sort of oversight body. Somehow, I don't think that's exactly what TWC or that article's author was envisioning, exactly.

At any rate, it's a moot point for the moment... looks like TWC has realized the PR nightmare they initiated, so they're scrapping the trial until they can improve their "customer education process" (link). Here's hoping this idea stays well and truly dead.

So, it's tax day...

This is one of those "events" that has never made any sense to me. I don't mean that I don't see a need for a deadline (otherwise, nobody would pay what they owed, obviously), just that I don't see how anybody holds off until the last minute in preparing their taxes, then need to rush to the post office mere minutes before midnight to get their stuff in on time.

If you expect to get money back, doing your taxes ASAP is a no-brainer (why let the government keep your money for any longer than necessary?). If you might need to send more to Uncle Sam, preparing your taxes early still makes sense (so you know how big of a bite you're in for)... if you need or want to hold off on sending it in afterwards, great. Maybe these people are worried about losing their tax forms in the meantime, or forgetting to send them off?

Semantic curiosity

I try to keep reasonably close tabs on the news... in the process, I often catch the same story from multiple sources, so I've gotten fairly adept at determining where word choice implies spin, and what bias is being served by that spin. Today's news has a developing story that looks to have that aspect to it... but I can't determine whether it's spin, or ignorance on the part of reporters, or myself, or some admixture of them all.

A cargo ship, the Maersk Alabama, was captured by Somali pirates. During those early reports, it was simply referred to as "U.S. flagged", which makes sense... sure, it's a holdover from "wooden ships and iron men" days, but even cargo ships have to be claimed by a country, to prevent random confiscation by one country or another. Later, the crew reclaimed control of the ship... and the news reports start referring to them as a "U.S. crew". That's where my questions begin... is there a requirement that flagged vessels be manned by a crew of that country's nationals? Or, is it just an assumption on the part of some reporter, which was picked up and run with by all the news agencies? Or... is it a more purposeful manipulation of the readers... which is to say, "Oh, this ship, which happens to be registered in the U.S., got captured by pirates", followed by "The brave American crew retook their ship from those nasty pirates"?

Oh well, maybe time will out, maybe not... but I do wish I could get the Joe Friday "just the facts" version of the news, on occasion.

I wish this was an April Fools joke...

I was well-pleased when Senator Ted Stevens was convicted in court and, subsequently, lost his Senate seat in the last election. Now, before sentencing has been set, the Justice Department has decided to drop the charges, due to evidence that should have been turned over to Stevens's defense, but wasn't. That's bad enough... but what's worse, they're not going to run a new trial, now that all the evidence is available. (link)

Of course, the Justice Department is spinning their choice as being in deference to the advanced age of Stevens (85), and the fact that he's no longer in the Senate. Stevens's team, on the other hand, is spinning it as a corrupt prosecution, and, of course, their client was wholly innocent the entire time... and that's why a new trial needs to be held.

As things stand, Stevens is now a political martyr for his party, unjustly accused and thrown out of power, a shining example of what's wrong with "the government"... and anybody who thinks nobody will take that tack with this story is entirely too naive. Heck, it's not even unthinkable that Stevens himself won't take another run at government on just such a platform... he didn't loose his senate seat by that large of a margin, and he certainly has name recognition in Alaska. He doesn't even need to wait for his Senate seat to come up when he's 91... he could just as easily do a term or two in the House of Representatives first.

This is a situation where certainty is needed, and considerations for the age and status of the accused are inappropriate. If the evidence is there to convict Stevens, then bring on a new trial. If, on the other hand, the totality of the evidence is so weak that you can't convict, then say so, however embarrassing for the Justice Department it may be. Oh, and be sure to let us know what you intend to do about your "rogue" prosecutors... don't add to this festering pile by letting them quietly slip away, too.