Ok, so I’m not an expert on Net Neutrality nor do I ascribe to know every little detail of the potential for the FCC to reclassify parts of the communication structure so they can begin regulating the Internet. But here’s the situation where it stands right now.

Where We Are Now

Right now, the Obama administration has suggested for the FCC to reclassify some communications so that it can begin regulating the Internet within the United States. Currently there is no regulating body for the Internet in the USA, so basically anybody can do anything on it, period. The Obama administration sees this as a potential threat to the openness of the Internet because without regulation, Internet service providers (ISPs) can do whatever they please with that access. Allowing the FCC to regulate the Internet allows it to tell ISPs what they can and cannot do, where right now ISPs have pretty much a free reign. Without regulation, ISPs cannot be forced to abide by Net Neutrality.

The status quo of ISPs is that nobody really does this kind of thing en-masse. There were a few instances recently where some ISPs tried blocking torrent access, which in some lights is understandable. Torrents are massively peer-based downloads that allow you to get parts of a file from all over. A lot of torrent activity is illegal, but at the same time there are plenty of legal uses for torrents, so blocking them outright also blocks legitimate use. While none are really using these tactics, some have suggested they might to increase their bottom lines.

Ok, What’s Net Neutrality?

I’m glad you asked. Net Neutrality is the idea that ISPs have to be neutral about the content flowing through their networks. Net Neutrality (NN from hereon out) means that an ISP cannot look into the content any of its subscribers is accessing for any reason other than legal issues. There are a lot of proponents of NN and from what I’ve seen and understand, not a whole lot of consumers that don’t want it.

Without NN, ISPs can basically do whatever they want in regards to the content flowing through their networks. There are plenty of worst-case scenarios out there when it comes to this subject, so we’ll stay away from those as they’re unlikely. After all, even if ISPs start going against NN and use content requests to make decisions, consumers won’t stick with an ISP when they have a choice for another if their current ISP starts getting too draconian.

One great example I found online mimics the tiered strategy that television service providers use to make tiers of different channels, like so:

From charlesgarwood.com

In this example, you would have to pay your ISP $10 more per month to be able to access music-related websites and services, such as iTunes. Yes, in this example, not only would you be paying anywhere from 69 to 129 cents per song, you’d also be paying $10 per month to your ISP for the right to access iTunes’ Internet services at all.

Another example of what an ISP could do is dropping the transfer rate of traffic. So instead of blocking access entirely, an ISP could just put certain traffic at a lower priority in terms of speed. If this were the case, then you could have reduced service to iTunes unless you pay $10 more per month.

Now let’s apply a different tactic to blocking or slowing service. Instead of charging the consumer extra to access those websites, an ISP could instead charge the website operator some fee to keep their website on a normal service level. So unless Apple pays your ISP in some fee structure, the ISP could simply block or slow traffic to iTunes because Apple wouldn’t pay the ransom, err extortion, err fee.

These are just some examples of what ISPs could do if they were not bound to NN. I’m sure creative executives could come up with all sorts of ideas to extract more money from consumers and website operators alike.

So What’s The Government Planning?

The Obama administration wants the FCC to reclassify parts of communication so it can regulate the Internet. Without a regulator, ISPs can do whatever they like including making decisions based on the content running through their networks. However if the FCC were regulating Internet usage then ISPs would be bound to whatever decisions the FCC makes. The idea behind this, as far as the Obama administration goes, is that the FCC will enforce NN  thus ISPs won’t be able to use any tactics like I’ve described before.

But Regulation Is Bad!

A lot argue that government regulation is bad. Sometimes it is, sometimes the government can overreach and over-regulate things. However in this case, the lack of regulation means ISPs can gouge consumers and limit access in whatever ways they deem fit. This is an instance, in my opinion, where adding a regulatory body does more good than harm. Sure, we want the government in as little as possible, but regulations also make sure companies aren’t engaging in activity that is contrary to the public interest, such as limiting website access.

One could argue that this would be opening the door to a “government takeover” of the Internet. This is far from the truth. Regulation is not the same thing as a government takeover. We already have government regulation for automobiles because without it, there’d be no safety standards. This is much the same thing. The public’s interest in unfettered access to the Internet is at stake here. A government takeover means the government would run the Internet, and that’s not the case. The government would just start telling ISPs what they can and cannot do.

Sure, someday the government could abuse this regulatory oversight to start doing some things ISPs might have done. They might mandate some sort of limit on torrents or make sure all content gets filtered by the government. That’s what China does, pretty much, and I don’t ever see that happening because US citizens would riot if it did. Hell, I think some citizens might riot against an ISP if one truly broke against NN.

Companies Can Do Whatever They Want!! It’s Their Network!

Well right now, yes. But what I’m paying for is access to the Internet. Not for my ISP (which happens to be CenturyLink) to tell me “Hey Robert, you can’t access CNN.com until you pay us $5 more per month!” If consumers went into purchasing Internet access from an ISP with the intent to buy unfettered access, such is the case now, then that access should remain unfettered.

Sure, most companies can do whatever they want — within the limits of their regulations, of course. Saying that a company should be able to operate its business however it wants is a weak argument, in my opinion, because look at the BP disaster. Hell, they were regulated and it still happened. It’s obviously a case where the public interest is better served in actual regulation, rather than allowing BP to do whatever the hell it wanted, thus ending up in this massive oil leak. Companies should be able to operate as they see fit, but within acceptable boundaries.

They Don’t Need Regulation

Quite the contrary, I believe ISPs need regulation. Especially to keep them from breaking against NN. The whole idea of the Internet is this open massive platform allowing people to push out whatever they like for anybody to access. The Internet is like a massive Democracy in some respects. People “vote” for what they want by visiting those sites. But if ISPs start limiting access in some arbitrary manner, then that freedom is lost and those “votes” can’t be cast. Imagine if ISPs restricted access to Twitter in its early days. It probably wouldn’t have taken off. Say what you will about the time-sink that Twitter and Facebook are, but if your access to them was restricted or you were charged more to access them, those two would also be ones to suffer. So while you’re arguing an ISP should be able to conduct its affairs however it sees fit, realize that the consumer and Twitter/Facebook are also “harmed” in this instance.

Specific Arguments

No Regulation = Free Speech

Someone mentioned that keeping the government from regulating the Internet is the safest way to maintain free speech… I disagree. Without NN, ISPs can block or slow access to all sorts of content, which is against free speech, or at least free access to it. If ISPs are allowed to pick and choose the content they deliver, then they’re restricting free speech, which is unconstitutional. Thus, you might even say that the government has a responsibility to ensure unfettered access to the Internet.

Companies Already Charge For Faster Speeds

Well yes, they do. But they charge for faster speeds for the entire Internet, not just some sites selectively. What you’re paying for there is just a fatter pipe with more bandwidth to be able to download things faster. So let’s extend this argument out and say, “What if an ISP simply slows speeds to CNN.com, but doesn’t block it, and charges for faster access?” This is still an instance where the content is dictating the service and the ISP exercising authority over the stream of packs you’ve requested.

The Internet Is A Priveledge

Again, I disagree, to some extent. If you can afford to pay for the Internet you should get it all. More and more of our daily lives are online and more and more depends on the Internet. Imagine the world without the Internet today. No online bill pay, no Netflix streaming… No eCommerce. Sometimes you actually need access to the Internet to get some things done. The US would grind to a crawl without the Internet in this day and age.

Status Quo Is Just Fine

Given that ISPs are currently not engaging in anti-NN behavior, for the most part, then the status quo is fine. But the status quo assumes they won’t reverse and start going against NN. And the status quo means they still can should they choose to. We should definitely not allow them that opportunity to limit users’ free choice of what they want to access online.

The Free Market Works

Did the Wall Street and mortgage meltdowns not convince you? A lack of regulation there is definitely a big contributor to why that happened. The free market does not always work, regulation is still required to ensure the proper operation of a market. This is more of an idealogical issue anyway, so I know I won’t really convince anybody on this one.

Also, one note on free markets. If a market was 100% free then monopolies and collusions could exist, which means if the ISP market was a 100% free market, they could all collude to block FoxNews.com unless you paid $50 per month to gain access. And legally you could do nothing about it. Personally, I don’t like Fox News, but it’s still wrong dammit.

A Christian ISP Would Want To Block Porn!

This was an interesting one and caused me to ponder for awhile. Currently there exists no Christian ISPs in the US. The function of an ISP is to offer access to the Internet. A Christian ISP would want to block anything they deem non-Christian… But I’m going to point to what the Internet currently is and should be. A massively open and 100% accessible platform of websites and services. And I’m obviously of the opinion that access to it should always be fully open. Thus, if there were a Christian ISP, then I would disagree that it should be blocking content because I fully believe in NN.

On another note, I’m a practicing Catholic and if I were subscribing to a Christian ISP, I would not want them blocking any content. Client programs can be installed on the user’s end to block access. So if a user doesn’t want to allow access to things inside their home they can, but the ISP doesn’t get to do that across the board for people that don’t want it done.

I mean, think about it. Every Christian is different. Let’s imagine MyChristianISP.com (trademark pending, haha) is my provider. I want to look at Site A (not a porn site), but Site A offends about 55% of all MyChristianISP.com subscribers, so it gets blocked. Do you see the problem here? 45% of my fellow peers that are fine with accessing that site can’t. That kind of control belongs with the users.

Government Shouldn’t Run Companies For Themselves

Fully no. A government should not be 100% in full telling a company how it can run itself. But we already have government regulations in place to prevent illegal monopolies or from firms using their market power to gouge consumers. There are limits to what is acceptable for a company to do.

Companies are like people. They are entities in the eyes of the government. If you were to say that the government shouldn’t run people’s lives, then you’re basically saying the government need not exist and anarchy can rule the land. It’s preposterous. Companies, just like people, should not be allowed to do whatever the hell they want, because it may not always be in the public’s best interest. This argument allows a company to price discriminate based on age or religion. It allows a company free reign over whatever it wants to do.

Obviously there needs to be a line drawn somewhere, and I’m all for a line being drawn that includes NN as the rule of the land.

Personal Notes

Personally, I believe the Internet to be this big open playground where people can put up and access whatever they like. Any content restrictions should be on a user-by-user basis, thus limitations should exist in home networks and home machines, not at the ISP level. It is not CenturyLink’s place to tell me what I can or cannot access. I am paying them for access to the entire Internet and that is how it should remain. Just because television and radio have different access levels doesn’t mean they should be extended to the Internet.

If you’re reading this post and you don’t know me very well, you may not have picked up on the fact that I run websites. Now you understand another reason I am so adamantly in favor of NN. Without NN, there is the possibility that I could face fees with any number of ISPs to keep OMGN from being added to a “slow websites” list. And if there are 100 ISPs in the country all asking for a $5 fee per month so they won’t slow access to my website, suddenly I have to pay $500 per month to keep it online.

Fuck that. America is all about people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and making it for themselves. I cannot do that with my websites if I’m subject to countless fees because there is no NN. It’s completely against the American dream, folks, to start allowing ISPs to restrict access to the Internet in whatever ways they see fit.

I understand the potential for a slippery slope in regards to allowing the US Government to regulate Internet access. At some point in the future it could suddenly reverse course and start censoring things. But the US Government has a pretty damn short history of censorship. There’s a much lower likelihood of that happening than for ISPs to start restricting access to content, because they’ve talked about it. In this case, I’ll take the evil of the US Government over the evil that is John Doe ISP Corporation. ISPs have an incentive to censor Internet access, the US Government – not quite as much.

The whole thing here is that Internet access via an ISP should be 100% free and clear. That’s what consumers are paying for and that’s what they should get. It’s not a case where the ISP should be able to determine what their networks deliver. They’re in the wrong business if that’s the case. An ISP is supposed to allow access and not dictate what people can get, because if an ISP is the only Internet provider in town, then you may get no other choice but to use them and only them. The ISP should not care what you’re accessing, only that you’re paying for that access.

Final Note

I feel very strongly about this issue because I am an IT professional, a user of the Internet and a website operator. Thus I hope you understand why I feel the way I do, even if many of you are afraid of what more US Government regulation may do here. I’m more afraid of what ISPs may do, thus my stance on the subject. I’m sure the fact that this post clocks in at over 2,800 words also illustrates how passionate I am about the subject.

[Update]

Read Marek’s comment on this post, he makes a very valid comment. He cites that if an ISP started restricting access to a particular website and required users to pay for that website, then the ISP would reap all of the profits of that pricing structure whereas the website owner would not only get none of the profits, but would also suffer degraded traffic to their website because not everybody would pay for the access. This is in stark contrast to how television service providers work, where they pay subscriber-based royalties back to the operators of the channels that are in said tiers, such as premier sports channels you have to pay extra for. That was a point I was originally starting to think about when I started writing this post but promptly forgot about and never expanded upon, but Marek poses a very, very good point.

Well, in the spirit of the KISS song, “They call me Dr. Love!” Actually, I have been called Dr. Love before. And since this post is all about what people call me, I’ll give you that story too.

So over time it’s occurred to me what people call me on a daily basis. The only reason I’ve noticed is because some of my family members notice when I get called Rob and they can’t believe I’d be willing to be called that. Hell, some of them still call me by my kid name that I continually ask them not to use and to call me Robert (or Rob) instead. And a couple still call me by my really kid name, which is pretty much sacrilege these days as far as I’m concerned!

My cousin is on board in calling me Robert, actually. Thank God. And my Dad will occasionally remember to call me Robert. If you’re one of my childhood friends or family and are still calling me by either of my kid names… Robert works just as well. Trust me. I prefer it greatly.

All of this whole “what do I want to be called” stuff has been interesting to ponder. When I drove down to Arizona for Christmas Eve this last year, I learned that my grandma on my Dad’s side had always wanted my sister and me to call her Gran, not Grandma as we always do. I was completely unaware of this, so I’m making a conscious effort to call her Gran now.

See that’s the thing for me. I want to be called Robert (or Rob). Which is why I don’t understand the unwillingness of some people to call me that. I understand that a lot of my family has called me by my kid names for my entire life and that it’s a big change for them and they can only think of me as those names. I get that. But really, my wish is to be called Robert… Really. Haha. I’m trying to change what I call my Gran after 26 years of calling her Grandma, so if I can make the effort, can’t others?

Yeah, you all know who you are.

Anyway, I always introduce myself as Robert. Ever since the beginning of 9th grade I’ve introduced myself as Robert. And I get called Rob about half of the time, and I find that quite interesting. Laura‘s step-dad, Ron, prefers to go by Ronald (and yet I still call him Ron, I need to work on that) and always introduces himself as such. He says in New Orleans, his hometown, nobody ever really calls someone else by a nickname. They call that person by their real name. I think it’s just a part of culture here out in the western US, and maybe elsewhere. It just happens.

So I get called Robert and Rob a lot, but what about other names? Here are some that I get called on a regular-enough basis that I can remember them:

• Ludwick
• The Lud
• The Spartan (that’s another story entirely)
• Sludgewick (creative)
• Spudwick
• Robbo
• Roberto
• RobZone (sweet!)
• Dr. Love

So yeah, the story on Dr. Love… I’ve always liked that song by KISS. I first heard it in the movie Detroit Rock City. I ended up downloading it. Soon it became a part of jokes for me where I would tell people “They call me Dr. Love.” See my last post if you’re unclear as to why I make jokes like this, haha.

So anyway, I once said this to a coworker back when I worked at Swim2000. He said he didn’t believe me, so I said “Nah, everybody does, even Bruno.” Bruno is the owner. So he went and asked Bruno and of course Bruno denied it. Well two days later I was leaving and he and Bruno were still in the office. I said something along the lines of “see ya tomorrow” and Bruno chimes in “Ok, see you tomorrow Dr. Love.”

Thus, I have actually been called Dr. Love.

[Update]

Late addition to the list: Fludwick

Well, not really. However, in some cases, people do think I’m a bit arrogant! I don’t really think so myself. However, through various means (i.e. The Robert Zone being everywhere) I’ve become a bit more aware that some people do think I’m a little full of myself. A bit arrogant. A bit too self-confident. Well here I am to dispel that myth!

You might find me sometimes posting on Twitter or Facebook something along the lines of “I’m the man.” Heck, you might even hear me say it in person. Usually, I’m saying this in jest. As a semi-joke. A lot of times I’m just talking about something I’ve done that may or may not have been relatively difficult. And as a joke, I’ll just add in as a quip “I’m the man.” Now, am I really the man for having solved some strange programming issue or having hung a picture on the wall perfectly level? No… Not really. The man would have done all of that in his sleep while saving millions of orphans from thousands of simultaneously-burning orphanages across the entire globe. Without breaking a sweat. Oh, and while performing a few marriage ceremonies too.

Anyway, while I am confident in myself and sometimes am proud of the things I’ve done, I don’t truly think that I’m the man or that I’m God’s gift to women (although that’s entirely possible). Really, I’m just overplaying my hand a bit to make a joke. But I guess what’s really lacking is my delivery. Perhaps if I injected a bit more sarcasm or something of that nature into my jokes then people would get them more.

Some might say I joke like this because I lack self confidence. That I’m overplaying my hand because I’m insecure… Again, perhaps that’s true. But the fact remains that I only make jokes like that if they’re relatively relevant. Alright, I admit, sometimes I’ll say I’m the man after having done some mundane thing, but still. I know I’m a good software engineer, so when I say I’m awesome because I did something, what I’m really saying is that it took some skill to do whatever I did and I am proud of having done it.

I suppose if you really, really knew me, like Laura does, then you’d know I was only joking. Alas, not everybody knows me as well as my wonderful wife does, thus I decided to blog about this to help dispel the myth of the man, the legend, the center of the Robert Zone… Me.

But really, am I the man? God’s gift to women? Does every straight woman and gay man want me? Heck, even lesbian women and straight men, perhaps? Who knows! I mean, I am pretty awesome. You know that Dos Equis guy? The most interesting man in the world? Yeah, I’m only lending him that title until he dies… Lol.

I’m such a nerd that I put the word iteration in my post title, even when I’m updating my infamous (is it really infamous??) list.

It’s that time of the year folks, when I update my list of famous women that I can sleep with and encounter no repercussions with Laura. The whole point of this list is to be some funny, fantasy thing that will almost assuredly never happen because I’ll never meet these women.

One of these days I’ll make my “Man List”. One of these days… I already know Robert Downey Jr. resides on it, but that’s all I know. Anyway, that’s a topic for another time. At the end of this post I’ll give you the reasons that anybody who might have been dropped was.

Honorable Mention: Michelle Trachtenberg

Michelle Trachtenberg

She gets an honorable mention mostly for a sidenote I’m going to make at the end. But she’s pretty and back when I first watched EuroTrip, she would have qualified for actually being on my list.

Number 5: Michelle Rodriguez

Michelle Rodriguez

She wasn’t even in consideration for Iteration2 until probably a few weeks ago. I’ve always thought she was attractive, but for some reason I decided she belonged on the list after I saw her in Avatar. I mean, she is pretty hot. Although as Laura points out, she’s “too dominant for me.” As if that’s something that matters when we’re talking about a fantasy list. But she’s pretty hot.

Number 4: Jessica Alba

Jessica Alba

Really, she belonged on the list in the first place. The only reason I never added her was because just about everybody else probably would have placed her on their list, and I’m not one to follow a crowd. But oh well, this is personal preference here, so screw everyone else and if I’m just one in the flock here! Jessica Alba is pretty damn smokin’ hot. I mean, what else is there to say? Wondering why she’s not ranked higher, perhaps?

Number 3: Rachel McAdams

Rachel McAdams

Rachel never appeared on my list before simply because I kinda forgot about her. See, I don’t fantasize about myself being with hot famous women all of the time, so I can forget when I see one and think to consider them for my list. Hell, even when I think about considering them for my list, I’ll have forgotten later that I wanted to make that consideration! And Rachel McAdams was the unfortunate recipient of such forgetfulness. She should have been on here from the get-go. Can’t break into the top two, though.

Number 2: Jenna Fischer

Jenna Fischer

She very nearly well broke into the top spot. I mean, she was really close. Hell, even a few weeks after I first posted my list, she was pretty much going to get it. But I’ll explain why she didn’t here soon. She’s still hot and still a nerd magnet, so thus she retains her spot as #2.

Number 1: Amanda Bynes

Amanda Bynes

I almost knocked Amanda Bynes down to #2. I mean, she dyed her hair pretty damn blonde right after I made my list and I actually didn’t really like that look on her. She looks good with darker hair. But alas, two things saved Ms. Bynes. One, she switched her hair to highlights, which looks much better on her than the blonde, and I daresay might even look better than when her hair was basically just one cohesive color. And the second? She posed in Maxim, and got to prove that she’s indeed as hot as I thought she was. In fact, that’s just what the photo I have of her above is from, her Maxim shoot. Hot indeed.

Notes

Ok, so I mentioned Michelle Trachtenberg earlier as an honorable mention, in part because I wanted to make a note here at the end. I’m not too keen on how she looks much anymore, I think she’s too “plastic” looking nowadays. But Laura and I were talking about my list earlier this week and she was suggesting people to consider for my list. She mentioned “that girl from EuroTrip.” I mentioned that I thought she was pretty hot back when that movie was made. And then I realized…

Both Michelle Trachtenberg and Amanda Bynes were stars on Nickelodeon, back when I watched that kids channel when I was a kid. It appears that I haven’t outgrown the actresses that were on TV as kids when I was a kid. I wonder if that’s part of the appeal, at all..  I’m not convinced, though. I mean, Michelle Trachtenberg is only an honorable mention, mostly because I thought this was an interesting side-note, and I nearly knocked Amanda Bynes down for Iteration 2. None of the other ladies on my list were kid stars that I watched as a kid.

In fact, had Amanda Bynes not grown up to be so damn hot, she wouldn’t be on the list in the first place.

Dropped

You may notice there is 60% turnover on my list! Dropped from the ranks are Scarlett Johansson, Keira Knightley and Hayden Panettiere. These three ladies are still quite attractive, but I was putting my initial version of my list together without the full breadth of thought that it required. Really, lists require a couple iterations to get them right from the get-go, and from thereon out they’ll always be living documents because tastes change, people change and whatnot. So those three are dropped because they are unworthy when considered against my three newest additions. No offense.

34 inches? I know what you’re thinking about but no, I’m not talking about that. 34 would be selling myself way short anyway.

The latest chapter in my whole “make myself look and feel better” thing has arrived. I’ve been putting off getting new clothes mainly because I wanted to complete my weight loss first. I didn’t want to have to buy a bunch of clothes in a stopgap fashion. Unfortunately, my last two pairs of jeans bit the dust, so I was forced to replace them. They were Levi’s, and they were built rather well. The only problem was that it was tough to find 38-30s that weren’t below my heels. They weren’t truly 30s so I kept stepping on them and wearing down the bottom of the pant legs. For the record, I really needed 37s, not 38s. They don’t make 37s.

Now I’m in 34s! 34-30s and they aren’t too long. This makes me a very happy person. I’ve lost at least 30 pounds and 3 inches off of my waist. Good stuff. I’ve recently begun making progress again and I anticipate hitting the 175 mark by the end of this month or early February. That would be 35 pounds off since I started nearly a year ago. I think my target is 160, but I won’t really know until I get there.

I recently looked at photos of me when I went to just the mustache, the Robstache. Wow I’ve lost weight since then. I do look better. Still got further to go. Additionally, I’m going to try to start running in the mornings with Pepper (and potentially Laura). I was supposed to start this week, but being excessively tired when my alarm went off put the kabash on things. Hopefully I’ll start tomorrow.

And if I do start tomorrow, wow what a day it will be. Today I start my next semester of MBA courses. In 50 minutes, actually. I’m in Lied Library right now. But because my classes are on Tuesdays and Thursdays, I’ve signed up to play soccer on Wednesdays. I was originally waffling on the decision, but Laura’s support for me switching days and the fear of getting really out of shape spurred me to sign up. In any case, tomorrow’s my first Wednesday day of soccer on a new individual coed team, and for some odd reason we have two games tomorrow… What the fuck. Two games? A doubleheader? I’ve done it before, but by choice not by facility scheduling. Running in the morning plus two soccer games in the evening. Wow.

And that’s not the end of it! I told my Thursday soccer team I’d make the games if they were late enough, which is basically 9pm or later. So the 9:10 game this Thursday? Yup, I can make that. And I’m hoping to run on Thursday morning as well. Which would make three runs (Wednesday, Thursday and Friday) and three soccer games from Wednesday morning to Friday morning. Wow. See why I think I’ll hit 175 this month?

In other news, I wish I had endless time to do everything I want to do. Not only am I trying to find time to work on OMGN 4, I want to write a memoir about my video game life until, well, now. I think it would be very interesting because I don’t think there’s much of anything like that out now. And I’m a pretty good example of someone who gamed a lot when they were a kid and make the transition to being a responsible (well, at least I think so) adult with a married life and a job and other normal responsibilities.

This brings me to another subject: video games. Specifically, the original Atari joystick. See, my friend Jonathan recently got a tattoo in Elvish from Lord of the Rings. He loves it and I’ve always wanted a tattoo and I’ve always loved video games. I wasn’t 100% set on what tattoo I wanted but I knew I wanted a video game-related one, especially after seeing Anne’s roommate Ed’s “Mario 1up” tattoo he’s got. See, I didn’t want a tattoo that was system- or franchise-specific, I wanted one that represented video games as a whole. Now I know the Atari joystick is still Atari, but it represents so much more than that these days. And I’m asking Jonathan to give me a nice illustration of it so I can verify I indeed want to get it permanently marked on my body.

Laura’s been making sure I really want one, and I do. I am, however, curious to know what you all think of it…

Anyway, that’s it for now. Chat at you all later when I know more about my spring courses and I can let you know if I think I’ll be on track to continue my pursuit of a 4.0.

Despite Thanksgiving being my favorite holiday of the year, I do still like Christmas quite a bit. Once you get through all of the commercialization of the holiday, it’s quite nice. Colder weather leads to more snuggling between couples, the wreaths, lights and other decorations are nice and if you live in a snowy area, snow can be excellent so long as it’s not a massive snowstorm. And despite the massive chunk of money (and potentially, stress) required, getting gifts for people can be very fun and rewarding.

Christmases past saw Laura and I practically crumble under the financial pressure to get people gifts, and there are a few Christmases sprinkled throughout where we were highly stressed out on the gifts. Sometimes you just don’t know what to get someone, or you’re worrying too much on whether or not someone will like what you’ve gotten them. Really, Christmas isn’t supposed to be about the gifts anyway, it’s supposed to be about family and Jesus.

Yes, I’m talking specifically about Christmas here, not the holidays in general. I’m aware that Hanukkah is this time of the year, as is Kwanzaa and other religious holidays. Being Catholic, I don’t have much intimate knowledge of those holidays, so I’m sticking to what I know best. But no offense to those that subscribe to other faiths. I totally wish you a great insert-your-holiday-here!

Anyway, this year has been better on us regarding gifts. We’ve limited the people we’re getting gifts for because we just have way too many friends, so the financial burden isn’t as bad. And for the most part, we’ve been able to get people to tell us things they want for Christmas, although my Mom & family up in Michigan took awhile to get their lists to me, so I hope their gifts arrive in time.

One person I’m really excited about opening their gift from me is… Yes, you probably guessed correctly… Laura! She never really gives people much of a list to people for Christmas, so this year I’m trying to shop for her based on what I think she’ll like. I initially settled on one particular item I thought she’d really like, but after researching it more and talking with people about it, I ended up wavering on it and wasn’t solid enough in my opinion to get it for her. I considered close alternatives but couldn’t settle on them either. Having given her gift a lot more thought, I wrapped it up yesterday for her and it now sits in our dining room, waiting for the moment she will tear into it.

I’m confident she’ll like it, and I can’t wait for her to open it. I’m really looking forward to her face and (hopefully) joy when she sees what I got her. That’s one of the most fun things about Christmas, is the happiness that a gift can bring. But like I said, temper that enthusiasm for gifts with the knowledge that people should really be happy to spend time with you over Christmas. Money is not necessary.

Really, I just like getting Laura gifts year-round. It’s fun and I love the look on her face when I get her something out-of-the-blue and she doesn’t see it coming. I don’t need Christmas to get her gifts and treat her right. Hell, I bought her a MacBook Pro this year with some extra side money I made because her old laptop was becoming decrepit for what she needed it for. Of course, now I want an MBP, so go figure… Haha.

Hmm, something else I’m thinking about regarding Christmas… I like to say Merry Christmas. Most people have reverted to Happy Holidays and rightfully so — most people don’t want to greet in a religious manner and offend someone. That’s fine, but I still prefer Merry Christmas. Christmas has more meaning to me than the generic “holidays,” so when I tell someone Merry Christmas, I mean it. I don’t mean to convert to Christianity, I’m just wishing them well. And if someone told me Happy Hanukkah, I’d take it as a nice compliment because they’re telling me to enjoy their holiday even though I’m not Jewish.

There’s this big backlash among a lot of Christians to put Christmas back in the forefront for the holidays. Some are upset at the government, media and retail over the usage of holidays over Christmas. Really. Those people come across to me as thinking their religious holiday is more important than others. It isn’t, folks. It may be to you, but not to someone who celebrates Kwanzaa. You can say Merry Christmas all you want and truly mean it, that’s fine. But don’t force your religious holiday on other people, even if you think that the US was founded as a Christian country. We’re supposed to be tolerant here. Just wish someone a Merry Christmas from your heart, rather than a Merry Christmas because you think it should be that instead of Happy Holidays.

Oh, and something you can get me for Christmas — a jacuzzi!

So it’s the end of the year, and you know what that means! Yes, it means final exams at the end of my first MBA semester and self evaluations at work!

Food Poisoning

Unfortunately, it also means I got food poisoning… Not that it happens every year around this time. The last time this happened, Laura was either a Copy Editor or the News Editor for The Rebel Yell back when we were both in our undergrad studies at UNLV. That time was really awful, this one was just as bad.

To be truly honest, I’m not sure 100% that it was indeed food poisoning, just as back then I’m not sure what it was either. All I know is that I couldn’t keep any food or water down for very long and there were times (specifically, when I wasn’t keeping said food or water down) that I felt I was going to die. Not the most remarkable experience ever. Thus, I had to stay home from work yesterday, which I didn’t want to do, but hey… Not much I could do about it. I was pretty incapacitated.

Hell, I even considered playing some Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 that Laura got for me as a just-because surprise gift (She rocks! Love her!), but I couldn’t focus or concentrate enough to even do that. So I just laid on the couch, intermittently sleeping and “watching” TV and trying to eat and failing.

Today, though, I’m mostly back to normal. Still don’t feel quite right, but I can eat & drink and operate like a regular human being again. I anticipate tomorrow being 100% again.

Final Exams

So enough about food poisoning! Let’s address final exams. Rather, final exam. Just one this time around.

My Organizational Behavior class was structured with an optional final. This means that if you ended up with a decent grade, you shouldn’t take the final simply because if you do worse on the final than the grade you had going into it, you could seriously damage your grade. Thus, I checked my grade. Yeah, with that big beaming A staring me in the face, I’m not taking the final. Boo-yah!

So I only have one final then, and that’s Stats. Ugh. Not the class I want to be taking a final in. I’ve been doing alright in there and I have a shot at an A, it seems, but my group project needs to be pretty solid and I need to get roughly a C or so on the final to get the A. I think I can do it, and I really want to. I’m aiming to have the best grades of my educational career in the MBA program. So far I’ve accomplished bettering my grades at every level, having gotten a 3.4 (unweighted) in high school and a 3.56 in undergrad. If I can better that getting my MBA, then you could say I get better with age.

Self Evaluation

So it’s the end of the year and self evaluations are floating around work. That doesn’t really make me the happiest man on the planet, as I get to sift through an entire year’s worth of work to figure out what I’ve done well, what I haven’t and to note any accomplishments. That, and I’m not particularly good at being assertive and promoting myself very well.

These are things I’ve been working on improving in myself lately, with some mixed success. I figure this self evaluation will be one of my first opportunities to be more assertive and sell myself better within the company. I still haven’t moved up and I want to, so this is a prime opportunity to voice that.

I’m also never really sure how to rate myself. I never have been, really. Like when asked what my level of experience is with different technologies, such as HTML, CSS, PHP, Java, etc. I never know what to say beyond Intermediate. I want to say Expert, but when I say Expert, I take that as meaning I’m leaps and bounds better than your average programmer with those skills and technologies. When I say I’m an expert at something, I intend to convey that I’m THE FUCKING MAN.

Indeed, that feeds into my assertiveness and self promotion. I really should give myself more credit than I usually do. I know that I’m an integral, vital part of my department here at work and that a lot of the stability here is due to me (and my tremendous boss Randy Kochis, to be sure).

I do feel that since I’ve got such an effective boss that I’m a bit overshadowed and get pigeonholed too easily. I just feel that it’s difficult to really shine in my department here at work because Randy is so good at what he does and can take on more and more responsibilities easily. He’s actually one of the people I’m trying to model some of my career after, not a bad example if I do say so myself.

So yeah, my whole point here is that self evaluations are around again and I just hope I don’t over- or under-value myself too much this year. The first year I did these I undervalued myself pretty badly when compared to my superiors’ evaluations of me, and last year I overvalued myself just slightly…

Maybe I’m just destined to be a code monkey the rest of my life??

Unfortunately, OMGN has languished over the last couple years. Really, it’s been in the doldrums since the summer of 2005 when we hit up E3.  That was a fun time, let me tell ya.

I’ve been working on a new database structure and recoding for OMGN over the last 4 months. I still have a long ways to go, but I’m hoping that OMGN4, which is what I’m calling the new system, will work very well. The new codebase is much better and more modern, the database design is also much better and streamlined. And the new design in the works is shaping up nicely so far.

I’m really at a crossroads for what to do with the existing content on the site. I keep flipping back and forth on whether or not I want to retain existing content when migrating to the new site. And if I do retain existing content, what to retain.

See, I’m transitioning OMGN to a more fully-fledged video game information website. No more exclusive focus on small-market games, more professional writing and content management systems, better design, etc. A lot of the stuff in OMGN that exists now is either outdated, not even real video game content or just plain bad. The URLs are all going to change and I’m stripping the new site of a lot of functionality that existed before.

I’m just not sure where to go. There’s some content on the site that I kinda want to retain, such as some of the newer reviews of games, like Shadow Complex. But there’s just so much junk in the old data and issues with old URLs to new URLs and functionality lost, I think the new site might just be brand-new and clean. I’m just not sure what I want to do yet.

Please, this time I want your feedback and ideas.

I know I haven’t talked much about my college courses for my MBA, save to say I’m doing well. Well… Here’s one for you. Communication. In-person.

Some of you know my disdain for getting into a long-term discussion using text messages. Laura certainly knows. Well, for those of you that don’t, here’s the scoop: I prefer to use text messages for short communications and not for longer-term discussions. There you have it. If you need to use more than a couple text messages to communicate with me, then I’d generally prefer a more effective form of communication, such as a phone call or even an email. Or, my favorite: in-person communication!

By the way, this goes for stuff like game score updates… If I’m not watching the Titans game and you are, I’d prefer to not get a text message every couple of minutes saying the Titans have the ball back or just got an interception. It doesn’t really do me any good. If I’m not watching it, then there’s a really, really good reason I’m not. Likely I’m busy, probably with schoolwork, so I may not want to be distracted all of the time. Besides, if I’m not watching the game, I can wait until after the game to read a full recap, rather than get up-to-the-minute updates anyway.

Not ranting here. Just communicating. Via a blog post. See, this is something that would likely be better said in-person! But I can’t disseminate this kind of thing to everybody that reads me blog in-person. And if I could, it would be very time consuming and just not an effective use of my time.

See, this is one thing I’m trying to get at. Effective use of time. It isn’t an effective use of my time to send multiple text messages to have an extended conversation. I have to unlock my phone, read your message and type out a reply. And 99 times out of 100, I don’t keep my phone in-hand, unlocked and in SMS to get your next reply and to respond back. I lock it and put it down, going back to whatever I was doing (probably at work, actually). So it’s time consuming for me to hold such long discussions over text.

But I don’t want to focus on text messaging here. I want to focus on all forms of communication. People are really bad for choosing the wrong medium for communication. Text messages is one example, but email is another. If you need to email me something really important that needs to be addressed right away, then that’s not the right form of communication. You should probably call me, as that is a more immediate form of communication.

Really, people need to choose the most appropriate form of communication, and usually electronic forms don’t convey everything necessary. For instance, I get emails from people I work with on various subjects. Sometimes these emails are really long and they’re only to me. You know how long it takes to type up a long email? Or, for example, how long it takes to type up this blog post? Awhile. Time would almost assuredly have been saved if we talked in-person, because we could have had back and forth and speaking is faster than typing, and listening to the spoken word is faster than reading it.

See what I’m getting at here? Effective and appropriate forms of communication. So let’s address phone communication. Should I just call my coworker rather than talk to them in-person if they are available to talk in-person? No, probably not. Because by calling them, they cannot have that physical interaction. They can’t see my facial expressions and I can’t use hand gestures. That really, really adds to communication. Additionally, being on my work phone locks me down to my desk and in my seat, and takes a hand away, so I’m limited in what I can do.

So why did I mention my MBA program? Communication is a topic we recently covered in my Organizational Behavior class. It was very interesting to me and really solidified my position on in-person and more immediate communication. I’ve felt for years that communication via text message was ineffective save for short messages and conversations. I’ve always preferred to talk in-person here at work rather than other IM or on the phone. Loads and loads of research, according to my class, suggests that I’m on the right path. Boo-yah!

There’s just so much that can be lost in translation over electronic forms of communication. We might be shorter or more succinct in email, so not as much information might be passed. You cannot see the body movements when talking on the phone, so you might not get as much context.

There’s this thing called the “human moment.” It happens when two people communicate and occupy the same space to do so. Really, I won’t explain it here, but go read this article (it’s a PDF). It’s a very informative article that explains why it is so important to communicate with someone in-person. I totally agree with it.

So there you have it. Not sure what else to say at this point, because I’m sure you get my point. Or do you? Would this point have been conveyed more properly on the phone, or in-person? Just imagine me trying to explain all of this to you via text message, or even via Twitter!! Although this post is linked on Twitter, but imagine my trying to type the whole thing out in 140-character bursts on Twitter… [shudders]

On another note… I didn’t look down at my keyboard very much while typing this post, I noticed. And I still don’t use the home row. :p

list - noun: a series of names or other items written or printed together in a meaningful grouping or sequence so as to constitute a record: a list of members.

Alright, so that defines a list. What list am I talking about? Well, see, just about all of my married couple friends, and Laura and myself included, have these 5-person lists of celebrities that if we ever actually met them and they actually wanted to have sex with us, it would be cool. Come on, if you’re married, you probably have one of these lists anyway, and if you’re not, you’ve likely heard of them. It’s all in fun anyway, I’d never cheat on Laura in a million years.

That being said, I’m posting about this because I’ve never really built a list before. Laura’s had a list of two for some time now, and this subject came up last night and we were talking about it with Andrew. At the conclusion of the discussion, pressure was basically applied to me to come up with my list. I’ve been procrastinating on it for a variety of reasons, such as “Well maybe this person doesn’t really belong on the list…” etc. But to hell with it, I’m making my list. Subject to change, of course. And now, in order:

Number 5: Hayden Panettiere

Hayden Panettiere

She’s the most likely to get bumped from the list should someone else come along… Well, obviously, because she’s #5. She’d probably be fun… lol. Can’t say much more about her, I guess.

Number 4: Keira Knightley

Keira Knightley

For the longest time, Laura thought she should be on my list. And for the longest time, I always said she was too skinny. She still is, but lack of better candidates allow her to make an appearance on my list. There have been quite a few movies where I thought she looked hot and/or gorgeous, so I can’t really leave her off. I guess rather than debate whether or not she belonged on the list, I should have been debating her rank on the list.

Number 3: Scarlett Johansson

Scarlett Johansson

At first she wasn’t even on my radar, but then Andrew mentioned her as a candidate and suddenly it was like “Bam! She’s on the list!” Why not higher than third? You’ll see, my top 2 are most definitely on my list. They’re very secure. But Scarlett is indeed pretty hot. I can think of quite a few movies she’s, well, pretty hot in.

Number 2: Jenna Fisher

Jenna Fisher

It was very, very difficult to place her second and not first. Really, I’m serious. She’s every geek and nerd’s fantasy, at least I bet she would be. She’s the cute receptionist on The Office and occasionally she plays these odd-yet-sexy roles in some movies. And she totally plays it up too, hiding her sexiness & such beneath her “mundane” roles.

Number 1: Amanda Bynes

Amanda Bynes

“What the eff, Robert? What the hell are you doing putting Amanda Bynes #1 on your list? Nobody else would declare her #1!”

That is just a snippet of a long tirade that Ryan Goodman would launch into if he read this. He doesn’t like her. But for some odd reason, I do. She was originally on Nickelodeon shows, like All That, and I didn’t like her when she and I were both younger. But I don’t know man… She’s funny, so that’s a plus, and she looked damn good in Hairspray. So yes, Amanda friggin’ Bynes tops my list.

Wait… Hold on a moment. I think I may have forgotten someone… See, this is why I always procrastinated in building a list, because inevitably, I thought, I’d find someone to put on the list and would have to bump someone off and it would end up being more brainpower than I want to spend, trying to figure this damn list out… So my omitted woman is…

Number 0: Laura Ludwick

Laura Ludwick

Hot damn! My wife tops the list?! Wait, doesn’t the number zero mean not on the list? No, the number zero trumps the list!

Alright alright, so Laura doesn’t really belong on the list because she’s not a celebrity. But she still tops it without being on it. That’s how hot my wife is!

And actually, that photo… Is pretty hot.