Murphy-Goode Winery is run by dicks.

So, in case you hadn't heard, the Murphy-Goode Winery was having a cool contest. They were interviewing people via youtube vids for "a really goode job". The position is for a 6 month stint as a social media coordinator for the company. Why is it a "goode" job? Housing is provided, and you get payed $10,000 a month. Also, you probably get drunk a lot. Yeah... sweet.

A somewhat well-known (to geeks) tech personality by the name Martin Sargent (twitter) got into the running. So everyone posts vids and then there was voting to (presumably) whittle down the list of candidates. Martin got the most votes by a huge, huge margin. He did not get a spot in the top 50.

Now, I could bitch and moan all day about my preferred guy not winning. But that's dumb, it happens. They can pick people by whatever method they choose. It doesn't matter that Martin Sargent had a totally funny video and is basically, awesome. That's my opinion. What IS total bullshit here, is that in order to vote, you had to provide an email address.

What is the point of voting if winning the vote by an order of magnitude doesn't even get you into the top 50? There is no point... except to harvest email addresses. Murphy-Goode just got a ton of contact info. Oh sure, I'm sure they promised not to spam people, but maybe a little reminder every now and then about the social media campaign? Yeah.

Whoever came up with this job search idea is the real "social media coodrinator". Briliant way to get everyone's email addresses. If you think this is bunk, let them know how you feel.

Jammie Thomas on trial... again. *Updated - She lost, ordered to pay $1.92 million*

So the trial has closed for a second time. What's going to happen this time? I suspect the jury will find her guilty, and fine her a exorbitant amount of money. Last time the RIAA was awarded a lot (over $200,000). Whatever it is, it would be a hefty sum for a single mother. The big question is, did she do it? Well, maybe.

The RIAA lawyers have shown that music was available, and downloaded from her computer. The Kazaa account was clearly set up in her name. No one can contest that. It used her preferred screen name. But what confuses me, is that the content of the shared folder was heavy on Death Metal. No one seems to think that Ms. Thomas is a fan of such acts. Many other tracks were on CDs that she already owned. So who was using the account? My money is on the former live-in boyfriend. That theory was, in fact advanced by the defense.

So then why was her username used? I think I have a theory, and it's a sad reality. People don't understand computers. In fact, they're often afraid of them. People will do anything a computer tells them to. That's why the fake antivirus pop-up have become such an effective method of getting people to install malware. I imagine, her former bo used Kazaa on her PC. She didn't know what it was, and signed in. When presented with boxes to fill in, many people will.

The uninitiated might have just thought Kazaa was a media player of some sort. Don't get me wrong, she may have used Kazaa to download music just like the boyfriend did. But did she even know what she was doing? How do you determine blame in a situation like that? How can you know who set up the share? Or who was behind the keyboard that night that Media Sentry downloaded the files?

Okay, so maybe we say she should have known better. Granted. Everyone SHOULD know enough about computers to know when something fishy is going on, but they don't. How about if she's found guilty they pick a reasonable fine? She's on trial for sharing 24 songs. How about she pay the RIAA for the cost of the 24 CDs she would have presumably had to buy to otherwise acquire those songs? Lets assume about $16 per CD... that works out to $384. Hell, throw in a penalty for having "stolen" (more accurately, made a copy of) them. She pays double. That's $768. That's fair, that's what the RIAA is owed. Do you feel like hundreds of thousands is fair? Have you ever let a friend make a copy of a CD? You too may owe the RIAA $10,000 per track.

While I can ony hope she isn't destroyed by the verdict, I'm not hopeful.

Update - Wow... I'm just shocked, and frankly angry. She was found guilty and ordered to pay $1.92 million. That is fucking unconstitutional. How can 24 songs add up to that kind of fine? How? The guilty verdict isn't a surprise, but the fine of $80,000 per song is unbelievable.

This is a woman of limited means, she can't ever pay this. The RIAA knows that. They just want this huge verdict to leverage a settlement, and to set presidence. If she continues to fight, and all her motions/appeals fail, I wonder how much the RIAA will actually get out of her.

A brief stipulation for iPhone 3GS pricing.

I just ran across some info about the pricing iPhone pricing. As you may notice below, I was trying to get the whole thing figured out yesterday. I thought I had the problem licked, but apparently not. Had a go at the online ordering system, and was told to pay the no-commitment price. Wow, really?

So after dealing with the folks at the AT&T store again, I was advised to call corporate AT&T help. Apparently, they have a much fuller understanding of pricing. As it turns out if you have ever taken the "early upgrade" pricing on the iPhone 3G, you cannot get early upgrade pricing again. Nope, not even if you're willing to agree to a new 2-year contract.

Of course, this detail escapes the notice of almost everyone at AT&T. I certainly wasn't told about it when I got the 3G. Oh well. $599 for the new phone? That's a tough sell.

The Takeaway:
If you are a current iPhone 3G customer, and you are planning to go for the early-upgrade, think it over first. You will NOT be able to do it again. You will have to finish the contract. They will not offer you any discounts until you complete at least 18 months, or as many as 22 months of your new contract. Apple will inevitably release another iPhone next year. When that happens, you'll be stuck with the full retail price. AT&T is not training their employees properly. They will not explain this to you if you come in to do the early-upgrade.

iPhone 3GS for real pricing. -Updated

The new iPhone was announced today. You might like it, you might not... that's not what this post is about. There have been some questions about what the pricing will be. Apple of course announced that the pricing was $99/199/299 for the 8, 16, and 32 GB versions respectively. As everyone guessed, that's the new customer price (or if your current contract is up).

What threw everyone for a loop, is that the Apple website said the following:

"For non-qualified customers, including existing AT&T customers who want to upgrade from another phone or replace an iPhone 3G, the price with a new two-year agreement is $499 (8GB), $599 (16GB), or $699 (32GB)."

Wow... those are big scary numbers. If you want to check out the fury that caused, have a look at the comments here, and the alterations to the post here. So what is the deal if you have a current iPhone under contract? It just wouldn't make any sense to charge $599 for the 16GB phone. That's the same as the off-contract price. AT&T told Gizmodo the pricing is as such:

iPhone 3G S: Device Pricing
• iPhone 3G S will cost $199 (16GB) and $299 (32GB) for new and qualifying customers.
• If you are not currently eligible for an upgrade but still want iPhone 3G S, early upgrade prices are $399 (16GB) and $499 (32GB)
• No-commitment pricing: $599 (16GB) and $699 (32GB)

iPhone 3G: Device Pricing
• iPhone 3G will cost $99 (8GB) and, while supplies last, $149 (16GB) for new and qualifying customers.
• If you are not currently eligible for an upgrade but still want iPhone 3G, early upgrade prices are $299 (8GB) and, while supplies last, $349 (16GB)
• No-commitment pricing: $499 (8GB) and, while supplies last, $549 (16GB)

But that doesn't wash. Some people (myself included) were being told by the Apple website that the 16GB phone would be running $599. A call to my local AT&T store resolved this issue. I'll say upfront that this does not explain the strange wording on the Apple site's fine print seen above. AT&T checked, and apparently you can't get even the early upgrade pricing until you are over 6 months into your contract (possibly waved at store, see below). That's why some people were coming up with this higher total. I suppose that makes sense. Otherwise, what's to stop people from coming in and buying a partially subsidized iPhone everyday (and restarting their contract) and selling them on Craigslist?

So come next month I'll be at least down the the $399 tier. I don't know if I'll upgrade yet, but it's good to have this straightened out.

Edit: As a huge nerd, I found myself wanting confirmation on this whole deal. I contacted two additional AT&T stores. One store seemed to be staffed by a fellow who seemed only vaguely aware of what a cell phone was. He claimed there was no such thing as early upgrade pricing. The second store was staffed by really swell people that seemed quite on the ball. They confirmed that early upgrade pricing was available to current 3G owners, and further, they would be willing to give me the early upgrade pricing on the spot if I wanted to put in a pre-order. They said the online sites tend not to offer the early upgrade pricing even though they should. (Note: I no longer believe this to be true, see second edit below)

AT&T has finally added language to their site that, I think, makes everything perfectly clear.

Existing AT&T customers who are not currently eligible for an upgrade discount can purchase iPhone 3G S for $399 for the 16GB model and $499 for the 32GB model. iPhone 3G can be purchased for $299 for the 8GB model and $349 for the 16GB model while supplies last. These options require a new 2-year service agreement. No-Commitment pricing for iPhone 3G S is $599 (16GB), $699 (32GB). No-Commitment pricing for iPhone 3G is $499 (8GB) and $549 (16GB) while supplies last.

So, there you have it. If you want the 3GS, but aren't eligible for the full upgrade, it'll cost you $399-$499. You have to do a new contract, but it saves you $200 up front off the no-commitment price. (not true in all cases, see below)

Edit again: *sigh* there is one caveat. See here.

Leo, Mike, and keyboard cat.

I don't have too much to say about this. It's just a bit of gossipy tech news today. Leo Laporte of the TWiT network has a number of internet shows. While filming one, Mike Arrington of Techcrunch suggested that Leo getting a "free" Palm Pre was an important disclosure. In fact, Leo only had a 7-day review unit. The keyboard cat was added later. Adding the hottest new meme helps cut through the tension.

To clarify, Leo is, I think, probably the nicest guy on the interwebs. In true nerd fashion, the most shocking part for me was when Leo threw down the Pre at the end. Mike Arrington has a history of being a bit harsh (read: a jerk). In this case Leo wasn't having any of it. I think Mike over-stepped and didn't really realize what he was saying. Leo had every right to tell him off. Leo did overreact a bit in canceling the show, but in true nice guy style, he apologized. Mike posted a sort-of-apology here. Leo's apology is there as well.

The FriendFeed conversation from the show is, well, interesting. Just start reading from the top. You'll see where everything went wrong.

Unrelated: Is Leo Laporte getting younger? I swear he looked older on The Screen Savers.

2001 times better than the movie.

So I've just finally gotten around to reading the scifi classic, 2001: A Space Odyssey. Now, my reactions a mere 41 years late. Why it took me so long, I'm not sure. I hadn't seen the movie in a number of years, and I didn't remember much about it. So I blew through the book in a few days, and decided I'd watch the film version right after. I was intrigued that Clark had a hand in writing it. Neither the book nor the film could really be considered the source material. I hoped this would mean the movies was (for once) on par with the book. Unfortunately, it was not.

Don't get me wrong, it was a fine film. Never-the-less, it cannot compare to the book. I realize that due to the era it was made in, some sacrifices had to be made for technical reasons. The monolith from the beginning and end of the film was described in the book as perfectly clear crystal. In the movie, they couldn't think of any way to go about that, so it's black.

What really bugged me was the way the film just sort of tip-toed around everything. In the book the ape-men had a much more believable story. They were dumb, understanding only the drive to find food. When the monolith appeared they checked to see if it was edible, since it wasn't, they ignored it. Well... that is, until it started projecting images into their minds and assessing their manual dexterity. Doesn't that sound more interesting than: monolith appears, ape-men freak out, suddenly start hitting things with bones? In the novel, it's clear what is happening from the start. This is clearly a machine created by intelligence. The film skirts the issue.

HAL is chilling in the book, as he is in the movie. But in the movie he just loses it for no reason. If you read the book, you hear about WHY he lost it. You understand his reasons; it's almost an Asimov-style logic problem. The movie made HAL the main focus, but removed so much information about him. This, however, pales in comparison to the story's climax. The novel tells of an awe-inspiring journey through the Star Gate, a giant monolith on Saturn's moon Iapetus. In the film, a monolith near Jupiter takes Dave through a trippy very 60s-ish tunnel.

The film just ended... and was confusing. The book was not entirely easy to get, but made sense when you though about it. When Dave becomes the "Star Child" he returns to Earth and destroys Earth's nuclear weapons. He's advanced to the next level like that first ape-man from the beginning of the film. It gives you chills.

So... nerd communique complete.