Blog

Hyundai Does It Again
Alexandra Straub, Canadian Auto Press

I know I’m driving a cool car when I go to pick up a friend and their first reaction to it is, “Wow, what a sweet ride. Is this a new BMW?” First off, yes, it is a “sweet ride” but no, it’s not a BMW. When I explained this was the all-new 2011 Hyundai Sonata and it has been totally redesigned on the inside and out, her jaw dropped and questioned, “This is a Hyundai?” Indeed it is and it’s just that good.

2011 Hyundai Sonata GL

Just by looking at the exterior, I think the new Sonata is very chic. I love the sculpted hood, the aggressive profile lines and aerodynamic shape. I also love the fact that even though it’s quite pretty and makes heads turn, it has a very inviting aura. It’s not pretentious but sophisticated. It reminds me of a person who is always the life of the party, yet takes the time to talk to you, one-on-one, and doesn’t let their attention stray despite distractions. I was even impressed with the design of the 16” steel wheel covers that come with the P205/65R16 tires on the GL model, as wheel covers can sometimes look rather, how shall I put it, cheap, and these look like real alloy rims. The Sonata gets a big high-five from me for its exterior styling.

The inside, I found, was just as nice as the outside. Double high-five, or I guess it would be a high-ten, in this case! When I first sat in the cabin I immediately noticed how fantastic the seats felt. The cloth upholstery was soft and the cushions were firm. I felt right at home. Next, I noticed how the centre stacked looked fresh and very modern. The climate buttons were similar to buttons that I have seen in much pricier vehicles. What I liked most of all was the position and shape of the shift knob. It’s like nothing else I’ve encountered in its class and also brings to it that sophistication I spoke of above. This particular GL came with the optional 6-speed automatic transmission, which came in very handy for all the city driving I did. The base GL comes, however, with a standard 6-speed manual transmission.

To recap, the exterior is hot and the interior is just as hot, now what could make this car even hotter? A few things, actually. The first item of hotness I’m going to mention is the front seat warmers that are standard on GL trim with the automatic transmission. Within moments, my buns started to toast. That gets an A+ from me since a lot of the time this feature takes minutes to kick in. If you’re considering the Limited trim, please note that there are rear seat heaters, too! Amazing. It’s a first in-class feature. Next up, the Sonata comes with a healthy list of standard features including 4-wheel disc brakes, Bluetooth, an iPod USB port and auxiliary plug, keyless entry, steering wheel mounted audio controls, power windows, and more.

Speaking of power, the Sonata is definitely not lacking thanks to its new and improved engine. Now found under the hood is a Theta II GDI (Gasoline Direct Injection) 2.4L, 16-valve, DOHC, 4-cylinder engine. It boasts an output of 198 horsepower and 184 lb-ft of torque. The direct injection makes a world of a difference since it allows for greater control of the fuel mixture, which, in turn, improves performance and efficiency. In fact, the Sonata not only has the best in-class horsepower (based on a 4-cylinder engine), but it also has the best estimated fuel economy with 9.4L/100km in the city and 5.7L/100km on the highway. Furthermore, acceleration is very impressive. It picks up the pace very swiftly and it doesn’t even require premium fuel to perform. That’s a combination I can get excited about.

Another thing to get excited about are its driving dynamics. Underneath all the prettiness is a responsive and agile four-wheel independent suspension. It’s a vehicle that experiences no problems when tackling tight turns or enjoying long stretches of highway. The Sonata is also gentle enough to get people who are not feeling so great home in one piece, i.e. me. Not often do I feel not so good, but I had an off day as I was coming home from church. I was dreading getting in the car as I was feeling quite ‘green’ to begin with, but surprisingly the Sonata helped calm my woes. I found the suspension to be soothing even though I was rushing home. It was neither stiff nor sloppy and was probably the best fit for my un-fit situation. Regardless of my condition, the Sonata drove fantastically, hands down.

With all things considered, this would normally be the section in my review where I might try to justify the rather high price tag that a car in this caliber comes with, but that’s not the case with the Sonata. Having polled my passengers on how much they thought this vehicle costs, the average dollar amount was about $30K. I was happy to report that the GL Auto trim costs a mere $24,249 (the base GL has an MSRP of $22,649). I too was floored when I read that. That’s a lot of car for not that much. And considering the top-of-the-line Sonata Limited with navigation has an MSRP $30,999 AND comes with rear heated seats, that’s nothing short of fabulous.

Don’t be fooled by the 2011 Hyundai Sonata GL’s minimal MSRP because there is nothing cheap about this vehicle. From the lines of the exterior to the soft-touch materials used in the interior, it’s an impressive sedan hands down. So, to those looking for a mid-sized four-door, you’re doing yourself a disservice if the Sonata isn’t on your prospect list.

Having worked for several different landscaping and construction companies, I got used to driving gas guzzling commercial vehicles. Though it shames me a bit to admit it (not really) I used to drive those vehicles with little regard to fuel economy or the fact that they were somebody else’s property. Often enough I broke the speed limit, stomped the gas just to hear the engine rumble, and frequently chirped the tires going around corners. I remember one particular day where I calculated getting just 6 mpg in my boss’s Chevy Silverado.

I’ve since grown up, and out, of acting like an inconsiderate bum, but even so, there are plenty of heavy duty, gas guzzling commercial vehicles out there. Weening fleet customers off of oil and onto a cleaner burning fuel would go a long way towards cutting our dependence on oil. Today, GM announced that for the first time, fleet customers will be able to buy commercial vehicles that run on either Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG).

(more…)

An Arizona utility commissioner said on Wednesday that he is willing to cut off Los Angeles’ power if the city moves forward with its economic boycott of the Grand Canyon State.

Last week, the L.A. City Council overwhelmingly approved a measure to suspend a variety of business contracts with Arizona due to the state’s controversial new immigration laws.

Gary Pierce, a commissioner on the five-member Arizona Corporation Commission, wrote a letter to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa this week stating that he was "dismayed" with the council’s decision, and would entertain the idea of fighting a boycott with a boycott unless it reconsidered the measure, according to CBS News.

"If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation," he wrote.

"However, if you find that the city council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy," Pierce added.

Currently, more than one-quarter of Los Angeles’ electricity comes from Arizona-based power plants, Fox News reports.

The response is still pouring in to my column last week on our immigration policies. Or rather, our lack of same. If you haven’t read Arizona, Si! Obama, No! and want to get caught up on the topic, just click here.

When you finish reading my column be sure to scroll down to the bottom and read some of the hundreds of comments that readers have posted. You will be very impressed by the passion and, yes, the wisdom shown by many writers. They may be a cantankerous bunch, as I’ve said before, but there is no question that they are motivated by a fierce dedication to our country and the principles on which it was founded. I’d sleep better at night if more of them were on guard in Washington instead of the pathetic bunch of compromisers we’ve got now.

I don’t think there was anything in that column or the comments that followed that most readers would find shocking or unbelievable. Maybe something contrary to their own passionately held beliefs, sure, but there is nothing there that is startling, outrageous or even extremely controversial.

Today’s column will be different.

This week I want to discuss two important corollaries to last week’s column. The first is something that is almost never mentioned in this debate, but should be. The second is something that I have never seen raised. But it’s at the heart of much that has gone wrong in this country during the last 150 years.

Let’s begin with one of the most startling aspects of our present immigration crisis:

It is the official policy of the United States government that any child, born in this country to illegal immigrants, automatically and immediately becomes a citizen of the United States.

Not only that, but by becoming a newly franchised citizen, that infant is permitted to sponsor American citizenship for its mother, father and other relatives.

Such infants are sometimes referred to as “anchor babies,” because their immediate and automatic citizenship is the “anchor” on which a host of other claims, from welfare to the citizenship of others can be made.

On the face of it, this sounds patently absurd. How can a newborn baby be eligible for citizenship when his or her parents are not? Not merely eligible, mind you, but granted it automatically?

Many of us have grandparents or great-grandparents who overcame incredible obstacles to become citizens of this country. Before they were accepted they had to pass a rigorous and demanding test. The questions they were asked, and their answers, had to be in English.

As an essential part of the process every immigrant was required to renounce allegiance to the country he or she had left and to swear allegiance to his newly adopted home—the United States of America. And every new citizen was thrilled to do so.

There was a solemn ceremony, often conducted by a judge sitting high on a bench above them, issuing the oath of allegiance. Friends and family welcomed the new citizens with hugs and tears and enthusiastic applause.

That is what citizenship for an immigrant used to mean. But today we are required to bestow it on anyone whose mother can sneak across our border a few hours before her baby is born. That is absolutely insane.

The new citizen is immediately entitled to all the benefits that accompany citizenship—schooling, medical care, food stamps and other welfare and a whole host of “public assistance.”

Moreover, that new citizen is now entitled to invite other family members—mother and father, aunts and uncles, cousins and grandparents, nephews and nieces—to come visit them in their newly adopted country and even apply for citizenship here.

How did such utter craziness come to be accepted as the law of the land?

Well, the first thing you need to know is that there is no such law.

If you ask how automatic citizenship for babies born to illegal immigrants came about you’ll be told that the 14th Amendment requires it.

This is a flat-out lie. But it’s a lie that’s been promoted by those who want to overturn the established laws and customs of our country. It’s a lie that the highest officials in this country—from the White House on down—pretend is true.

Let me share some important history with you. The 14th Amendment was proposed by Congress at the end of the Civil War. Its purpose was to make sure that newly enfranchised blacks were not denied the rights of citizenship when they returned to their homes in states that comprised the former Confederacy.

Sadly, the 14th Amendment is worded so vaguely that an activist court—spurred on by politically motivated attorneys—can interpret it almost any way it chooses. Here’s the relevant section:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

But what does “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean? If you do a little research on the topic you’ll discover that this amendment was most emphatically not meant to include the children of aliens—even if their parents were in this country legally. Lawmakers assumed that since their parents were subject to the jurisdiction of the country where they were citizens—that is, their native country—so were their offspring, no matter where they were born.

Ah, but if you do a little more research, you’ll discover a secret that’s been kept out of our history books for more than 100 years:

There are compelling reasons to believe that the 14th Amendment was never legally adopted by a sufficient number of states to make it a valid part of our Constitution. This is why the second part of today’s column is called “the Illegal 14th.”

First we begin with the fact that the Southern states never left the union. Oh, I’ll admit they tried to. We fought a terrible war over the issue. But Abraham Lincoln refused to recognize the Confederacy as a separate, legitimate government. Instead, he fought the war to keep the Confederacy from seceding. When the North won, Lincoln was ready to welcome the South back “with malice toward none.”

But if the Southern states never left the Union, then as soon as hostilities ended, those states and their citizens were entitled to all of the promises and protections of the U.S. Constitution. With me so far?

In the aftermath of the war all of the states that had comprised the Confederacy reformed their state governments, including both branches of their legislatures. (Remember, the Constitution guarantees every state “a republican form of government.”)

When the Federal Congress approved the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery, and submitted it to the states, it was promptly ratified by most of the states in the former Confederacy and became part of our Constitution.

But this was not enough for the Radical Republicans (as they were called then) who controlled Congress. They wanted to punish the South. Even more important, they didn’t want the Southern states sending people to Congress who would oppose their plans for Reconstruction. So they proposed the 14th Amendment.

I can find no evidence that the 14th Amendment was ever approved by a two-thirds majority of the House and the Senate as the Constitution requires. In fact, there were plenty of contemporaries back in 1878 who said it was not. Nevertheless, the Radical Republican majority approved a resolution saying it had passed and submitted it to the states.

Six states that had approved the 13th Amendment balked at approving the 14th. The legislatures of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina and South Carolina said “no!” (So, incidentally, did New Jersey and Ohio.)

The Radicals in Washington were furious. They promptly approved a series of bills, called the Reconstruction Acts that divided the former Confederacy into 10 military districts. The legislatures of each state were ordered dismissed “by force of arms” and were replaced by political hacks appointed by the Federal army of occupation. Seven of these military-controlled bodies then did as they were told and “ratified” the 14th Amendment.

These “rump” governments were a far cry from “the republican form of government” that the Constitution guaranteed each state. Our Founding Fathers would have been aghast at what was done in the aftermath of that very un-civil war. And they wouldn’t have agreed for a second that any “vote” by these so-called legislatures could authorize a change to the Constitution.

But change it they did. When news of these coercive measures reached Washington, Secretary of State William Seward at first refused to ratify the amendment. He was quickly brought into line by the Radical Republicans in Congress however, and on July 20, 1868, he dutifully proclaimed that the 14th Amendment was now part of our Constitution.

And here’s something you probably never considered: The effects of this nefarious bit of legislative chicanery go far beyond citizenship for a few million children of illegal immigrants.

Bet you didn’t know that the 14th Amendment has been used by the Supreme Court as the legal justification for banning prayer in public schools… or authorizing abortion on demand… for requiring the forced busing of children… or scores of other usurpations of power by our central government.

If you’ve stayed with me this far I’m sure you’re saying to yourself, “Can this possibly be true? And if it is, how is it possible that the legality of the 14th Amendment has never been challenged in the courts?”

My answer to the first question is, “Yes, I believe it is true. The 14th Amendment was never legally ratified.”

My answer to the second is, “I don’t know.” I have not been able to find any record that any Federal court has ever issued a ruling on the adoption of “the illegal 14th.” I can’t even find evidence of the issue being raised in a lawsuit filed in a Federal court.

I can understand why those who benefit from today’s Goliath Government want to keep this issue swept under the heaviest rug they can find. But where have the conservative and libertarian talk shows, think tanks, advocacy groups and tax-free foundations been for the past 50 years? Have any of them raised this issue? Written articles about it? Made even a peep of protest?

If they have, I’m not familiar with it. If you know otherwise please tell me, because I really would like to know.

And so should every American who’s concerned about the future his country.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

—Chip Wood

While the importance of taking nutrient supplements is well-known for the elderly, very few studies have investigated the link between vitamin intake and cognitive function among healthy adults under the age of 55.

To explore the relationship a research team from Northumbria University recruited 215 healthy men between the ages of 30 and 55 who were all employed full-time and had them blindly receive either a proprietary multi-vitamin or a placebo for a period of one month.

The investigators tested each participant both before and after the study with a variety of mood, stress and health questionnaires. They also analyzed their mental capabilities by having them undergo simple arithmetic examinations.

At the point of follow-up, the participants who took daily multi-vitamins reported considerable improvements in mood, stress levels and cognitive function. The control group participants experienced no significant benefit.

"The assumption was made here that the men tested enjoyed typical nutritional status," said lead author David Kennedy.

"However, the very fact of being able to improve mood, ratings of mental health and vigour and aspects of task performance by simple supplementation with B vitamins, vitamin C and minerals indicates that the cohort must have been suffering from less than optimal micronutrient status at the outset."

*Leapin’ lizards, folks, Annie’s gone. I’m sorry to report that Little Orphan Annie won’t live to see 100. The folks at Tribune Media Services say the last column of the iconic comic strip has been sent to the handful of newspapers that still run it. The column made its debut on Aug. 5, 1924. Annie and her dog Sandy have enjoyed a lot of unlikely adventures since then. The spunky little girl—the inspiration for a radio show, several movies and a Broadway musical—never got any older. She never got any pupils in her eyes, either.

*Sean Hannity knows one when he sees one. Re: my column a few weeks ago, Is Barack Obama a Socialist?, one popular media conservative says he has no doubts. In his best-selling book, Conservative Victory—Defeating Obama’s Radical Agenda, Sean Hannity titled one chapter “Obama the Socialist.” In it he says our president “meets the dictionary definition” of being one. I still disagree, Sean.

*Guess who got the most money from Goldman? I’m not talking about bailouts to banking buddies, but instead, political contributions by those “Wall Street fat cats” our politicians love to bash. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Goldman Sachs wrote a lot of checks to the contenders. Here’s who got what: No. 1, Barack Obama—$996,595; No. 2, Hillary Clinton—$411,150; No. 3, Mitt Romney—$234,275; No. 4, John McCain—$230,095. Looks like Wall Street can spot a winner when it sees one.

*Would you like gold with that? Did you see that large, full-color photo of a gold-dispensing vending machine last week? It ran in several newspapers, including The Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. The machine is located—you won’t be surprised to learn—in the lobby of the Emirate Palace hotel in Abu Dhabi. Maybe there’s a trend here. Last year Harrods’s, the luxury department store in London, began selling gold coins and bars to its affluent customers who wanted them. How soon before we see gold being offered for sale at Wal-Mart?

—Chip Wood

As the firestorm of criticism continues to surround the recently passed Arizona immigration law—which allows police officers to demand documents from individuals who they suspect may be in the United States illegally—major civil rights organizations have filed a lawsuit challenging the legislation.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and a coalition of civil rights groups filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, charging that the law is "extreme," opens doors to racial profiling of minorities, violates the First Amendment and interferes with Federal law.

"Arizona’s law is quintessentially un-American: we are not a ’show me your papers’ country, nor one that believes in subjecting people to harassment, investigation and arrest simply because others may perceive them as foreign," said Omar Jadwat, a staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project.

Jadwat expressed his confidence that the lawsuit will prevent the law from ever being implemented.

He was seconded in his opinion by Victor Viramontes, senior national counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), who stated that the law is "discriminatory" and "pushes Arizona into a spiral of fear, increased crime and costly litigation."

In addition to MALDEF, the ACLU was joined by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, ACLU of Arizona, National Day Laborer Organizing Network and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center.

Representative Mark Souder (R-Ind.) announced his resignation on Tuesday after admitting having an extramarital affair with a part-time female staffer.

The eight-term congressman—a conservative Christian who often preached family values—recently survived a contentious primary election where he garnered less than 50 percent of the vote.

Souder was mysteriously absent from Washington for the last two weeks while rumors of his alleged affair began to surface. The congressman had claimed to be home attending to his ill wife while missing several key votes in House, Fox News reports.

"I wish I could have been a better example," said Souder. "In this poisonous environment of Washington, D.C., any personal failing is seized upon, often twisted, for political gain. I am resigning rather than to put my family through that painful, drawn-out process."

With Souder’s resignation, the GOP may be at a greater risk of losing the seat to a Democratic challenger. A spokeswoman for Indiana Republican Governor Mitch Daniels said that a special election will be held in the next 30 days to select a Republican candidate, according to The Associated Press (AP).

The winner of the election will move on to face Fort Wayne, Ind., city council member Tom Hayhurst, who nearly beat out Souder in the 2006.

At first glance, Toyota and Tesla don’t have a whole lot in common. The former is the world’s largest automaker, while the latter is a small, electric car-only company that only recently surpassed delivering its 1,000th car. But both companies have a lot of green cred; Toyota for its best-selling Prius, Tesla for being the first company to successfully build and globally market a modern electric car. Soon, the two may have even more in common.

California Governor Arnold “The Governator” Schwarzenegger was speaking this morning at a Google event, when he let slip that Tesla and Toyota will be building electric cars. Together. Whaaa?

(more…)

Japanese auto maker  Toyota announced today that it’s investing $50 million in electric-car maker Tesla Motors. As part of the deal Tesla  gets its hands on a factory in California, where it will build its Model S car and other vehicles.

With Tesla, Toyota gets a platform that will allow it to compete head on with General Motors and Nissan selling electric cars in North America — see full press release.

Besides a fresh batch of capital, for Tesla the transaction brings a substantive distribution network to sell its cars.

Tesla has 2,000 reservations for the Model S sedan and intends to scale production in 2012 when it expects to produce as much as 20,000 a year, reports Bloomberg.

Since its inception in 2004 Tesla has not posted a profit, loosing more than $230 million. The car company plans to use proceeds from an upcoming $100 million share sale and a $465 million government loan-guarantee and the Toyota investment, to finance construction of a manufacturing line for its Model S.

Tesla Model S

Toyota Motor Corporation and Tesla Motors have announced that they intend to cooperate on the production of electric-vehicles, parts and production system and engineering support. Toyota will purchase a $50 million of Tesla’s common stock issued in a private placement to close immediately subsequent to the closing of Tesla’s currently planned IPO.

Both companies intend to form a team of specialists to further those efforts.

“I sensed the great potential of Tesla’s technology and was impressed by its dedication to monozukuri (Toyota’s approach to manufacturing),” said TMC President Akio Toyoda.

“Toyota is a company founded on innovation, quality, and commitment to sustainable mobility. It is an honor and a powerful endorsement of our technology that Toyota would choose to invest in and partner with Tesla,” said Tesla CEO and cofounder Elon Musk. “We look forward to learning and benefiting from Toyota’s legendary engineering, manufacturing, and production expertise.”

Tesla also announced that it has purchased the former NUMMI factory in Fremont, California, where it will build the Model S sedan and future Tesla vehicles.

“The Tesla Factory effectively leverages an ideal combination of hardcore Silicon Valley engineering talent, traditional automotive engineering talent and the proven Toyota production system,” said Musk. “The new Tesla Factory will give us plenty of room to grow.”

The Tesla Model S, said to be the first pure electric premium sedan, is design from the ground up. The Model S sedan will start at $49,900 (including a federal tax credit) and will get a range of 160 miles. With an optional extended-range battery pack, the Model S can travel over 300 miles per charge. 0 to 60 comes in just 5.6 seconds with a top speed that is limited to 130 mph.

Production of the Tesla Model S is expected to start in 2012.

Tesla Model S:

– By: Omar Rana

The two companies of the auto world, Tesla Motors Inc. and Toyota Motors Corp, declared their partnership on Thursday at an auto plant in the San Francisco Bay area. They will join as partners in developing and building electric cars. Toyota’s CEO, Akio Toyoda announced that his company will invest $ 50 million in Tesla, while the CEO of Tesla, Elon Musk stated that his company will purchase Nummi, a New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. in Fremont. It is in Fremont where the Model S electric sedan will be built.

“We’re going to create electric cars together,” Musk told a news conference at Tesla’s office in Palo Alto. “It’s a great honor to work with a company like Toyota, one of the automobile leaders of the world and one I’ve personally long admired.”

Tesla, which is currently making electric sports car costing about $ 109,000, stated that its goal is to make affordable electric cars which are good for the consumers out there. As Nissan released the electric car Leaf, many consumers knew how electric cars are environment friendly and it will not cost much because it does not need fuel anymore. Good for Toyota and Tesla, they had joined as partners in creating electric cars that are affordable.

How ever, the news about that partnership shocked city officials from Downey. Downey spent months courting Tesla to locate its factory there and officials said they were certain of settling a deal after meeting with Musk recently.

Downey Councilman Mario Guerra said “Tesla has been extremely disingenuous in their dealing with Downey, and I now have new appreciation as to why America is fed up with many large corporations,” She further stated, “This last-minute betrayal is even more shocking because (Downey) was hours away from signing the lease with Tesla that would have been an economic boon for the city.”

Related posts:

1. Toyota Recalls Lexus Vehicles
2. Toyota’s Crippling Bill and Plummeting Sales
3. GM Recalls 1.3 Million Cars

Last night, a thief walked out of the Paris Museum of Modern Art with some $127 million in paintings by Picasso, Matisse, and Braque. There were no lasers and no temperature-sensitive security systems. Hell, there wasn’t even an alarm. More »










Pablo Picasso – Henri Matisse – Paris – Museum – Amedeo Modigliani

All eyes seems to focus on Media Molecule again these days with the upcoming release LittleBigPlanet 2. Checkout this brand new video interview as the team reveals more details on the new dimensions of level design and

Imagine that Drexler’sengines of creation were real. Imagine we all had devices that could make diamonds, phones, cars and the like on demand. All we needed were some raw materials and energy.

This would be disruptive. DeBeers wouldn’t last the day. Economies would collapse. Hellfire would rain down.

Eventually, however, I suspect our complex adaptive world would return to a balance. A new generation of improved replicators would replace the old ones. The new ones would come with controls that made it, for example, impossible to replicate currency. Civilization wants to survive.

We saw this with VCRs. The first recorders were amazing at capturing movies, but later generation devices incorporated “macrovision” copy protection. Recording features became less common, VCRs became largely playback devices. The rebel was subverted.

We’re seeing it now with the digital replicators of our era. First generation devices made perfect copies of CDs and even DVDs. Slowly, however, the market is moving from general purpose computers with computers that won’t replicate some DRMd video to iPad-style “curated computing“. Surprise — the iPad won’t rip a DVD. It won’t even rip a CD. (If record companies aren’t buying 2nd hand CDs and destroying them they deserve to perish.)

In 20 years, it will be fairly hard to replicate many things. In a world with limited local storage, you may find your purloined media won’t survive long in the cloud. The system is strong, It wants to live.

If you think about DRM, a lot of things make sense. Why are Apple so virulently opposed to Flash [1]? Why is Adobe dissembling when they say Flash is open (they published the specs)? Because the video codecs in Flash are not nearly as important as the DRM (Digital Rights Management) technology in Flash. That is most assuredly not open; it’s as closed as Apple’s FairPlay. What’s Google up to with Google TV and their app stores? Check out the DRM to understand. Why are Hulu and Netflix reluctant to sign on the iPad? Because they’d have to substitute FlashDRM for FairPlay. That means Apple would own them.

This battle will rage for a time, but in 20 years it will be largely forgotten — and the digital replicators will have been tamed. Resistance is futile.

See also:

• Gordon’s Notes: The limits to DRM: my new car stereo (in 2007 I was still resisting)

[1] Personally, like virtually all Mac geeks, I despise Flash and consider Adobe to be as decrepit as Microsoft. I agreed with pretty much everything Jobs wrote about Flash in his open letter. I think, however, that even if none of those things were true Apple would be at war with Adobe. Part of Jobs evil genius is that he’s a master magician — he distracts with one hand while he moves with the other.

—My Google Reader Shared items (feed)

Lindsay Lohan has narrowly escaped an extended stay in the Los Angeles County Jail.

Things had looked pretty grim for Lindsay, who went to the Cannes Film Festival this week instead of an important court hearing in LA. The actress missed her mandatory DUI progress hearing Thursday, prompting a cranky judge to respond by issuing a warrant for her immediate arrest when she arrived back in the States. Luckily for the scandal-scarred star, she won’t be taken into custody when she lands at LAX on Friday.

Lohan’s bail is set at $100,000, and TMZ.com has learned that her reps paid the standard 10% to secure the bond. Judge Marsha Revel then recalled the bench warrant.

We’re not sure whether this is a good thing or a bad thing….

Here in Seattle these wouldn’t sell well, because pretty much everybody already has a mustache. Seriously, almost everybody. I guess the ladies might enjoy these novelty bottle-toppers — the ladies who can’t grow a decent ’stache, anyway.

Here’s the thing. These aren’t actually on the market yet, they’re a prospective product that NEEDS YOUR HELP to get out there. And why shouldn’t you? Go pledge a buck or ten for these poor sons of guns. They went through design school and this is the only thing they could come up with, so they’re trying to make money to go to a different design school. It’s a vicious cycle, I know, but what else are we supposed to do with art and design majors?

Now there are green ones, too. Haven’t seen that before.

And yeah, I say “pop.” That going to be a problem?

Beautiful shot of Frank Lloyd Wright with his apprentices at Taliesen. Photo by Ken Hedrich, 1933.

Microsoft has signed an agreement with Australia’s dominant pay TV provider, Foxtel, to stream over 30 channels to Xbox 360 consoles through Xbox LIVE. The Foxtel by Xbox LIVE service will allow Xbox 360 owners in Australia to access Foxtel channels without the expense of a Foxtel installation and set-top box. Instead, to access the subscription service users will need an Xbox 360 console, Xbox LIVE Gold subscription, broadband connection and a Foxtel by Xbox LIVE subscription…
Continue Reading Microsoft joins with Foxtel to provide pay TV over Xbox LIVE

Tags: Australia,
Channels,
Microsoft,
TV,
Xbox 360,
Xbox Live

Related Articles:

• Xbox 360 Arcade console announced
• Geometry Wars: Galaxies coming to Nintendo Wii, DS
• Halo Wars demo released on Xbox Live
• Resident Evil 5 demo hits Xbox Live
• The Top 50 Best Selling Xbox 360 Games
• The Xbox 360 is back in black