I'll be out of town for the next week or so, on a trip (mixed business and pleasure) to the lovely town of San Francisco.
By following this link you get to see Google Maps page for Frisco. While I realize I'm slowly become a Google Spokesperson here, The new (beta) Google Maps site is absolutely outstanding. Here's my pitches for why its so cool.
1) Very handy (and fast) interface. Is the spot you want just off the side of the map? Try to guess exactly where to click so that the center will still allow you to see what you're looking for? Just click the map and drag it over. Too far zoomed out? Just click the slider and drag to your preferred range.
2) Looking for something specific? Type in "Pizza in Vancouver" into the search bar and you'll see all the locations and names. Click on the names in the right and you'll see a popup on the map with the address and phone number. Has the site scrolled off the edge of the page after you zoomed in? Click the name on the right again and it will recenter.
3) Need directions but aren't looking for something too specific? I have the problem all the time as I'd rather the directions just get me to the area and I can find my way from there. Type in "48215 to Nashville" in the search box. There you go. I'm also told when you print these it defaults to printing a big ass map on the first page and big font directions on the second. Like Chet said, its amazing that this is something someone needed to think of, but nonetheless, Google did it and did it right.
4) Want to get a general lay of the land? This is a another thing I tend to do. Rather than specific directions I just look at a map for 5 minutes or so to understand the general layout of the area. Then, even if I get off the directions I still know basically where I'm at. When you're at any map just click the "Satellite" button on the upper right and the view will switch to an overhead satellite view. This gives you a little more direct sense of the area.
5) The satellite feature is also just plain cool. My newest fun has been using the satellite feaure to brush up my "spaceship navigation" skills. Try it, can you find your way from Italy to Mexico City? I ended up in the Bering Strait. Another guy used it to locate Area 51 (allegedly).
Of course its still in beta and has some work to be done. Many of the street names aren't filled in, and the satellite pictures are missing at close detail in some areas. But already I prefer it to the other mapping services (especially the horrendous current standard MapQuest). I can't wait to see what happens next.
I'm also hoping Google does something really crappy soon so I'll have a chance to demonstrate my editorial independence. But so far they always seem to get it right.
I might update quick while in Frisco, otherwise I'll see ya'll in a few weeks.
Long awaited, finally a feature film adaptation of the Hitchhiker's Guide arrives. Is it worth it?
The marketing is wholly annoying. The picture is being presented like its "Armageddon" or "Independence Day", which is only going to make people dissappointed. That is, unless they've somehow managed to turn the Hitchhikers Guide story into one of those movies, which would make me and anyone who's ever read the books or likes movies that don't painfully suck dissappointed.
But its still a Douglas Adams screenplay, and has a British production team, so I'm going to go on the assumption that its just the marketing that is stupid. Mos Def is an interesting choice for Ford Prefect. Certainly not one I would have anticipated, but I think it could work out very well. And casting Stephen Fry as the voice of the book is so perfect it hurts. A reviewer at IMDB said Fry has a voice "like God popped in for a cup of tea" which is about as perfect a description as possible.
So I'm hopeful that this is a good movie adaptation which is just a victim of Touchstone's marketing machine trying to attract the wrong audience (a la Fight Club). I'll find out soon, let me know what any of your impressions are.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371724/
Although I have no right to think about reading anything, given the ridiculous current backlog comprising piles on tables, bookshelves and in my bathtub, this one is next on the list of books I'd like to buy to add to the previously mentioned ridiculous backlog. For a taste, head to slate for an excerpt about how having a "Black" (i.e. Taneesha) baby name can affect you later in life.
Samantha's blog is in the process of a "fixation on death" talk that's kind of neat. Swing over and answer some questions.
As a counterpoint to the current Papal Love-in appearing in the press, I'd like to offer a few comments.
1) Disturbing Lack of Moral Leadership when it was needed the most
The most serious and damaging event in American Catholocism during John Paul II's tenure was the Child Sexual Abuse scandal, and his leadership on the issue was woefully lacking. Not only did the Pope not seem to grasp how deadly serious this event was, he even seemed to feel it was an affront to even bring it up. For a much more damning article, see Chris Hitchens at Slate. As Hitchens indicates in the article, the most mind-numbingly disturbing part is the deference given to Cardinal Law, he deserved not a prestigious post, but rather a slow painful death.
2) Birth Control, AIDS, and the Third World
The number of Catholics in Africa has increased from 10 Million to over 150 Milliion in the last 50 years. Also during that period with the rise of AIDS has reached pandemic proportions. Yet still, the Church's stand on birth control remains the same despite condom use being able to save millions of lives. This is a clear example in which the "sanctity of life" becomes farcical, in which millions die to keep sperm sacred. The Holy See is complicit in these deaths, and should be criticised for it.
3) Life above sense
While I personally find the position taken by the Catholic Church on life to be ridiculous, I respect the faith's right to its own beliefs. However, immediately following the farce of fighting against the courts, the rule of law, the wishes of the legal guardian, and common sense to keep a dead woman alive for 15 more years of void existence, along with several followers being willing to kill to protect the life said dead woman, the Pope chose to allow himself to die, by refusing to leave the vatican for the hospital, where his life could almost certainly have been extended. Perhaps the difference would have only a day, or a week, or a month. But if a faith is willing to take so strong a principled stand on an issue, then it can't have hypocrisy from its highest officer. And I don't hear anyone talking about this. He refused full medical treatment to keep himself alive.
There is much to celebrate in the life of John Paul II. But if we ignore these shortcomings we risk allowing these errors to continue, and we canonize a man who, while serving Catholics as Peter's Successor was nonetheless human, and in his humanity was not infallible.
Notes:
The official Catholic doctrine of Papal infallibility, holds that the Pope's official pronouncements on Church Catechism are infallible, not that his actions or opinions are.
If you're interested in a little more critical coverage on the Pope's legacy head over the Guardian's section of Special Coverage on the Pope. And anytime American press pisses you off, check out the Guardian to get a different take.
A general note on Christopher Hitchens-- If you aren't familiar with him, you really should read some of his stuff. While I often disagree with his positions, I consider him one of the most original voices you can find in journalism. A self-professed liberal, his views nonetheless always seem to flow from the real core of his values rather than some political positioning designed by the DNC. This has put him on the opposite side of many "career" Democrats, including his support of the Iraq War (an action he's supported about as long as Wolfowitz has). Part of this may come from his being a Brit, but I think its more just in his personality. He may enrage you or annoy you or delight you, but whatever it is, you can count that it's not the same thing you're hearing from every other political writer out there.
I usually find him in Slate, but he also writes columns for Vanity Fair and book reviews for The Atlantic. You can go to this site for all things Hitchens. Here's a transcript of a segment on Tim Russert's show with Hitch and Andrew Sullivan, who sort of fills the role of the Republican Hitchens.