Found Argument: Real Names a Good Thing?

Recently, Internet search engine mogul, Google, released their own take on social networking: Google+. As a response to facebook, Google+ is mostly comparable, however there are, of course, many small detailed differences. One of those main differences is that Google+ enforces the use of your real name when signing up to become a user. While facebook’s policy requires that you use your real name, they do not enforce it, thus allowing users to create profiles with bogus names. Google+ apparently monitors the names as users sign up and if there is any question as to the identity behind the name, then they will research it and in some cases, delete the profile.

On one hand, this feature of Google+ could be considered a negative aspect for users considering to move from one social network to Google+. I suppose if, for some reason, a person needed to maintain a separate identity, or rather, just use a different name, it would become quite difficult for them to do so on Google+. It’s possible that it could even cost Google some business by enforcing such a law. For instance, facebook allows people to create pages for businesses. If someone tried to do so on Google+, they might have some difficulty if their businesses name was anything other than a family name. On that same note, consider a celebrity or famous figure who wanted to remain under the radar. If they decided to use an alias, they risk the chance of having their account suspended. Google+ then risks the chance to lose many users over such a small detail.
On the other, Google+ enforcing such a law could be a good thing. When a social network decides to enforce something like this, it is comforting to know that the people you are friends with are actually who they say they are. In addition to that, it seems like a smart move with all of the identity theft that goes on these days. Without some kind of filter, what is keeping someone with ill intent from signing up as a trusted business or family member and then harassing the people they might become friends with. In this day and age, it seems like it pays to go that extra step and require the use of real names in order to maintain the safety and security of your users. Either way, Google+ is well on it’s way to becoming one of the most popular social networking sites and it doesn’t seem like the enforcement of the use of real names is hurting it all that much.

Found Arguments: High Society vs. Philadelphia Story

I was reading a blog the other day about the film High Society (1956), starring Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby and Grace Kelly. There was a discussion going on about how that film compares to the original, Philadelphia Story (1940), starring Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart and Katharine Hepburn, and which one is considered to be better. Having seen both of them and not really formed a position up to this point, it was intriguing to read the opinions posted on the forum. Here are some quick notes about each one:

1. Philadelphia Story:
- Better chemistry between the main characters
- More laughs
- Hepburn played a better “Tracy Lord”
2. High Society
- Better song arrangements
- Better musical talent i.e. Frank and Bing
As you can see, most of the folks preferred Philadelphia story over the remake, High Society. I think it’s pretty clear that the stereotype “remakes are never better than the original” holds true to this comparison. It seems the chemistry between the characters was one of the main differences that we saw between the two films. Personally, however, I prefer High Society over Philadelphia Story, despite the more popular opinion. I saw High Society first and fell in love with the characters and songs. Then after I watched the original, I determined that even though I love the actors, it just did not have the same feel as High Society. Plus, I suppose my bias also has to do with the fact that I have been an admirer or Grace Kelly since a very young age and have seen all of the films she had appeared in before she quit acting.

Found Argument: Chipotle vs. Qdoba

A long time ago, I was first introduced to a wonderful little burrito joint called Chipotle by my brother, Ryan. After that first introduction, I was enamored and every chance I was able to, I ate at Chipotle. However, this was not often as the closest Chipotle restaurant was 200 miles away or more. Many burrito restaurants came and went in my town, but none that ever came close to my beloved Chipotle. Then one day not long ago, I was lauding the lovely little restaurant and out of nowhere, my friend Taylor piped up, “Chipotle is good, but nowhere near as delicious as Qdoba!” My first thought was, “What is Qdoba?” I had heard of this wannabe Chipotle before. Heck, I’d even seen it around and after a few minutes of thought, remember that I had eaten at one in Spokane some years back. How could this person think a dumpy little pop shop like Qdoba could even be compared to the likes of chipotle? Was she delusional? I thought so. My meal at Qdoba wasn’t even that tasty, much less memorable.

However, here are her thoughts on Qdoba. Apparently, Qdoba is cheaper than Chipotle. She said that normally, you can spend about 6 bucks at Qdoba for a burrito and a drink, while you spend around 10 at Chipotle for those two items. Her second reason is that she likes the seasonings used on the meat at Qdoba better than what they use at Chipotle because it isn’t as spicy.

In my opinion, these are both very poor reasons for liking Qdoba over Chiopotle. Sure, I understand if she doesn’t want to spend that much money, but then she shouldn’t be eating out then. And if she doesn’t like spicy food, perhaps she should try food that isn’t spicy. I then explained to her the various reasons why Chipotle is better. In my humble opinion, chipotle has a few things going for them that make them better than Qdoba. For one, their ingredients are fresh and their meat is naturally raised. Once it is cooked, it doesn’t sit idle in a warmer because it gets used immediately. Their menu is simple and easy to read. Finally, their food is delicious, especially if you like spicy food.

Found Argument: Flat Wound Strings vs. Round Wound Strings

Not long ago, a friend of mine let me borrow his electric guitar for a few days to give it a try. Someone had bought it for him and set it up, adjusted the neck, tweaked the pickups and restrung it. When the guy restrung the guitar, he happened to use a type of string called “flat wound” strings, which previously, I had never used before. Flat wound strings have a round core, like round wound strings, but are different than round wound strings in the fact that they are wound with a rounded, more flattened wire. Round wound strings are use a basic round wire to wrap around the core.

There are many opinions about which string is better. For instance, those who prefer flat wound strings like them because they have a much lower profile. They don’t give off noise when playing, like the round wounds, because there is no friction between your fingers and the strings. Flat wound string players also prefer them over round wound because they have a longer life than typical round wound strings. Whereas a person might need to change their round wounds every couple weeks, dependind on the amount of use, one might only need to do so about once a month with flat wounds. Many people also prefer flatwounds because it causes less wear and tear on the frets, fretboard and nuts. Those who prefer the round wound strings are plenty as well, though. One of the main arguments of round wounds over flat wounds is that round wounds have a much brighter, cleaner sound. In addition, round wound strings are much more common and therefore, higher in demand and much more cheap than flat wounds.

After my personal experience, I have decided I prefer the round wounds over the flat wounds. The drop in brightness isn’t worth it to me for a smoother playing experience and if there isn’t any wear and tear on the guitar, then who is to know that you’ve played it. Plus, I think cheaper for a better sound is a good trade off for more expensive and a flatter sound.

Found Argument: Mac OS X (Lion)

Recently, I updated the operating system on my Macbook from Leopard (10.5) to Lion (10.7). I decided to do this because I had a friend offer me one of his downloads from the Mac App Store and since it was free, I almost had nothing to lose. That is to say, I had nothing to lose that I was aware of. However, once I visited the Lion download page in the Mac App Store, I then realized that I possibly did have something to lose. There were a number of reviews of Lion below the description of the new operating system and as I read through those reviews, I started to see two different schools of thought: some people liked the new OS, some people seemed to hated it.

In the first school, the group that liked the new OS, I found a great number of folks that lauded the new user interface (UI) proclaiming that “Lion is King!” Also among those folks, many of them were impressed with the newly updated apps, the new smooth install process and the new iCloud. The second school thought is quite the opposite than the first. Many of them complained about the changes that were made and preferred the old OS. Particularly, I noticed many complaints about the new installation process through the Mac App Store. People seemed to be displeased because of download times and wanted the option of having an installation disk. Aside from the download time issue, some people were complaining about a bug that no longer allowed them to open iChat.
I’m finding that as I use the new OS, the more I like it. Many of the new updates can be changed to emulate the old OS, if you really don’t like them that much. In addition, the slow download times can mostly be summed up to slow Internet connections, which Apple shouldn’t really be held accountable for. However, I can see the irritation of not being given the option of an install disk, especially if I had a slow connection. Aside from that, I don’t see any reason to not upgrade.

Found Argument: The Goatee.

I have a rather eccentric friend who often changes the style of his facial hair quite frequently. One week he will be clean shaven, the next he will have a beard and the next a moustache, and so on. He finds it amusing to switch it up and he calls it "keeping things fresh". Well, last week he emailed me and some other friends a photograph of his newest facial hair style. This time he had chosen the Goatee and was looking for feedback on the subject. Should he keep it or not? It wasn't long before an all out argument broke out about whether or not he should keep the goatee.

Group A was in favor. They all agreed that the goatee was "fashionable" and gave the wearer a certain "no nonsense air about him "that demanded the respect of anyone who may have seen him with it. They argued that the goatee has been around for hundreds of years and if it would please the wearer, then he should keep it. They all also agreed that the goatee added a few years to his face, so rather than looking like a 23 year old, they thought he looked more like a 25 year old.

Group B thought quite the opposite. They argued that the goatee made him look "old fashioned" and "out of style". They said the goatee was most popular in the 1990's and that it should stay there. In addition to all this, they had a personal distaste for the goatee and thought it was just plain "ugly".

I'm finding it quite difficult to really determine who has a better argument here. On one hand, I suppose one group has more evidence than the other and that, in turn, would win the argument. On the other, it seems like the personal preference of any man or woman should be what wins the argument. However, if I were to decide who was more convincing in this debate, I suppose I would side with Group A. Their evidence had real substance to it, i.e. it is a look that has been around a long time, and also it had less to do with personal preference than Group B.

Found Argument: NFL.

"Thank God for College football season.  What would we do with out it, because the NFL sucks" - Josh

Tonight I was sitting at a bar with a couple of my friends and the sportscaster on TV started talking about the opening games of the college football season.  My friend Josh really cares about sports.  I do not.  Josh made the above statement and then went on to talk for about ten minutes about how the NFL is a "bunch of thugs" and if you want to see real athleticism and true competition you have to ignore the NFL and go with college football.  In general, Josh believe that professional sports are full of "showboats and [expletive] primadonnas" and that you have to look to the younger athletes to see anyone who is not so corrupt by money and greed that they haven't lost the real love of the game.  Since Josh is a true sports fan - he loves to watch, play, and follow the stats of almost every type of sport, he is most concerned with the athletic and competetive aspects of football viewing.

I think that Josh's argument is valid but that it ignores a whole other part of the discussion about why people might chose to watch the NFL instead of college teams.  If everybody watched football on tv because they love the game, they love watching skilled players play with passion, and they value competition and sportsmanship, it would be okay for him to conclude that the "NFL sucks."  But not everyone is like Josh and he does not take into account that people watch professional sports teams for lots of reasons.  Many people didn't go to college and therefore don't have any obvious ties to college or university teams.  Also, many people watch professional sports teams because of emotional ties from childhood, because an influential family member was a fan, or because they look up to a member of the team after hearing them speak.  Furthermore, a lot of people become fans of  both professional and college teams for social reasons - they go to games or watch games because it's a way to hang out with friends and be part of something bigger than themselves...or because they want to drink.  So in conclusion, while I agree with Josh that college football is probably the route to go if you really care about football in and of itself, I think that it's an overstatement to say that the "NFL sucks" and has no entertainment value.