Facebook's New Policy Towards Text in Ad Images

Until very recently, Facebook had a policy concerning text in images of boosted posts. The policy was no more than 20% of an image could be text. Part of the problem with this policy was that it was not an actual 20%. Instead, an image was divided into a five by five grid and if text was in more than five grid squares it was judged as having more than 20% text. It did not matter if the font size was huge or small, or the amount of text was used so long as it occupied less than five grid squares. Placement played a great deal in whether text occupied more than five grid squares. One could sometimes just rearrange the text on the image so that it occupied five grid squares or less. Thus, the policy was sometimes not so much a judge of how much text there was, but a judge of where the text was placed. Unfortunately, the grid was laid out in such a way that such text placement did not always make for good graphic design. Read my previous post on the topic here.

Effective June 8th Facebook changed its policy. The 20% rule is no longer going to be used. Instead, they are classing images as Okay, Low, Medium, and High. An Okay image has no text. A Low image would be one with some text. A Medium image has more text than a Low image. And a High image would be one with a lot of text. A Low image will not get as many impressions as an Okay image, a Medium image will get a lot less while an image classed as High may not run at all.

I tested two images using the new testing tool and found both images to be in the Okay range despite having text. I suspect these images would be classed as Low in reality. Both images though may have ran afoul of the 20% rule due to text placement. This is much more acceptable to me as even though a Low image may get fewer impressions, it may be more effective than an Okay image at getting a reader to read the post's text. As I said in a previous post it has been my experience that oft times people look at the image, perhaps "like" it, and never read the post so you wind up not getting your message across. However, if an image has just enough text to pique a Facebook user's interest they may go ahead and read the post's text.

I can definitely work with Facebook's new policy. The most desirable policy though would be to only penalize images with a lot of text, and allow Facebook users via reactions and clicks to determine how many impressions a post may get. That is  images with no text and images with some text should both be classed as "okay," and have their number of impressions determined by how users react to them. Still though, the new policy is a step in the right direction,

My Opinion on Pinterest Doing Away with Maps

Pinterest is doing away with maps on place boards. The above image is a map. It serves a purpose. Therefore, what good is a place board on Pinterest without a map? Maps on place boards on Pinterest allow users to know where the place the pins are from is located. Without the maps, folks are forced to go to another site to learn a place's location. That could become tedious and tiresome. If you want Pinterest to reverse its decision on maps, send them feedback at the link below. Make sure to mention in the comments section you want to keep maps.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1tM6FuPvedkBVFdRR92atiTX702F512OqgTBHKEpkzpE/viewform

The Follies of Burning the American Flag to Protest the American Government

You are disenchanted. You are tired of a government whose police beat and shoot people in the street at the slightest provocation. You are tired of a government that taxes the Middle Class to the breaking point. You are tired of a government that allows itself to be bought by corporations and billionaires. So what do you do? How do you show your anger? What symbolizes the government? What governmental emblem or symbol you can take out your frustrations on? Well, the American flag of course. It makes perfect sense. It is the symbol of the government that has maltreated you. Sound thinking, right? There is a problem with this. Not everyone sees the American flag as symbolizing just the government.

You see many people see the American flag as not being the flag of the government of the United States of America, but as being a symbol of the people of the United States. So when you burn it you are not just attacking the government, but attacking the American people as a whole. That makes you a traitor in many people's eyes. It goes further than that. Many see the American flag as symbolizing a certain set of ideas espoused during the American Revolutionary War. They link it to ideas as justice, freedom, human rights, and such documents as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It is in the original Pledge of Allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

 It does not say "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the Government of the United States of America..." but "to the Flag of the United States of America" i.e. all of us that are American citizens, to all of us that are a part of this country. Further, it says "with liberty and justice  for all." So there in the very pledge it says the flag represents the people and stands for certain ideas. If the government no longer represents the people, or no longer represents the ideas that this country was founded on, then the government's flag is no longer the American flag. The American flag, I feel represents the American people, human rights, freedom, and justice, NOT the government.

So next time you decide to destroy a symbol of a government you see as repressing you, do not choose the American flag. Instead, loudly proclaim that the American flag does not represent tyrants, bigots, or oppressors. State that it is your symbol, and you plan to take it back from those whose ideas conflict with those the American flag represents. Find another symbol of the government to take your frustrations out on. Burn politicians in effigy, but I beg you do not desecrate our flag, the flag of the American people.

Some Thoughts on Slavery, Racism, and the American Civil War

The American Civil War is a very complex issue especially for states like Missouri where sympathies were very much divided. Here in my part of Missouri (which is called LIttle Dixie by the way) many wealthy slave holders were Union men. Meanwhile, many that did not even own slaves fought for the Confederacy. The Confederate Bushwhacker "Bloody Bill" Anderson who grew up in my hometown never owned slaves, nor did his father, or his father's father. Meanwhile, wealthy slave holders like Benjamin Lewis of Glasgow, Missouri were Union men. He was beaten nearly to death by Anderson for that very reason. This was very, very common during the war. Wealthy slave holders often were pro-Union while those that owned no slaves served the Confederacy.

This was largely due to the propaganda of the time. Wealthy slave holders in states like Missouri were under the impressionism they could keep their slaves after the war. Meanwhile, many felt the war was being fought for states rights, and that the Union Army was nothing more than Northern invaders. The North had similar issues. People there were often under the impression the war was being fought to "preserve the Union." It never occurred to many on both sides that the issue at heart was slavery.

 Even the issue of slavery is not as simple as it seems. For example, I often recommend people read the slave narrative "The New Man: Twenty-Nine Years a Slave, Twenty-Nine Years a Free Man" by Henry Clay Bruce. The picture of slavery its author paints is neither consistent with the Antebellum white literature, nor that of today, or even the Northern literature following the war. It paints a picture of good and bad inconsistent with white American literature of any era. It is in stark contrast with the Southern Antebellum literature about the "happy slave" and the Abolitionist literature about the cruelty of slavery. The issue for folks like Mr. Bruce pure and simple was freedom. Still, even with the simple idea of freedom being the main concern, post-war society was very complex. For example. what is surprising about what Bruce talked about in his narrative is the he himself was guilty of prejudice against darker skinned African Americans, as well as what he calls "poor white trash." Mr. Bruce is sometimes more sympathetic to former slaver holders than he is his fellow African Americans and whites living in poverty.

As much as racism was an issue in the South, classism was as well. I know this complex situation concerning slavery and race issues firsthand. My Great Grandfather Towles' three slaves begged not to leave him. The fear of being on their own with no money, and having to seek jobs terrified them. My great grandfather was sympathetic, but being a Middle Class farmer and carpenter he could not afford to pay them. He had fed and clothed them from goods produced on his farm, not profits from his business. And unlike the image of the racist former slave holder, he taught his children, "Never mistreat the colored people." This flies in the face of the PC view of the cruel slave master quick with the whip. My Great Grandfather Canote and one of his brothers fought for the Union. And while Southerners intermingled with freemen following the war. Two of my Great Uncles on my mothers side fought for the Confederacy. You even had Southern sympathizers drafted into the Union army. While the war may have been fought over slavery, the personal views of many then were often contradictory in the State of Missouri, or not what we would expect. You saw men who supported slavery fighting for the Union cause, and men who did not believe in slavery supporting the Confederate cause.

One fact remains, the Southern States seceded over slavery. There was no other reason. Even the argument they seceded over states' rights holds no water as the "right" they were wanting to preserve was to own slaves. What bothers me most in all this though is the North seems ignorant of its own racism and prejudice. When desegregation of schools is brought up, it is always Little Rock that is mentioned first. They ignore the riots in Boston in the '70s over "busing" that were racially motivated. In fact the issue of desegregation in what is sometimes called the "most racist city in America" is almost never mentioned. The Boston desegregation race issues have been in my opinion swept under the rug. People also ignore the fact that the draft riots in New York City during the Civil War were in part racially motivated. During the riots blacks were attacked in the streets mostly by Irish immigrants upset that wealthy men could buy their way out of the draft. Even the treatment of the Irish and other immigrants in the North is a lesson in the prejudice of Northern Anglo-Americans. Lynchings were not unheard of in states like Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. In some areas of the North African Americans were restricted to living in only certain neighborhoods. Racism to many only exists in the South though. However, it can be seen in the North as well. Meanwhile, there were areas in the South like mine where the KKK was driven out with guns and baseball bats. Yet it still flourishes in Northern States like Indiana where one sees the Confederate Battle Flag much more often. I will concede that racism was more prevalent in the South esp. in places like Mississippi and Georgia, but the North is not without its own sins in that area. The issues of the American Civil War, slavery, racism, general prejudice, even classism are in many ways as complex now as they have ever been. And I think instead of focusing on one part of the country we need to look at all of it. I often have to wonder if all this hoopla in the media over the Confederate Battle Flag is smoke and mirrors to take our minds over the treatment of blacks by the police in places like New York City and Chicago. One thing is clear though, things must change.

How Things Do Not Change: The Antebellum South and Present Day America

With the recent shooting in Charleston that was racially motivated, and the hatred for the fact that the Confederate flag still flies over the North Carolina state house I have seen a hatred of the South arise. A lot of folks feel that while only 1% of Southerners owned slaves in the Antebellum South, that the other 99% could have done something about it. They feel the 99% were guilty of complacency. They therefore feel that the Old South is something to be hated and reviled and that everything the South produced was somehow connected to slavery. The sad fact is the 99% that did not own slaves probably could not do anything to stop slavery, other than do things that we today are not willing to do. Those against slavery or who simply tolerated it simply did not have the money or political power to ban slavery, or felt they did not. In addition, they were encouraged by those in power and those in control of the media to think slavery was a necessary evil.

Think of it in today's terms and you will see what I mean. The Waltons, a member of today's 1% pay their workers such low wages that many of the workers have to go on welfare. Does that mean, that I, a member of today's 99% am to blame for that? No, as I am powerless to change it. Were I to run for office on a platform of raising wages I would lose no matter how popular my position may be simply because I do not have the wealth or political influence to do so. And while racism may have been common in the Antebellum South, hatred of the poor is pervasive in our society today. Why? Because the folks of the Antebellum South were told the slaves were subhuman, lazy, and without white masters would accomplish little. Similarly we are told today that the poor are lazy and always looking for a handout, content to live on the government dole.  Hating the poor is the racism of our age. Does the fact that many in the 99% hate the poor that I as a part of the 99% do also? No, I do not, I advocate for the poor. I am no different than the Southern Abolitionists of the pre-Civil War South who made a lot of noise, but could not change the system without outside help. The Antebellum South bore a striking resemblance to the United States of today. The politicians and businessmen guilty of keeping a system hurtful to the people were kept in power because the folk were told to hate a certain class of people, and that the system in place was a necessary evil which is what is happening to the people of the United States today. Those that do believe the poor are lazy and willing to stay on welfare have been manipulated to believe so by those in power and who control the media. In addition, like the Antebellum Southerns concerning slavery, we are told that low wages are a necessary evil, that wages must be kept low to keep prices of goods low.

How then are we to hate all things connected to the Old South when we as a people are guilty of the same sort of transgressions? If we are to do so, should we not also hate everything of our culture since we are guilty of the same type of transgressions? Further, hating the Old South and present day Southerners s is in and of its self a form of prejudice. To class a whole group of people, in this case the 99% that did not own slaves of the pre-Civil War South in a period when things were much different, who were unable to change the status quo is no different than creating a stereotype of Jews, Blacks, and other minorities. You are creating a stereotype of Southerners as ALL being a group of racists. It is in its own way a sort of bigotry. The fact is the 99% who did not own slaves in the Antebellum South were powerless to change the situation, were told the system was beneficial, while others like Sarah Moore Grimké, Moncure Conway, Jasper Collins, and their followers were even Abolitionists. There were reasons Southerners tolerated slavery, just as there were reasons many in the North of the time tolerated the Industrialists and their below the living wage. We do the same thing with allowing the Waltons and Koch brothers to do what they do. We are guilty of sins not much different than those of Antebellum Southern society.

To attempt a change in any society requires wealth and political power, and may mean putting our own livelihood at stake. It is true most Antebellum Southerners were probably racists, but so were many, many in the North. Many in both the North and South still are. Racism is by no means merely a Southern thing. There are good reasons Boston is sometimes called the most racist city. It is true they allowed the institution of slavery to exist. But is this no different than the myriad things that we allow to exist that benefit only a few, and hurt many. I mean we live in a nation that has gone through three wars just to make war profiteers wealthier, that keeps wages low so we do not have to pay ten cents more an item at the checkout line, who think a class of people are lazy. So who are we to judge the 99% of people that did not own slaves of the Antebellum South?

We allow a hurtful system to remain in power just as the 99% of the Antebellum South did. We keep voting into power men that support a system that hurts many, We still do business with businessmen that want to maintain the status quo. We like the pre-Civil War 99% are led to believe a group of people are lazy, We are guilty of the same sort of complacency they were. In closing, it is okay to hate the Confederacy, it is okay to hate slavery, but it is not okay to hate the South and all things Southern because of those things. There are many things the South produced worth preserving that had nothing to do with slavery such as the Virginia Declaration of Rights which the Bill of Rights were based in part on. There are the writings of the Southern Abolitionists such as Sarah Moore Grimké, Moncure Conway, and Jasper Collins. Not to mention Southern cuisine. If we are to discard everything connected to Southern culture simply because we feel the 99% were complacent then we are hypocrites of a great degree. They allowed a system to stay in place that was wrong just as we do.

Air dates of "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer" in its First Twenty Years

 My brother and I were discussing A Christmas Story and how folks have tried to date it using clues in the movie such as the Little Orphan Annie decoder ring, a calendar on the wall, the appearance of Wizard of Oz characters, events in sports mentioned by the Old Man, and so forth. I brought up that perhaps since the movie narration is done by the adult Ralphie looking back perhaps his memory of events in his childhood was faulty. Thus he could remember his Dad mentioning some baseball player being traded that Christmas and got mixed up and thought it was  Bill "Bullfrog" Dietrich. "Bullfrog" was actually traded three or four years earlier than the year the movie seems to take place. The same explanation could be used for an upcoming game between the Green Bay Packers and Chicago Bears that was mentioned in the movie, and many other things.

This conversation segued into a conversation about our own memories we found not to be accurate. And I mentioned that when I was younger I thought Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer always aired on December 1st. This made me curious so I searched online for a list of air dates of Ruldolph.... but could not find any. Still curious I went searching through old TV listings to see if Rudolph... ever aired on December 1st when I was a child and found it did one year. In the process I came up with a list of air  dates of Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer when I was a child. I expanded this list out to its first twenty years. Note, this list may not be totally accurate as stations sometimes aired network programming at different times. However, I did try to cross reference between station listings to make it as accurate as possible. There is always the off chance though two stations both aired it at a time different than the network on the same night though.

Air Dates of Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer  the first twenty years it aired.
 
1964: Dec. 6
1965: Dec. 5
1966: Dec. 4
1967: Dec. 8
1968: Dec. 6
1969: Dec. 5
1970: Dec. 4
1971: Dec. 6
1972: Dec. 8
1973: Dec. 7
1974: Dec. 8
1975: Dec. 3
1976: Dec. 1
1977: Nov. 30
1978: Dec. 6
1979: Dec. 5
1980: Dec. 3
1981: Dec. 14
1982: Dec. 1
1983: Nov. 27
1984: Dec. 1

The Many Film and TV Versions of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol"

Two years ago I undertook an endeavor to see what the most accurate film adaptation of A Christmas

Carol.  As I went through watching the various adaptations I would reread it to refresh myself of its contents. What follows are my commentaries on the various adaptations that I posted on Google Plus. These by far are not all of the adaptations. These are merely the ones I got to watch during the holiday season of 2012. There are more which I did not have access to. Each adaptation is called by the name of the actor that played Scrooge except for the Disney animated version which is simply called the Disney Animated Version. One version I did not comment on was the musical with Albert Finney. Being a musical it departs from the book in many ways, but generally follows the plot of the book and its scenes in a fairly loyal way. It is unique in that the ghostly death coach appears when Scrooge enters his home near the beginning of the book. As I recall it does not appear in any of the other film adaptations I cover of Dickens' book.

Google Plus Post on December 19, 2012 Sim, Scott, and Hicks Adaptations

Last night I read Dickens' A Christmas Carol to see how the movies differ from the novel. Thus far this year I have watched the Seymour Hicks version, Alastair Sim version, and the George C. Scott version of the movie adaptations. None of these versions are loyal to the novel. The Seymour version added dialogue and characters to some scenes, alters some scenes so they appear very unlike those in the novel, and omits some very important scenes that are in the novel. Fan, Scrooge's sister does not appear at all in the film. It does include one scene not seen in the other two films but in the book. Finally, Scrooge has very little interaction with the ghosts. Indeed, they only appear on the screen for a couple of minutes.

The Sim version left out several scenes in the book, added several not even hinted at in the book, inserted characters in scenes where they do not appear in the novel, and altered other scenes and dialogue. The added scenes are not even hinted at in the book in a couple of cases, and only alluded to in others. The added scenes do not appear to add much to the story other than to establish that Scrooge is a rather stingy fellow, or to establish things that were established later in the book.

The Scott version left out scenes from the book and added dialogue in the opening scene in Scrooge's office, and altered at least one scene by leaving out characters. None the less it is the most loyal version of the three films even with the added dialoge in the opening scene.

None of the movies are really loyal to the book, although I have to say of the three, the Scott version is the most loyal with the Sim version departing from the novel the most with added scenes. The sad thing is if scenes had not been added to the Sim version, more scenes from the novel could have been kept in the screenplay and other scenes not altered, it would have been the most loyal of the three. At 86 minutes the Sim version is long enough to cover much of the novel. The Scott version is longer at 102 minutes, and spends more time with each scene from the novel. If dialogue had not been added in the opening scene and here and there, some of the scenes from the novel that were left out could have been added instead.

One thing I find interesting in the Hicks, Sim, and Scott versions is the need to reference coal in the opening scene. In the  Hicks and Sim versions Scrooge gets after Cratchit for trying to add coal to the fire. He does this too in the Scott version going as far to lecture Cratchit on the use of coats and waistcoats as an alternative to using coal. None of this dialogue appears in the book. Neither Scrooge or Cratchit ever mention coal. In the book it only described how there are very few embers in the stoves, and that Cratchit is trying to warm his hands by the candle. I think adding these lines to the films about coal seriously alters the character of Bob Cratchit. In the book we are given the impression he is loyal and obdient and would not seek to displease Scrooge, and when he does he is very apologetic. Our impression of him is altered with these added lines about coal in the films. With the Scott and Sim versions they also insert Belle in the Fezziwig scene. I think that is because they feel a need to introduce the character. In the novel we first see her when she is breaking up with Scrooge. She makes no appearance before then. In the Hicks version the school scenes do not appear at all. In the Sim and Scott versions only the second school scene appears with the Sim version being seriously altered. 

Google Plus Post on December 22, 2012 Patrick Stewart Adptation

I watched the Patrick Stewart version of A Christmas Carol. It has several scenes that appear in the book, but do not appear in many of the other movie versions. One scene is that of Cratchit in his upstairs room with Tiny Tim's body when the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come is showing Scrooge the future that may be. The only other movie that it appears in is the Hicks version. It also shows the first school scene with the Ghost of Christmas Past that does not appear in many of the other movies (though never has that scene from the book appeared in its entirety  nor has the second school scene appeared in its entirety for that matter). And it shows the lighthouse and ship scenes with the Ghost of Christmas Present, and the scene with the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come and the debtors happy at Scrooge's death. It does leave out the scene of Belle being happily married with the Ghost of Christmas Past though which I think is an important scene in the book. Some of the dialogue is altered from the book, some key lines left out oft times not for the better in my opinion. That is not to say that the alterations are bad, it is just to say that they lack the power of the original dialogue Dickens wrote in my opinion. One particular line that is omitted when the Ghost of Christmas Present appears is noticeable to anyone that has read the novel or seen the other movie versions. There are also some lines left out from when Scrooge and the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come  visit Cratchit 's house that is pretty glaring. However, where the original dialogue from the book is used unaltered, it is sometimes more powerful than in the same scenes from the other movies. And some dialogue from the book omitted from some of the other movies is included. I guess that is the trade off. The scene when the reformed Scrooge visits his nephew Fred plays out differently from the book, but none of the movies are very loyal to this scene. There is an added scene at the beginning which while it is  not seen in the book fits nicely in the movie. There are some anachronisms such as people singing "Silent Night." "Silent Night" was not translated into English until many years after the novel takes place. But then you see similar anachronisms with the other movies Overall, I would say it is a toss up between it and the Scott version as to which is the most loyal to the novel. It is odd as they are both made for TV movies, while the others were feature films. I have yet to watch the 1935 Reginald Owen version of A Christmas Carol, but at 69 minutes it is the shortest of the movies, and therefore much perhaps left out. I will try to watch it tomorrow.

Google Plus Post on December 23, 2012 Reginald Owen Adaptation

I watched the Reginald Owen version of A Christmas Carol. Of the versions I have watched (Hicks, Owen, Sim, Scott, and Stewart) it is the least loyal. There are scenes from the book that do not appear. For example Belle does not appear at all in this retelling. And there are major plot changes such as Fred is not married, he is only engaged, and Scrooge fires Bob Cratchit. There are added scenes that do not appear in the book (a church scene with Christmas Present, and various scenes throughout the movie), and many of the scenes from the book are altered sometimes to make them appear very different. The school scenes are condensed into one, the scene with Fezzywig is abbreviated (there is no party), and the ending is changed drastically (Scrooge shows up at Bob's house with the turkey and presents for the kids instead of being in the office the next morning). The dialogue is often different from the book, either changed or not appearing. Never the less despite it being the least loyal version it is very enjoyable. Ann Rutherford is fun as Christmas Past, and the Lockharts were very convincing as the Cratchits. I also watched Mr. Magoo's A Christmas Carol. For an hour long cartoon (with commercials) it is surprisingly loyal despite taking the ghosts out of order. It is very funny. Next for me to watch is Disney's A Christmas Carol. I have heard this version is very good and that it contains scenes from the book that do not appear in some of the other movies.

Google Plus Post on December Disney Animated Version

 

I watched Disney's A Christmas Carol.  It is the only animated version I am doing commentary on. There are some added scenes, and some changed dialogue. Some lines are left out here and there. Entire scenes from the novel were left out in some places as well, while others appear in this version that do not appear in the other adaptations. Both school scenes are included although in abbreviated form which is the norm for the film adaptations of A Christmas Carol.  The scene with Belle happy with her husband seven years before the events of the novel does not appear. There is an exchange between the Ghost of Christmas Present and Scrooge included that is in the book that does not appear in the other adaptations. The lecture by the Ghost of Christmas Present about how many see Scrooge as less fit to live than Tiny Tim does not appear. The scenes with the miners, the lighthouse, and the ship do not appear. And the scene with Ignorance and Want is altered slightly from the book. There are added scenes with the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come. A sequence with Scrooge running in the streets of London from a wagon driven by the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come in a shrunken form has been added. I do not see it adds anything to the story.I think they would have ben better leaving it out, and instead keeping scenes from the book that do not appear. He is still shrunken when he comes to the pawnbroker's. In the pawnbroker scene only two of the five characters that appear in the book appear. The scene with the debtors happy that Scrooge has died appears, and it is rarely seen in film adaptations. The ending is altered with Scrooge's housekeeper being in the house when Scrooge awakens. She is not the house in the book, and only appears at the pawnbroker's. Scrooge also grabs on back of a carriage and slides along as it goes, that is not, of course in the book. Overall, were not scenes added to give it more the character of a cartoon (which it is), it would be a very loyal adaptation. At least it would be no less loyal than most of the live action versions. Yes, scenes are left out, but this is done with all adaptations. After the Stewart and Scott versions I would say it is the third most loyal of the ones I have seen (Hicks, Owen, Sim, Scott, and Stewart) in my opinion. Were it not for added and altered scenes it would be the most loyal in my opinion.

 

The Video Catchphrase: A Symptom of a Society that Cannot Think for Itself

A Video with a Catchphrase not Telling Someone What to Feel

I first noticed it last year. There were a bunch of videos on Facebook that were along the lines of, "Watch this dog greet its master, you won't believe what happens next!' You might watch the video and see nothing out of the ordinary. It is just a video of a dog greeting his master after the master has been away, and the dog does the usual doggie things. About the time folks started commenting how this catch phrase was melodramatic or at least an extreme exaggeration of what takes place in the videos the catchphrase disappeared. This catchphrase was replaced with videos being posted to Facebook with catchphrases like, "You will be in tears!" or "You will be rolling on the floor laughing!" These catchphrases perhaps because there is some variety have lasted longer.

From the start I hated any text that went with a video that said something like, "You won't believe what happens next" or "You will be in tears." How dare they tell me how I will react to the video! Maybe I think the idea of a kid throwing oatmeal on his dad's head is something to cry about, and not laugh at. Who are you folks to tell me what I find funny, what I find sorrowful, what I find stimulating? Who are you to tell me how to think? Yet videos with such catchphrases persist on Facebook, Twitter, and elsewhere.

Part of what irritates me is I was taught in college how to write headlines, and how to write copy for advertising. There are some things you do not do. One of them is you do not tell the person how to feel or what to think. You present what you feel the facts are, and let the reader or viewer decide for his or herself. Thus you may have a headline for a news story like, "War in Iraq. Thousands Killed," and not "War in Iraq, You will be Appalled at the Death Toll." With advertising you have a bit more leeway. You can get away with something like "Dawn Soap: We Think You Will Like the Results."  On rare occasions if you are feeling cocky you might even say, "Dawn Soap, You will Like the Results." For the most part though you do not tell someone how to feel, you present them with a catchy phrase about the product like :Kentucky Fried Chicken, finger licking good," and hope your suggestion leads them to eating chicken.

A friend and I were talking about the effectiveness of such catchphrases as "You will be in tears." His argument was they must be effective or else they would not use them. He pointed out that they collect all kinds of data on these click throughs such as what site the person came from, if on a social network, who are his or her friends, where they come from, what other things does he or she like, what kinds of videos get the most hits, and more. Further they experiment with catchphrases and the preview pictures of what works and what doesn't based on click throughs. I agreed he was right, but I said that since everyone of these videos uses same sort of catchphrase they do not even know if that method is or is not more effective than simply saying, "A dog greets its master after the master's long deployment." I further said that they may not know if perhaps it was the preview picture of the video that drew the viewer to click on it. Even with all this data I did not think they could figure out why someone clicked on a video link to view it. In essence my faith in humanity would not allow me to think folks would actually click on something that tells them how to feel.

After some more discussion I arrived at the conclusion that the American people may now have become accustomed to being told not just how to feel, but how to think. After all Fox News has been on the air since 1985 all the while telling its viewers how to think, and not just presenting them with the information. They are not the only network to do this though others may be more subtle. Commentators like Rush Limbaugh regularly tell folks what they should feel or think about some such or another. Even politicians tell folks how to think or feel. You do not hear many Americans speaking their own opinions, but repeating catchphrases or slogans from their favorite news channel or political commentator. If you enter a debate with them you are not likely to be presented with data or information to back their claims, but with simple quotes from some person who is not even an expert about the subject. Therefore, I concluded that being told, "This will put you in tears" or "This will have you on the floor laughing," may not offend them. Indeed, it may even reassure them that they do not have to think for themselves. They may take some comfort in the fact this video will make them laugh or cry. It saves them the trouble of making up their own minds.

It is a sad commentary on our society that people can no longer think for themselves, but have to be told such and such video will have them laughing their hearts out. Once upon a time folks were simply presented with information, and were allowed to decide for themselves how to feel or think. Sure, even then the media filtered what you were presented with. You might be told the marines have taken Iwo Jima, but not what the death toll was. But if you persisted you might be able to find the information. And never were you told, :"The Marines Took Iwo Jima Today, You Will Cry for the Fallen Japanese." In that day and age, advertisers might try to tell you how to feel, but that was advertising, and for the most part even advertisers avoided telling folks what to do. You would see things like, "Smart Shoppers Shop at Value Mart," and not "Shop at Value Mart, It will have you leaping for joy." The second example was not rare, but no one paid attention. It was advertising. My point is people have been taught they must be told how to feel and what to think. We have ceased being a society of freethinkers.

I think therefore it is time purveyors of such videos take a different route, one that will appeal to free thinkers, and encourage those that are not free thinkers to be. Perhaps  have a video with a description like, "Is this dog cute or what?! Decide for yourself!" Or perhaps, "Is this cat funny? What do you think?" Maybe it is time everyone stops telling other Americans how to think or feel. Maybe it is time we just present the information and let folks decide for themselves how they will react. After all what is wrong with describing a video simply as, "This cat apparently loves its companion, watch and see?"

Enhancing My Laptop's Audio: A Review

Last week I decided I wanted to improve the sound I get from my laptop so I went looking for audio enhancers. The first one I downloaded was DFX Audio Enhancer by FXSound. The free trial version was somewhat stripped down, but still usable. I found it preformed at the levels I wanted even given the limitations. The sound it delivered was good. Overall, I was pleased with its performance and would have continued using it save for some annoyances. It had this popup that would come up every 30 minutes or so asking me to order the full version. You could not minimize the software's window either. The ability to minimize it to the taksbar only came with the full version. Worse yet, I found I could not use my laptop's audio without it running. Even still I might have bought the full version, but at $39.99 it was a no go. There was no way I was going to pay that for something that did not behave like a full equalizer and only gave me five items I could adjust to customize my sound.

I had seen mentioned in a review of DFX Audio Enhancer a program called ProfoundSound Audio. While ripping DFX Audio Enhancer (which the reviewer was justified to do IMO) the reviewer praised ProfoundSound Audio. So after uninstalling DFX Audio Enhancer I decided to give it a go. There are two versions. There is ProfoundSound Lite which is a 5 band graphic equalizer that has presets for music, movies, and voice. It has outputs for headphones, internal speakers, and external speakers. Then there is ProfoundSound CSharp. It is a 10 band graphic equalizer with (and I am directly quoting from the website): "variable loudness, auto volume leveling, variable dynamic surround sound, variable dynamic virtual bass, variable high frequency restoration, a 20 band spectral analyzer, variable dynamic bass and dynamic voice, plus the ability to customize and save your settings" I went whole hog and downloaded the free trial of ProfoundSound CSharp.

It was unbelievable. Not only did it give better sound than DFX Audio Enhancer but it was also fully customizable allowing you to decided how you wanted something to sound. Yet at the same time there was a variety of presets for different genres of music, as well as movies, and voice if you did not want to fiddle with the sliders. You could also save your own presets so once you had something sounding as you liked it you did not have to go adjusting things again. A big plus was you could still use your computer's own audio when you shut ProfoundSound down. I was blown away by how useful this software was and by the sound it delivered through my headphones and speakers.  Further it is only $4.96 for CSharp. The stripped down Lite which would do for most music listeners and video viewers is only $1.99.

My advice for anyone wanting to enhance their computer's audio is avoid DFX Audio Enhancer like the plague and go straight to ProfoundSound. It is by far the better choice. A word of warning though, with both audio enhancing programs YouTube videos are jerky or out of sequence with the audio. There is nothing you can do about this with DFX Audio Enhancer that I could see. With ProfoundSound you just shut it down and use your computer's own native software do its job.

Beware of Companies Selling you Family Coats of Arms and Crests

One of my interests over the years has been heraldry. Heraldry is defined by the Oxford Dictionaries as "the system by which coats of arms and other armorial bearings are devised, described, and regulated." I have been aware for a number of years individuals of my mother's family held coats of arms. One is described in the February 23, 1896 issue of the Courier-Journal (published in Louisville, KY) as "a prostrate foe, an exalted victor standing over him with upraised club." This is just a description, not an official blazon.  Blazoning is the way a herald describes what a coat of arms looks like. If a herald blazons an arms he or she is in a fairly precise language using specialized terminology describing what a coat of arms looks like. A heraldric artist can then take this description using standardized pictures and colors and reproduce what the arms look like in a work of art such as on a shield or a scroll.  It is a science developed over centuries of work on coats of arms and family crests. Another coat of arms registered to an individual of the Towles family is found in the book Encyclopaedia Heraldica Or Complete Dictionary of Heraldry Vol. 1 (as well as in other works of the period), and is blazoned "per pale, and per chev. erm. and sa. four cinquefoils counterchanged."

Having found these arms my curiosity was piqued so I went searching for more coats of arms registered to individuals of the Towles family. As usual with the searches on Google for the topic "coat of arms" results came up from many of the companies purporting to sell folks scrolls and plaques with their "family coat of arms" or "family crests" on them as well as family histories. I came up with results from companies such as 4crests.com and House of Names. I knew immediately that these companies had not done their research. House of Names and 4crests.com both give previews of one's "family coat of arms" or "family crest." In the case of both the arms pictured I knew from books listing the arms of various families were registered to an ancestor of the Tolson family, not the Towles family. They also had these arms as being the arms of the Towle family. Apparently according to these sites, these arms are the coat of arms of many familes with Towl- or Tol- in their name. While there is some evidence the Towle and Towles families may be related, I am aware of none showing that the Tolson and Towles families are. Similarity of names though was enough for these companies to assume the families were somehow related and therefore the coat of arms of one individual of the Tolson family must be the coat of arms of all these families. Of course this is not so. The arms of an individual of the Tolson family are in no way the coat of arms of the entire Towles or Towle families.

Further to the point, families from England and France do not have "coats of arms." A coat of arms is awarded to an individual, not a family. While a child may have the right to have their father's arms as a part of their own, for the most part arms are unique to an individual and are not hereditary. It has always been that way as long as the various England and France have been granting coats of arms. On the College of Arms Website FAQ (which serves the United Kingdom) it says this:

Q. Do coats of arms belong to surnames?

A. No. There is no such thing as a 'coat of arms for a surname'. Many people of the same surname will often be entitled to completely different coats of arms, and many of that surname will be entitled to no coat of arms. Coats of arms belong to individuals. For any person to have a right to a coat of arms they must either have had it granted to them or be descended in the legitimate male line from a person to whom arms were granted or confirmed in the past.

Therefore telling someone their family has a "coat of arms" is entirely misleading. Some nations did assign coats of arms to families, but many of these sites do not distinguish between countries that awarded arms to families and those that did so only to individuals. They give the impression all countries awarded arms to families which is not so. Now in England, families did and do have heraldric achievements, more commonly known as "family crests." These are the items surrounding the shield on which a coat of arms is portrayed. Crests usually consist of something like a helm atop the shield and supporters to either side of the shield like lions or other animals or items often with a scroll under the shield with the family motto. Even then some families that are not related to each may use the same crest, and sometimes the same motto. A crest is not necessarily unique to a family, and a family may use more than one crest (I have found two for the Towles family). If you can document the coat of arms of one of your ancestors from a reliable source such as Burke's Peerage or the United Kingdom College of Arms, and you find that one of these companies has that individual's arms as your "family coat of arms" and want a cool representation of them then buying a plaque or some such might be great. But otherwise do not rely on these companies to honestly give you a "family coat of arms" or a "family crest" or even a reliable family history. Instead turn to reliable sources such as Burke's Peerage and see if you can find arms registered to your ancestors. If you are of English, Welsh, or Scottish descent you can pay to have the College of Arms do research for you  (a warning though if you go that route it is a very expensive undertaking). The point is though do not rely on these "coat of arms" companies for research into any arms ancestors of your family may have used. They simply are not reliable enough to do so.

For more information on coats of arms I suggest the following websites:  College of Arms http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/ and Burke's Peerage http://www.burkespeerage.com/

Making Windows 8 a Desktop User's Dream

It has been 3 weeks since I first started using Windows 8. And to be fair I have not fully explored it, shying away from the Metro Screen after playing with it a bit. What little experience I had of it helped me figure out it is not for me. I am not saying it is a bad thing, some users may actually like it. I am saying I could not find anything that any of its apps could do that could not also be done on the Desktop, often times better. I have therefore spent almost all my time since those first few days on the Desktop. For a Desktop user Windows 8 is a fantastic system, but you have to work to make that so. What follows is how I made it so I almost never see the Metro screen on my laptop with Windows 8.1 installed unless I choose to see it.

Step 1: Go to Microsoft and upgrade to Windows 8.1. Windows 8.1 introduces some features that help make the OS more bearable to Desktop users like booting to the Desktop instead of the Metro Screen. The download and installation will take several hours (it took about three hours on my machine), so you need to set aside some time for it as you may be prompted to restart at a couple of points. My install went flawlessly. I have however heard of installs that have not gone well. At the same time I have heard that Microsoft Support is more than willing to help, and when they do they can usually manage to get Windows 8.1 installed on your machine. The tutorial on updating to Windows 8.1 from Windows 8 is at: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-8/update-from-windows-8-tutorial

Step 2: Once Windows 8.1 has installed you will want to make it so your machine boots to the Desktop. This ability was introduced with 8.1 and you cannot do it in Windows 8. Once you have Windows 8.1 installed, booted up your machine, and gone to the Metro screen click on the Desktop icon and go to the Desktop. Anywhere on the Taskbar in an open area right click. Then click on Properties when the little menu pops up. When the Properties window opens you will want to click on the Navigation  tab. You will then want to check the box next to  "Go to the desktop instead of Start when I sign in." While you are there you may also want to disable the hot corners, check off the first two boxes dealing with the corners. There are several other options, and I leave those choices up to you. When you reboot your PC though it should now automatically go to the Desktop.

Step 3: You will then want to download a Start Menu replacement to add a Start Button and Menu like those in Windows 7. There are several Start Menu replacements out there, each with its own merits. Personally, I use Classic Shell. Classic Shell gives you the options of the Classic Start Menu (like the one in XP), Classic with two columns (sort of a cross between the Windows XP and Windows 7 Menus), or the Windows 7 Menu. It is easy to configure and there are plenty of options to get your Start Menu just the way you want it. You can download Classic Shell at: http://www.classicshell.net/

Step 4: Change your file associations. Most all of the most common file extensions used by Windows are associated with Metro Apps. You may be perfectly content in your Desktop home, decide you want to see a jpeg listed in File Manager, click on it, and wham-o you are in the Photo App on the Metro Screen, and then have to navigate back to the Desktop. To avoid this you must set all the file associations to Desktop programs. This is a little time consuming, but well worth it. Assuming you downloaded Classic Shell or similar Start Menu software, in the Search Box on the Start Menu  type "file associations." You will be faced with a list of choices. You will want to click on "Change the file type associated with a file extension." A menu will then load listing all the file extensions on your computer and what program they are associated with. If you see simple names like "Music" or "Photo" you can bet the default is a Metro App. You can then highlight the file extension, click on the "Change Program" button in the upper right hand side. A list of available programs for that kind of file will come up and you can choose a Desktop program to open the file. Say you want to make it so Photo Gallery opens jpegs on your Desktop. Scroll down to the extension .jpg and click on it. You can then click "Change Program" and see the list of choices. If you scroll down you will see Photo Gallery. Click on Photo Gallery and your jpeg files are now opened with Photo Gallery when you click on them in File Manager. Like I said, this is time consuming, but well worth the effort if you do not want yourself thrown off the Desktop and into a Metro Screen App.

Step 5: Change Auto-Play options. Like file extensions Auto-Play options generally default to Metro Apps. I learned this the hard way when importing photos from my camera. I hooked up my camera expecting to be asked what to do, and immediately I was in the Metro Screen Photo App. It was not a bad experience, but I still had to navigate back to the Desktop which is time consuming and unnecessary.  Unfortunately in some cases with Auto-Play you may have to install third party software. If you import photos from a camera regularly and do not want to use the Photo App, you will have to install third party software like that which came with your camera. You are no longer given the option to use File Explorer or Photo Gallery. Once you have installed any third party software you use go to the Start Menu search box (assuming you downloaded and installed Classic Shell or similar Star Button software) and type "Autoplay." A list of choices will come up and you want to click on "Autoplay." The Autoplay menu will then come up, and you can choose how every sort of media is handled. You may want to have it ask you every time or have a specific program open whatever media you are dealing with, Note, with cameras and other equipment you will have to have had the camera or other equipment connected at some point to your PC to set the Auto-Play options for it. If you have more than one camera each will have to be handled separately.

Step 6: If you are on a laptop with hand gestures for the touch pad you may have to disable gestures. One problem I had was that making a straight line movement with my index finger right to left on the touch pad of my laptop would open the Charms Bar. Since I move rather rapidly on the touch pad it would never fail that I would scroll to the left hand side of the screen to click on something, the Charms Bar would come open, I would click, and next thing I know I would be on the Metro Screen or somewhere else I did not want to be. I went to my touch pad settings to see if I could disable that gesture, and there was no option to do so, so I disabled all gestures. I only used one or two gestures so this was no big deal to me. Hopefully, your machine is different and you can disable just that gesture.

I now have Windows 8.1 where I want it. I have not seen the Metro Screen in a while now without me having chosen to see it. For me it is a glorified Windows 7 and that to me is not a bad thing. I am a Desktop user and have no need for a tablet like experience on a PC. I do like the new File Explorer and Task Manager of Windows 8.1 a great deal and the fact 8.1 is much faster does not bother me either. Overall, once I got it where I wanted it, I am quite happy with Windows 8.1. However, it does take a bit of work to get it where you may want it as a Desktop user. Once you do however I think you will be pleased.

Remembering Boot Hill a Wild West Role Playing Game

Of all the early role playing games, by far my favorite was Boot Hill. We had a long running campaign for several years in the mid to late '80s with four different judges (what the game master was called in Boot Hill) and a whole bunch of interesting characters. A player character might appear as an NPC in another game. For example at one point I had an outlaw hunted by one of my other player characters who was a Texas Ranger. I had three characters that survived long term during that campaign, and greatly enjoyed playing each of them. I first started playing Boot Hill in 1981 under the first edition. Those games were short and deadly, and never turned into a campaign largely due to player character deaths. I would not return to the game until about 1984 when our gaming group picked up a copy of the second edition. For the next six years we played it off and on going through all of the modules except for the last one, Range War, and a lot of homemade adventures. Many gamers complain that Boot Hill was too deadly, but due to how we played the game our characters survived. For one thing stand in the middle of the street, fast draw your revolver type of gun fights were rare in our games. In those six years of playing Boot Hill only two gunfighters were regularly played and the number of gun fights they fought in could be counted on one hand. Thanks to exceptional stats the two of them never received a mortal wound. They always outdrew their opponents. We also had a Texas Ranger that had a reputation as a gunfighter, but his stats and his reputation were such only a couple of NPCs ever called him out. All other shoot 'em ups our characters were in they dove for cover. We never shot it out at close range, and there was always something to hide behind. Thanks to this, our characters survived. I have to say I had more AD&D characters die than I did Boot Hill characters That is not to say there was not a large number of player character deaths in our Boot Hill campaign. It was Boot Hill after all. It is to say we did have several characters that survived long term. Usually if we retired a character it was because he had reached a point where his goals had been reached or in the case of some characters they went back East or left the country. Part of the reason our characters survived was because we were not playing in the real Wild West. We were playing the Hollywood version where only supporting characters and extras die. The heroes always survive. Too, everyone talks about how easy it was to die in the old West, but the truth is deaths were not as common in shoot outs as one would think. For example at the OK Corral only three of the eight participants died. Now this may sound like a lot, but it is not when you consider it took place at fairly close range with little cover. Our characters never would have let themselves be caught like that.

As I said I only ever played the first and second editions. The second edition is the one I am most familiar with. The rule book was not long. It consisted of only 36 pages, and much of that was combat rules. There really was no background material. You did not need it. There are thousands of hours of Wild West movies and TV shows and probably millions of pages of Westerns to draw on, not to mention history books as well as material from the era. For example, for prices of items one of our GMs obtained a Sears catalog from the 1870s. Another bought a book on guns of the old West complete with statistics. There was no problem in fleshing out our campaign. For setting we started out with the huge map of Promise City and surrounding El Dorado County that came with the boxed set. Later we designed our own settings using historical maps. The four modules further fleshed out our campaign. Smaller adventures published by TSR were also used.

First and second edition relied on percentile dice for much of the game. This was a first as most games of the time used six and twenty siders. Player characters had only six stats and they were, Speed, Gun Accuracy, Throwing Accuracy, Strength, Bravery, and Experience. There were no stats for charisma, intelligence, or wisdom as these would have no bearing on combat, and Boot Hill was about brawling and gun play. These stats were determined by rolling two percentile dice which were further modified by adding a certain number to the stat determined by a special chart. Thanks to this chart a player character was always above average in some way. Characters then received $150 to buy equipment and/or a horse. Character generation was fast and simple. The role player could then flesh out the character as they saw fit. We always developed fairly complex backgrounds for our characters. Some of the more memorable ones were Max Faraday, a Confederate Civil War vet with a PhD who made a living as a medicine show man. Another was an exiled Englishman of noble birth who had stolen the family's valuable signet ring and was being hunted for it. Even our more mundane characters were interesting. My character Tyler was a Kansas farm boy with exceptional strength from pulling a plow as his father could not afford a horse. He once killed a horse just by punching it in the head. His partner was Hammer, a young gunfighter with exceptional speed and gun accuracy trying to make a name for himself. The two had to leave the country when they accidentally blew up a train. The plan had been to blow up the tracks and make the train stop so they could rob it, but Tyler fell asleep and when startled set off the explosives just as the train was crossing them. They quickly became the most wanted duo in the campaign with a very high price on their heads wanted dead or alive.

Combat in the second edition of Boot Hill was deadly. Many role players have complained about how deadly it was. However, I lost as many AD&D characters as I did Boot Hill characters. In Boot Hill it was in all how you played the character. Combat was turn based. A character had a certain number of movement points, and different movements cost different amounts. How many movement points also depended on whether you were walking, running, or crawling. Once movement was done, gun combat took place. Characters fired in the order of their First Shot score and then tried to roll beneath their To Hit number, these numbers being determined by their stats with various modifiers. If a character hit they then rolled percentile dice to determine where they wounded the other character and the severity of the wound. The amount of damage done to a character's Strength depended on severity and where the wound hit the body. A shot to the leg may not mean much of a loss to Strength. A shot to the head could mean death.The final part of a turn was hand to hand combat which was fairly complex. The player character had to decide whether they were going to punch or grapple. A punch could be striking someone with one's fist or with an object like a whiskey bottle or revolver butt. The result of these were determined by a roll of two ten sided dice rolled and added together and checked against a chart, one for punches and one for grappling. These charts determined what kind of strike the character made and what kind of damage was done. In our games we allowed players to state what they were doing like making a right hook or hay maker so we dispensed with that part of the chart. There were also rules for running a campaign which came in handy if one had a long running game.

And that was about all there was to second edition. While I saw copies of the third edition of Boot Hill, and I think one of the gaming group even bought a copy in 1990 when it came out, we never played it. At the time our second edition campaign had reached an end point and for the most part many in the gaming group were getting out of gaming. I stopped playing role playing games for the most part in 1992 and in that last year all I played was Robotech. After 1992 I never played in a campaign of any game again, and only played a handful of stand alone games. That said I recently obtained a copy of the third edition of Boot Hill and have been reading it, acquainting myself with its rules. It is a totally different game. For one thing the rule book is about 130 pages long, much larger than the second edition rule book. The player character stats changed. In third edition they consist of Strength, Coordination, Observation, Stature (basically fame), and Luck. These are determined by rolling two ten sided dice and adding the two numbers together. This is the only time ten siders are used in the game. The result is further modified by a chart. Like the second edition, player characters are average or above. In addition to the change in characteristics skills were added. Player characters have work skills and weapon skills. No more than half of a player character's skills can be weapon skills. How many starting skills you can have are determined by a chart based on the character's characteristics. The most skills a character can start with is ten. Weapon skills start off at 1 point. One can add to this by taking another skill in that weapon. For example, say I want a 3 in knife and I start off with ten skills. When taking knife it takes one of my skills so I now only have nine with a score of 1 in knife. I raise it to 3 and now I only have seven skills I can get. Work skills work differently. One simply chooses the skill and the rolls two ten sided dice adding the results together to get the score. Some skills give an automatic score in another skill. For example if a player character gets Dentistry they get an automatic skill in Medicine of 6. Skill checks are made throughout the game. Simple tasks require no skill check, but more difficult ones do. For example a player character who is a doctor would not have to make a skill check for stitching up a minor cut, but were they to perform major surgery such as to remove a bullet from near the heart they would, and that would probably be with modifiers making it even more difficult to make the roll.Once the skills have been chosen, the player can flesh out the character on their own giving them a background, description, and so on.

One thing I have noted about character generation is that it is harder to say roll up a crack sharpshooter off the bat in third edition. One has to get the right stats which is easy enough if one gets lucky dice rolls, but then they have to invest in weapon skills to get the character's proficiency up as well as take the work skill Fast Draw and hope for a lucky roll with it. Given only ten skills it would be difficult to roll up a gunfighter capable of standing against seasoned NPC gunfighters. I see this as a failing in the third edition. Part of why we enjoyed the second edition so much was having someone with a fast gun hand, known far and wide for their skill. As I said we were playing the Hollywood version of the Wild West.

Another addition to Boot Hill with the third edition was an experience system. Under first and second editions characters did not advance. They pretty much had the same stats at the end of a campaign as when they started the game. In third edition so many points are given for say surviving a gunfight or bringing in an outlaw or other game play activity. When a player character has enough experience points they can use them to increase a characteristic score or increase a skill score. Thus at the start of a game a player character may have a knife/sword skill of 2, but be able to raise it to 3 after a couple of games by investing enough experience points.

Combat is more complicated than second edition in my opinion and relies on 20 sided dice instead of percentile dice. One thing I noted is that it seems a lot harder to get killed in third edition than second edition. Even if a player character gets a mortal wound a Luck roll is made and if successful the wound is reduced to serious. Until I actually judge or play a game though and see the combat system in action I do not know if it is harder or easier to hit a character in combat.

I plan to see if I can get a group of the old role players together, even if it is only two or three of us, and see if we can start a campaign using third edition. One thing that I am disappointed in is I do not have the Promise City map. I only have the third edition rule book. That map was invaluable to our campaign as our characters regularly returned to Promise City.

As I said Boot Hill was one of my favorite early role playing games. In fact the only role playing game I may have liked as much was Daredevils (a game set in the 1930s using the pulp genre of fiction as a backdrop).  I truly enjoyed those years I played it, and no doubt had my gaming group not drifted a part we may have continued to play it for several years. I think all totaled I may have played as many games of Boot Hill as I did AD&D. I have very fond memories of it, and recommend it to anyone willing to use a little imagination and careful play in making their characters come alive.

The Birth of Oswin Edward Canote

I wrote this last year for one of my other blogs. It was ten years ago today that my son Oswin was born. I can still remember that day like it was yesterday. I had went to work at the Federal Building in Dallas that day. I was doing courtroom intelligence on the Harris vs. Ericsson case. It was a patent infringement case. I was on my last day as the trial was to end that day. We had just come off recess about ten in the morning when the judge asked if there was a Mister Berry Canote present. I answered, "yes." She then asked me to step outside into the hallway. I was wondering what I had done wrong, and was expecting US Marshals to greet me in the hallway. Instead a young law clerk asked if I was Berry Canote. I said yes, and he handed me a note and said "congratulations." The note said Tee was in labor. I was to meet the office manager of Teresa's office out front. We had just driven the one car that day so I needed a ride to her office.

Tee's office was only 10 to 20 blocks from the courthouse, but the drive seemed a lifetime. We got lost at one point. We got to the office, and I got Tee loaded into the car. Our hospital in Denton was some thirty miles away, and I drove the fastest I ever have on an interstate highway. I was hoping to get pulled over so I could have an escort, but wouldn't you know it, I never saw a patrolman or police officer the whole way. At one point a pickup who I guess realized what I was doing ran interference by passing cars and then slowing down so I could pass. Whoever that stranger was has always had my thanks. No sooner than we reached the hospital doors than Teresa's water broke. I got her inside, got her in a wheelchair, and got her up to the maternity ward. We had already done the pre-checkin sometime before so we would not have to fill out paperwork upon arrival.

Then came the waiting. I called her parents, and made some other calls. We had to arrange to make sure someone was at the house for when my stepson got out of school. Once that was done, I spent the afternoon comforting Teresa. I cannot remember when the delivery began, but it was in the evening. It was not an easy delivery. Her pain medications wore off, and it was so close to the birth they could not give her more. She had to have the birth totally natural. It took a while. Tee's nurse was a petite woman so the midwife had me hold one of Tee's legs while the surgeon who was on standby in case they had to do a cesarean got on the other. Just as the surgeon stated she wanted to do a cesarean, the midwife said no, and encouraged Tee to push harder. And out came Oswin. I still remember that moment. By then I was no longer holding Tee's left leg, and had come around to her right side. I was only a few inches from Oswin when he was born. His little chin bumped the bed when he was born which did not hurt him thanks to the cushioning. I cut his chord, and then the midwife handed him to me. It was the proudest moment of my life. It was probably about 8:00 pm at that time.

Tee had done all the work, but I was there, and got to witness the most amazing thing of my life. I held him for a moment and then handed him to his grandfather Red who was just as happy as I was. Oswin weighed in at 6 lbs. 12 oz. and was 19 inches long. They then took Oswin to the nursery to get cleaned up, and wheeled Teresa out of the delivery room to a recovery room. I went with Oswin to the nursery and watched them clean him up. I then went to spend time with Tee, and then they brought Oswin in to nurse for the first time. That was another amazing moment. About one in the morning I went home. I had to run back to the hospital as I did not have the house keys with me. We had left them in Tee's purse. I went back home and got up early the next day to go in to be with Tee and Oswin. The photographer came in and arranged to have Oswin's picture taken. Other than that Tee and I just talked and took care of Oswin when he would come in to nurse. I spent nearly all my time at the hospital the next couple of days. After three days, Oswin and Tee came home, and his life at home began. I had to care for Tee the next few weeks as the birth had been so difficult and taken so much out of her. She was bed ridden for a good deal of the time for several weeks. During that time I had full care of Oswin, and got adjusted to being a new father. He seemed so tiny and fragile. Still he wound up sleeping with us in our bed part of the time, and in the bassinet the rest of the time. He was well behaved for a newborn. He did not cry often, and keeping us awake at night was at a minimum. I have very fond memories of those first weeks of his life.

Even though Oswin is a growing boy now, and no doubt will grow to be taller than me (he takes after his maternal grandfather in that); a part of me will always think of him as that little baby. I miss him living so far away, but I am very proud of him. I could not ask for a better son. His mother is raising him well. I only wish I could be a better father. I feel I have let him down in so many ways. I have missed so much of his life with the distance. But I love him more than I have anyone in my life. Happy birthday Oswin!

Here is a poem I wrote for him a few years ago:

What did your parents do,
To make one as beautiful as you,
Not the stars in the sky,
Not the birds that fly,
Are as beautiful as you.

What did your parents do,
To make one as intelligent as you,
Not the gods high above,
Not the crows and the doves,
Are as intelligent as you.

What did your parents do,
To make one as sweet and gentle as you,
Not angels in heaven,
Nor the great elven kin,
Are as sweet and gentle as you.

You are the gods’ greatest creation,
Nothing they made can match you,
You are the gods; greatest creation,
Perfect in all you do.

Why I Will Never Go Back To Smoking

This post is partially informational. For those unfamiliar with electronic cigarettes (e-cigs for short) I thought I would explain how the ones I have used are constructed and how they work as well as introduce you some of the terms involved. For those familiar with e-cigs please bear with me.

I had my first cigarette at age 14. I started smoking regularly at age 15. Thirty-five years later I quit. I did so by switching to an electronic cigarette. Electronic cigarettes work by a battery heating liquid in a tank or cartridge into a vapor which is then inhaled. The liquid is commonly called nicotine juice. Nicotine juice consists of propylene glycol (an ingredient found in inhalers made for those with asthma), vegetable glycerin (found in many foods), food grade flavorings, and nicotine. FDA tests found small quantities of diethylene glycol in some disposable cartridges. If this is so it is probably the only harmful substance besides nicotine contained in some nicotine juices. It has been my experience though that most nicotine juice vendors advertise that their juices do not contain diethylene glycol, and consists only of food grade products.

I started off with a Cig2O brand kit. It consists of a battery and disposable cartridges called cartomizers containing nicotine juice. The cartomizers contain poly-fill which is saturated with nicotine juice and a wick down the center that heats the poly-fill. There is a a silicon cap covering the end of the cartomizer one puts in their mouth and a metal head at the other end that attaches to the battery. It looks like a tobacco cigarette. It even has a LED on the end to look like the cherry of a cigarette. This sort of e-cig is called a cigarette-look-a-like. It has a short battery life staying charged for only three hours with heavy use and taking two and half hours to charge. In Missouri a pack a day smoker would spend almost as much on cartomizers in ten days as they would a carton of cigarettes. It was for that reason I switched to an Evod by Kanger.

An Evod is a tank type e-cig consisting of a battery and a tank called a clearomizer. You fill the tank with nicotine juice which is available from many vendors online and at many local shops. In the clearomizer is a coil containing a wick which is heated to turn the nicotine juice into vapor. The coil is screwed into a head often called an atomizer. The atomizer or head screws off the tank so the tank can be filled with juice. The other end of the head screws onto the battery attaching the clearomizer to the battery. At the other end of the tank is the drip tip or mouthpiece through which one inhales the vapor. The Evod's battery lasts me about six hours and only takes about an hour and a half to charge. Using it is a much more pleasant experience than using a cigarette look-alike. It produces more vapor and has a better taste. You also can get a much wider range of flavors. It is also much cheaper to operate. I spend about $6.50 a week for nicotine juice to fill the clearomizer and about $6 for five coils. A coil lasts me about a month and a half if I clean it, the head, and the tank regularly. My nicotine habit which once costs me about $120 in cartons of cigarettes now only costs me about $48 a month in nicotine juice (which I buy in bulk) and coils (this is including the shipping and handling from ordering online).

Instead of smoking users of e-cigs refer to the action of inhaling nicotine vapor from an e-cig as vaping. The users refer to themselves as vapes or vapers. Vaping for me is a much more pleasant experience than smoking. There really is no comparison between smoking and vaping. To me vaping is like drinking cognac as compared to smoking which is like drinking rot gut whiskey. With smoking your clothes and hair smell of smoke which most find rather unpleasant. Depending on the flavor of nicotine juice the smell left from the vapor does not linger on your clothes or in your hair. While some find the odor of an e-cig unpleasant most find it much more pleasant than smoke from a cigarette. I find it more pleasant than most air fresheners and perfumes I am exposed to. With smoking your clothes are sometimes dirty from cigarette ash, and often you burn your clothes or upholstery.As there is no flame with e-cigs you do not have this. And with smoking your hands and teeth are often nicotine stained. With vaping there are no nicotine stains on your hands, and I have not noticed any on my teeth. Once a former smoker stops smoking and vapes for a while their ability to taste comes back and once this happened for me I found that cigarettes tasted nasty and I found the smell to be repelling. I tried smoking a cigarette a few weeks after not having had one. I thought at first it was just the brand of the cigarette (it was a  Pall-Mall) so a few months later I bummed a Marlboro Red.  While the taste and smell was not as bad, it still was not a pleasant experience. It makes me wonder why I ever started smoking. With an e-cig depending on the flavor of nicotine juice the smell and taste is rather pleasant. While some non-vapers may not like the smell of some flavors most I have talked to say e-cig vapor is more pleasant than smoke.

Then there are the health benefits. After having smoked for 35 years I was beginning to cough of a morning. I would sometimes cough for ten minutes after waking. On top of that my sinuses would give me problems and I would sometimes get a sore throat. If I exerted myself I would become short of breath. I could not run a very long distance without breathing heavily and having my heart pound. After vaping for six months I no longer cough, my sinuses are clear, and I no longer get sore throats. I can now run without getting short of breath or having my heart pound. On top of that I am now avoiding the 69 cancer causing chemicals known to be in tobacco cigarettes along with the 7000 other chemicals in your average cigarette. While I am not going to say the vapor from e-cigs is healthy for you or without risks, and simply using nicotine carries its risks, it is certainly healthier for you than smoking cigarettes.  My guess is that future research will find vaping is little more harmful than using a nicotine patch or nicotine gum.

Many former smokers have used e-cigs to quit using nicotine entirely. That is not my plan, but I understand it can be done quite easily. Nicotine juices come in various strengths with the most common strengths being from highest to lowest 36 mg, 24 mg, 18 mg, 12 mg, 6 mg, and 0 mg. 18 mg nicotine juice is supposed to be the same strength as a full flavor cigarette with the higher strengths being comparable to cigars or some pipe tobacco. By cutting back on the strength of the nicotine juice a vaper is using they are able to wean themselves off nicotine over several months. In this way an e-cig works no differently than a nicotine patch. The main difference is that vaping delivers nicotine in a way that a former smoker is used to. I know several smokers that quit nicotine use entirely switching to e-cigs and gradually reducing the amount of nicotine they were inhaling. And these are people that had tried numerous other methods to quit and not have them work.

One study done by the University of Catania in Italy on using e-cigs to quit using nicotine altogether found that  using low dosage e-cigs (only 7.2 mg) about 13% of smokers can quit nicotine completely using electronic cigarettes. Studies using nicotine patches have found 19% of smokers are able to quit using nicotine entirely using them but then this was using a much higher initial dose of nicotine than that used by the University of Catania's study of electronic cigarettes for quitting. Most studies using nicotine patches start at 14 mg strength which is almost double the strength of the e-cig cartridges used by the University of Catania. I suspect future studies of using electronic cigarettes for nicotine usage cessation will find them as effective if not more effective than nicotine patches. Maybe someday I will decide to quit using nicotine. If I do, I will simply start reducing the strength of the nicotine juice I am using gradually over several months finally using juice with no nicotine in it. Personally, I know more people that have quit using nicotine using e-cigs than I know than have quit using nicotine patches. I am therefore confident that should I decide to quit I can do so using an e-cig and reducing the strength of the nicotine juices I am using.

Electronic cigarettes have their critics. I am not among them. For me e-cigs were a godsend. I had tried nicotine gum, nicotine patches, Zyban, and Chantix to try to quit smoking. E-cigs were the first thing to work. Maybe someday I will decide to wean myself off nicotine. If so I will be able to do so in a way I am accustomed to. I will never go back to smoking unless e-cigs are outright banned or taxed to the point of being unaffordable. I find vaping much more pleasurable than smoking. I no longer strongly smell of smoke. My fingers are no longer nicotine stained. My breath is much more pleasant and my teeth much cleaner. I no longer burn holes in my clothing or the upholstery of my car or furniture. My car is much cleaner too. I used to have ash fall onto the floorboard console beneath the ashtray. I no longer have that. And vaping is much cheaper than smoking. I live in Missouri which is probably the cheapest state in the Union to smoke. Even so I was spending about $30 a week on cigarettes. This as compared to only $12 a week on nicotine juice.On top of all that I can breathe easier and my heart no longer races. No doubt I have probably reduced my chances of developing lung cancer or many other diseases of the lungs. While e-cigs remain largely untested I am convinced they must be safer than cigarettes. They probably do carry risks, but considering your average cigarette contains 7000 chemicals while nicotine juice probably contains less than 50 chemicals I think the risks must be much less. I will never go back to smoking. As I said, unless e-cigs are banned or taxed to the point I cannot afford them I see no reason to go back to smoking.

Why Have a Google+ Page for Your Business?

Everyone knows that Facebook is where the numbers are. According to Trendstream's Global Web Index,  Facebook had 693 million active users compared to Google+'s 343 million active users, and Twitter's 288 million active users for the last quarter of 2012. It would seem looking at just the numbers one would be best off focusing their energies in promoting a brand on Facebook. There is a problem with that, while a brand can reach every one of their followers on Google+ and Twitter theoretically, thanks to Facebook's EdgeRank a brand reaches only a small portion of their fans. Facebook filters the posts a brand makes on their page showing only the posts they feel are relevant to any given user. As a result only a small portion of a page's fans are reached. An example of this is my author page. It is a small page with only 1303 fans. Of those fans on any given post I reach at most only about 390 fans. For most posts I only reach about 200. So at most I am reaching less than a quarter of the people that have liked my page. Going by that if a brand has 1 million fans it will reach less than 300,000 people that like the page. This is not a big return on the time it takes to promote a page in order that folks will like it and see the posts. With Google+ and Twitter though a follower can, if they wish see nearly every post or tweet made by a brand.

Sadly though brands do not have a good track record with Google+. An example of this is CBS's page for the TV show NCIS on Google+. On Google+ the NCIS page has only about 14,093 followers. This is compared to over 16 million on its corresponding page on Facebook. Even given Facebook's filtering using EdgeRank, the NCIS page on Facebook is still reaching far, far more people than the NCIS page on Google+. Many Google+ pages are this way. They often have less than half a percent the number of followers on Google+ than they have on Facebook. There are probably a variety of reasons for this. Google+ is only a little over  a year and a half old giving Facebook a big head start, people on Google+ do not seem interested in following brands, and Google+ does not promote following brands the way Facebook does, but probably the primary reason people do not follow brands is not the fault of Google+'s staff or its users. It is the fault of the brands themselves. Brands do not readily promote their pages on Google+, or if they do it is not obvious. Brands do not always update their Google+ pages as often as they do Facebook. An example of this again are the NCIS  pages. The NCIS  page on Facebook is updated nearly daily while the corresponding page on Google+ is only updated every few weeks. As of this writing on March 27, 2013 the +NCIS page on Google+ has not been updated since March 5.  If folks see a page has not been updated on Google+ they are unlikely to follow it.

It need not be that way. In fact, the rock star of Google+ pages is the page of +Cadbury UK  with almost 3 million followers (its Facebook page has less than 400,000 fans). Unlike most brands Cadbury has promoted their page. They post several times a day, and even operate a community (the equivalent of a group on Facebook) in connection with the page. When Daria Musk did a concert via a Google+ Hangout for Valentine's Day, Cadbury UK gave away chocolates. While not as impressive as Cadbury UK, +Android Central  has 273,727 followers and like Cadbury updates their page often. They too operate a community and it has over 100,000 members. Android Central sometimes has promotions on its page like giving away free apps in Google Play to celebrate the page's first birthday. And they are always posting videos and other engaging content.  +NASA's page  is another successful page. Its page has over 473,000 followers. NASA posts several times a day often posting pictures or videos, and even hosts Hangouts on such topics as rising sea levels. The space agency even had a Hangout with the astronauts aboard the International Space Station. Each of these pages can reach as many people or more than their corresponding Facebook pages thanks to Facebook's EdgeRank. Google+ does not filter posts, and users can set put all their pages in a circle, and set it so they are notified when a post is made. Google+ actually makes it easier for a user to see a post made by a brand page unlike Facebook which has made it harder for posts to be seen.

Besides potentially reaching more fans with posts using Google+ as opposed to Facebook, there are other advantages to having a Google+ page. Posts from a brand page on Google+ appear in Google's search results. Facebook posts or tweets on Twitter do not do this. This gives posts on Google+ a sort of permanence. They will be waiting there to be found with a Google search time and time again (at least until and if they are deleted).  What is more, these posts will come up higher in a Google+ user's personalized results. For example, if I do a search on Google for "space exploration" results from NASA's Google+ page come up near the top of the list. So even if a Google+ user misses a post on Google+ from a brand page they may still see that post in a search on Google. Further if a link is shared on Google+ it will rank higher in one's personalized results. Say if my brother +Terence Towles Canote shares a link to a BBC news story on  Richard III and the finding of his body. If I do a search for "Richard III body" my brother's Google+ post will come up higher in the search results. In this way, Google+ users can refer other users to sites they like or recommend. If a business is promoting its Google+ page and posting links to relevant sites away from Google there is no end in how they can get their sites higher in search results on Google.

There is no reason a brand cannot have a successful Google+ page. And with it they can reach more people than they would with a Facebook page. With the fact a user can see every post made by a brand as well as the fact that a brand's posts and links will show up higher in search results there is no end to the amount of marketing a company or individual can do. Facebook may appear where the numbers are, but with closer examination it is easy to see one can potentially reach more people using Google+.

Google+ Tools: Websites to Help in the G+ Experience

So you are on Google+, several people have you circled, but try as you may you cannot get people to interact. This nothing new, most people have suffered from this at one time or another. Most often it comes down to you are posting at the wrong time (when no one else is on) or you are not posting content folks want to engage with. Most learn what to post and when to post through trail and error. However it need not be that way. There are websites that can help you. I make use of these, and since I started using them I have had a much better Google+ experience. I use three websites: Google+ Timing,  All My +, and Circle Count  Of these, I probably use Google+ Timing the most, so I will cover it first.

Google+ Timing http://timing.minimali.se/ is a website that reports what time your posts have gotten the most responses. It lists your top five posts, and the days and times those posts were made. There is a handy chart showing your best days for posting and then an hour ranking giving the time that your posts were made that got the most interaction. For a long time I could not figure out why I would post something of interest to a lot of people, and yet, I would not get any response. Other times, I could post something very similar and get tons of responses. Timing took all the guesswork out of it. I now know my best days and times to post, and have been using it to increase my social interaction on Google+. Timing updates all the time, so it is helpful to check it at least once a week. Your best posting times change week to week, and can change drastically during the holiday season. For example my best days and hours for posting during Christmas were totally different from what they were prior to the holiday season and what they were after.

Another helpful site is All my + http://www.allmyplus.com. It is a site that gives a variety of statistics such as an overview of the number of posts you have made and whether those posts were public or part of a community. These stats are broken down into the type of posts you have made: posts, photos, gifs, videos, and links. It also gives how many comments you have gotten and how many +1s you have gotten. These stats are helpful in various ways. You can see what kind of posts you make the most of, and you can tell whether you get more interaction on communities or public posts. Myself for example I get more +1s on my posts to communities, but I get more comments on my public posts. In addition to this overview it gives a map of where most of your interactions are coming from. For me most of the folks that interact are in the United States and the United Kingdom. You also get a handy set of charts on this site showing your posting behavior by day and hour. This can be combined with what you learn from Google Timing can be used to figure out how many of your posts are reaching people. You can then change when you post to a time you will get more interaction, and stop posting at times you don't. For example, I know from Timing that one of my top posting days is Wednesday, yet I can see from All my + that the only day I post less on than Wednesday on is Tuesday. My highest days for the number of posts I make are on the weekend. And while Sunday according to Timing is my top day for interaction (I think the fact my recent birthday was on a Sunday is skewing those stats what with all the birthday wishes I got), Saturday ranks fifth, and Friday ranks sixth. Yet according to All my + this is when I post the most. What I learned from this is I need to post more on Wednesday, and less on Friday and Saturday if I want more folks to interact with me. Another thing All my + does is show you your most popular posts by which one got the most +1s, the most comments, and the most reshares. This gives you an idea of what sort of content those that have you circled enjoy seeing. Finally, you can export all this data as a  CSV file. If you are a business and running a page this could be very helpful in mashing your numbers on reports of how well your social media efforts are doing.

The final website I am going to tell you about is Circle Count http://www.circlecount.com/. Of the websites to be used with Google+ is probably the one most people use. Circle Count gives you a record of how many people had you circled on a specific date. It can show whether you are having more people circle you or if you are losing people. For example, I can see in the past month I have steadily been having more people circle me than uncircle me with the exception of one day when I uncircled several inactives. You can also learn what circles people have you in. This is helpful in that it can tell you what you may have in common with the people that have circled you. For example I know that +steph wanamaker has me in a circle called "awesome men who comment" circle.This indicates to me, steph likes the fact I interact.  Finally, it gives your latest postings and the average interaction on them as well as how many characters your average post contains. In addition to this information it gives your Profiles Rank both overall and by your gender, and Circle Rank both worldwide and for your country. 

While these websites give information that is useful to the individual, I think for a businesses they are vital. If you are a brand you need to know when the best time to reach your customers is, what posts work best at getting their interest, and how people view your brand.  It is these kind of stats that can help a business make marketing decisions that can make or break a marketing campaign. For the individual it can tell you when you get the most interaction on your posts, and what kind of posts folks want to interact with you on the most. I have been using these websites for some time now, and have found them useful. I am hoping you will as well.