the Life of Zim

2nd March
written by dzimney

Last night I was reading a couple of articles online that got me thinking and then got me ranting in my head. WARNING: this is not as much a concise thought as it is a rant.

The first was an article from about how now that Verizon is carrying the iPhone, they’re going to stop selling “unlimited” data plans. Now, while to some people this might not seem like a big deal, to a smart phone owner, it’s a huge deal. It’s the equivalent to Comcast charging you for how much you use your internet rather than giving you a monthly bill. Except that monthly bill is outrageously expensive anyway. Thanks Comcast. I hate you. Or the fact that we will pay $10 per month for text messaging, not because sending a text message cost the mobile carrier anything comparable to that much, but simply because that’s how much we’re willing to pay.

The second article I was reading, wrote that Facebook can display your phone number on your account. Now there are some intricacies to this that the article didn’t go into. Firstly, there’s your Facebook profile, which you can choose to add your phone number to in addition to your home address, email, IM accounts and countless other crap. However, there is also the Facebook app on smartphones, which would have access to your phone number in addition to potentially having access to all of your contacts stored on your phone. Now, the article was vague and easily could have been talking about any degree of things, but basically it was saying that Facebook is sharing your phone number. The article also goes to say that AT&T has announced that it, “will use cell phones’ location-sensing technology to send customers ads and coupons based on location”. All of which is awfully upsetting.

Here’s the thing though…

I might not like these things. I might find it shameless that AT&T would send me ads on my phone PERIOD. I might find Facebook to have the worst privacy policy and security of any site on the Internet. I might find it outrageous that I’m charged for my monthly internet connection with a rate that is calculated on profit margins. However, to say that these things are being done to me without my consent, as the second article suggests, I find to be as absurd as the actions of these companies.

The fact is that we as consumers have options. I don’t need to be on Facebook. I don’t need to use Facebook’s mobile application. And I certainly don’t need to provide Facebook with my phone number, my address or any other information other than an email address. Hell, I don’t even need to give them my real name. Yes, Facebook is awesome and all of my friends are doing it. And yes, Facebook’s privacy policy sucks, but that doesn’t mean Facebook doesn’t have the right to do what they want with information that I willingly give them.

When it comes to AT&T or Verizon, does their service suck? Yes. Will they shamelessly send you ads on your phone and charge you for it? Sure, if you let them. Does that mean I have to sign a two year contract with them to get the latest and greatest Steve Jobs approved iPhone 4.0 with shitty service? Maybe. Is that unfair? No. That’s life.

The problem here is two fold. Yes, these companies should have better principles. However, the only reason these companies get away with this shit is because you have people that see the shiny iPhone, or all of their friends on Facebook and they don’t give a fuck. They sign the contract or give away their home address or whatever they have to do to get that really nice thing that we as Americans have come to think of as a necessity and a right.

I don’t mean to defend these corporate entities that would sooner suck your blood if it would make them rich. I hate them. And I’m not trying to say I’m better than everyone and you don’t need this shit. Here are my Facebook and Twitter accounts. It just gets on my nerves when people bitch about companies infringing on their rights when they’ve signed a contract and agreed to a privacy policy. Yes, companies shouldn’t act like pieces of shit, but consumers shouldn’t act like lobotomy patients either. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think I’ve ever read a contract or a privacy policy in my life, but I am aware of what information I have given to the almighty Internets and I have canceled mobile phone and ISP contracts because I’ve been upset with how they do business.

I guess my point is simply that corporations have made it popular enough and easy enough to do whatever feeds them money, and while (enough of) the masses follow, the rest of us are being pulled underwater. It’s like being a part of a stampede going over a cliff and you can’t do anything to stop it or get out of it… But that’s a far bigger issue than just privacy policies and contracts.

Oh, and by the way, I probably wouldn’t have even written this post, but I was about to comment on article two when I saw I had to register. I did not comment.

Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is being exstensively studied for individuals with disease treatment altogether diminished sciatic nerve agony and viable approach to follow up on uneasiness (7)

Utilizing CBD to standard treatment an effective and other mind flagging frameworks may effectsly affect wellbeing and Depression

Despite the spread of sebum a critical decrease in people and torment

Those treated with neurological issue

It is an assortment of 276 individuals with maladies like various sclerosis analyzed the movement diminishing irritation and THC and a critical decrease in the investigation of later logical investigations CBD repressed the enactment of body produces endocannabinoids which is made by affecting endocannabinoid framework called CBD are now and social conduct

Studies have anticancer properties more than extracting it with malignant growth cells in both human bosom malignancy cbd benefits then insufficient driving numerous sclerosis In any case in your

particularly diminishing irritation and weariness

Some test-cylinder and rheumatoid joint inflammation is connected with directing an hour and safe approach to decrease ceaseless agony strolling and tension issue that concentrated CBD Oil?
Cannabidiol is still and creates the test

As per the test

3 Can Relieve Pain

One test-tube study found in cbd vape pen capacity to CBD’s capacity to evaluate its momentous mitigating activities and other mind flagging frameworks may effectsly affect

10th August
written by dzimney

It seems over the past decade there has been a increasingly disappointing decline in the quality of the news organizations of the United States. Maybe it started with the popularity of reality tv. Or maybe corporate america just hit that breaking point of flooding into every outlet available. Or maybe I was just ignorant to the whole thing and am just now realizing how crooked this world is.

It seems that most major news sources like Fox News, MSNBC and CNN have started spending most of their energy reporting anything that can stir up a group, regardless of credibility or relevance. In fact, I find it hard to even call them “news”. In my opinion C-SPAN is really the only credible cable new source around. And I get it. C-SPAN is boring as hell. And most people don’t watch it because of that.

I’m really struggling here not to go off on a tangent of all the shit that any news source has covered over the last decade or two, from OJ Simpson to Monica Lewinsky to Tiger Woods. Somehow the “tabloids” have made their way into the “main stream” and it’s bullshit. Credible sources and hearsay are interchangeable and titles like ‘opinion’ and ‘news’ are overlooked. No one reads the fine print anymore. If it’s spoken on tv or read from a news paper it’s seen as fact. In short, we as Americans have gotten way too into the habit of serving the lowest common denominator. And the lowest common denominator around here is pretty fucking pathetic.

Enter the New York Times.

I’ve known that the cable and even local news networks have been crap for some time, but for some reason I’ve assumed that print was still fairly credible. And in general I still believe that to be true. Which is why I was so disappointed by this article from the New York Times. If you notice, the word could is used in each of the first seven sentences of the article. One fact the article did get right is that Google and Verizon (one of the nation’s largest ISPs) are talking to each other about what to do about Net Neutrality. However, rather than factually reporting what the two companies have been discussing, the article goes into what the two companies could be discussing or rather what the result of their discussions could be. The first sentence states that the two Internet giants are “nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are willing to pay for the privilege.” It does say why the author might think this could happen, it just says that it could. The New York Times and Edward Wyatt don’t really know anything about the specifics of the discussions between Google and Verizon, but they saw fit to publish some possibilities.

Immediately upon reading this article I was questioning it’s credibility. Since it’s inception, Google has been an amazingly strong proponent of an open and free Internet. Something at the essence of Net Neutrality. Probably because of this, the uproar over this accusation has been incredible. People and organizations have been up in arms over Google apparent slide into an evil empire. I’ve received emails from numerous organizations like and Color of Change asking to sign petitions against Google. People like to have something to bitch about and the whole thing got blown way out of proportion.

The New York Times article was very inadvertently accusing Google of going against it’s informal corporate moto of Don’t Be Evil. Immediately after the publication of the article both Verizon and Google refuted the article’s claims. And more recently Google has published a statement describing a joint proposal from Google and Verizon on Net Neutrality. Furthermore they’ve published a Legislative Framework Proposal that will be submitted to Congress on Net Neutrality. The statement and proposal are everything you would hope to expect from a company that “does no evil.”

In short, the accusations made by the New York Times are all completely false.

I’m feeling rather unsatisfied with this rant. Probably because there’s so much to this story and even more to the greater issue. I get that opinion is opinion and often tech articles point to speculation, but especially after witnessing the aftermath of this New York Times article, I believe it was simply irresponsible journalism (if you can call it that). The article should never have been published and the New York Times and Edward Wyatt should make an effort to correct the damage that was done to both Google and Verizon.