This morning I took my son to Keene, New Hampshire to play their ~10-year-old “squirt B” hockey team. My son’s team lost 4-0, and it’s not the loss that has me upset. They’ve lost plenty of games and they’ll lose more. What has me upset is the fact that the only way they could have won that game was if they showed up ready to play dirty. Instead, my son’s team played the game they’ve been taught: play hard, play to win, but play fair and play your best.

I can only assume the other team played the game they were taught: play to win, at all costs, and minor penalties like tripping, checking, and holding the goalie are accepted parts of the game.

I base this assumption about the other team on (a) the way they played and (b) the way the game was refereed. No penalties were called whatsoever. I’m not saying it was called unfairly; the refs did a great job of being nearly 100% consistent on both sides of the puck. There was no obvious favoritism. The problem is that they didn’t call a damned thing.

You see, at this age and in this program the refs are typically teenagers and presumably local ones at that. Yes, I’m sure that USA Hockey dictates they take some certification course, but there’s no way that course, however long it is, would undo the years of conditioning they’ve had. Those refs we saw today in Keene were almost certainly raised through the same hockey program that still exists today in Keene. And if that’s true, then those refs were taught early on that tripping, checking, and holding the goalie are accepted parts of the game and are to be overlooked.

I’m very curious to see what happens next weekend when that very same team comes to our rink to play us at home. A game that will more than likely be refereed by kids that were raised through our program and are far more likely to call all the aforementioned penalties (if they see them, of course, and I get that the refs will always see a different game on the ice than we see from the stands).

But it’s more than that. Because they’re on the ice, we (as parents) are looking to these refs as the main people who can keep our kids safe. Tripping isn’t illegal because someone decided that would make the game more interesting. It’s illegal because if it happens all the time someone’s eventually going to get hurt. The same is true for not allowing checking at this age. And when you’ve got kids out there getting frustrated by inconsistent refereeing, THAT is when levelheadedness goes out the window and kids start hurting each other.

My son LOVES contact sports. In addition to hockey he plays football and lacrosse. He’s already been through three broken bones (none, funnily enough, from any of the aforementioned sports!). I wouldn’t be surprised to see him go through more of that before he’s through. It’s all part of it. But I do expect the refs to do their level best to keep him safe, and the biggest key to that is simply having an audited level of consistency throughout each league. That way the kids (in a general sense) as well as parents and coaches know what to expect and local “customs” don’t change the nature of the game from town to town. Organizations like USA Hockey exist for a reason, and it’s about time they stepped up and solved this issue.

As an aside: Yes, I realize that in pro sports there’s significant inconsistency amongst refereeing. I feel that this consistency is MORE important in childrens sports because this is where they’re learning. They need that to stay safe. We as parents need that for the kids to stay safe, and it needs to be fixed.

It’s 12:01pm on Tuesday, March 2nd, and we still don’t have power restored. We’re doing OK, we’re on a generator, and thankfully the temperatures have been above freezing so there hasn’t been much concern for us. The problem is, we’re used to this — we know that, on average, we’ll have a multi-day outage each year. It was explained to us before we moved here, but we didn’t believe it. After 5 years, not only do we believe it but we’re pros at dealing with it.

This leads me to ask the question: what would it take to recoup the cost of burying all these power lines underground in this and other high-impact neighborhoods?

I’m sure from PSNH’s standpoint the answer is, “oh, it’s cheaper to repair downed lines 100 times than it is to bury them once.” And I’m sure that’s true. But that’s not even the beginning of the total cost here.

Let’s list some of the costs in addition to those incurred by PSNH’s repair crews:

Town infrastructure costs, including temporary shelters for residents, management time coordinating with utilities, additional emergency workers, and overtime work for local crews and staff.

Personal costs, including fuel for generators, lost groceries, frozen/burst heat pipes, hotel rooms, meals out, and lost productivity at work.

Health risks, including loose (and potentially live) wires on the street, toxic leakage from downed transformers, and carbon monoxide poisoning from generators (the fire department brought a neighborhood woman to the hospital just yesterday).

I, for one, would love to see a cost analysis here, and if it means adding a surcharge to the local residents, please propose that and let’s make the decision together. Until we do, I *know* that each year we’ll be without power for several days and yet again incurring all of these expenses and exposing ourselves and the town to all these risks.

It seems silly not to at least consider doing this.

First of all, they only phoned respondents. I know in our household (a very Internet-based one, admittedly) we never take survey calls on the phone. I would venture to say that we’re not in the minority here. In fact, I’d say that people rooted in the “old ways” are more likely to take these types of telephone surveys than the rest of us are, but of course I have no data to back that up, just my gut.

Second — and far more important — the survey asked, “From what source would you say you get most of your news and information about news in New Hampshire?” The UNH Survey Center then *interpreted* that data to mean anyone stating a television station or newspaper name meant they get it from the TV or print editions — they failed to clarify whether or not the people were getting their news from the TV stations’ or newspapers’ websites!

I hope the UNH Survey Center takes these viewpoints into account when they do the next round of this survey so we can get some valuable results about news sources and consumption in our state.

Update: I heard back from Dr. Andrew Smith, Director of the UNH Survey Center, who stated:

I do stand by the interpretation that most people get their news and information about New Hampshire from more traditional news sources. And while we did not probe their responses, I suspect that the majority of people who report getting local news online do so from traditional sources such as TV and newspaper web sites.

Seems there’s some confusion of “source” and “medium” here. I agree with Dr. Smith that most people get their news from WMUR or the New York Times instead of blogs and Twitter, but reading the print edition of the New York Times is quite different than getting the online edition. Different advertising models are used and consumption patterns are (or can be) radically different. We must all be careful in our surveys (and interpretations) not to continue to confuse source with medium.

Rarely a day goes by where I don’t hear someone say this, and I often just ignore it in an effort not to offend the speaker. I’m assuming most people that say “all the sudden” simply mis-heard “all of a sudden” and integrated the incorrect result into their vernacular. So I try to be kind and let it pass… but it does grate at my soul.

I should have known that there would be many who would respond and defend our beloved President simply because of their feelings for him, but there were just as many valid responses challenging the “an” vs. “a” preceding “h” words rule.

It was certainly entertaining reading. But know this: I know I’m right. I don’t need any additional reading or instruction on this particular point. You can show it to me, and I’ll happily play along, but it’s never going to change what I know to be right. If you want to show me your links in hopes of changing my mind, I’ll simply show you mine.

Here’s the deal, folks: there are some who feel that “a historic” is now acceptable, but there are none (with any clout, anyway) that say “an historic” is wrong. If I’m writing something to the entire populace (as I am with every post I make here, I assure you), I’ll choose the one that is universally correct. Sure, some might read “an historic” and think, “oh — that’s the old usage,” or perhaps, “well, he’s being quite formal now, isn’t he?” They might even think I’m being an old fuddy-duddy. But they won’t believe me to be wrong, at least not after a minimal education on the subject. However, if you write, “a historic,” there will be many who think you’re wrong simply because they’ve never heard of the “new allowances.” Many of those won’t even bother to research it one bit, they’ll just know you’re wrong and be done with you. Like me. Why risk it?

Oh… hi. Let me catch you up on this rant that’s been going on in my head for about 4 years now. It seems any time I work with a new sound engineer, they insist on assuming they’ll know how to mix the vocals better than the band. Last week’s Cirque du Mac party was no exception (yeah, I know, I didn’t blog about where or what I was going to be doing at Macworld Expo and, yeah, I’ve been ignoring my blog in general for a while. I’ve been busy but I’m doing fine, thanks for asking. I’m here now!).

At Cirque, the Macworld All-Star Band had 5 vocal mics on stage: 3 across the front, one with Chris at the keys, and one at the drumkit for me. With that many live mics on stage potentially allowing other sounds to bleed in when someone isn’t singing into each, a sound engineer tends to get antsy that they won’t have full control over all the sound. The oft-perceived (and ill-conceived!) solution is to bring vocal mics up and down only when they’re needed. On the surface, this sounds very reasonable. The issue is the dangerous assumption by the sound engineer that they will somehow magically know when each mic needs to be on. Of course, it’s impossible for them to know this if it’s the first time they’re doing sound for the band. Hell, it’s hard for an engineer to know this even if it’s his/her 100th time doing sound for the band. If you have a band that liberally employs harmonies, you simply don’t know when one is going to crop up. And by the time you notice someone singing into a microphone, you’ve missed it. If you’re lucky, you’ll see it during the first verse/chorus and maybe get it right for the second one. But with 5 mics on stage, you’ve got to watch each and every one 100% of the time to even get it right the second time around, and I posit those chances to be slim, at best.

The solution is simple: leave the damned vocal levels alone and let the band mix on stage just like they’re used to doing in a rehearsal room. Most bands are better at this than most engineers give them credit for (bad English, good statement!). Of all the bands I play in, all the musicians I know are smart enough to back off the mic when blending a harmony and get up close when singing a lead. Mic technique is just one of those things you learn. Trust the musicians. Hell, it’s their gig and their reputation on the line if they sing harmonies too loud or out of tune. Let them fail and take the blame, if you wish, but in most cases they’ll sound better than you think.

So if you’re a soundman reading this, please — for the love of all that is good and pure, PLEASE — when mixing a band for the first time, set the vocal levels in the monitors (all the monitors!) the same as the mains and simply leave it alone unless one mic is much louder or softer than the others. Then adjust it in both places and get out of the band’s way!

As I read through, I saw two instances where the reporter, Robert M. Cook, left a string of question marks (??????), which I saw as him missing his own notes to return and clarify a piece of information.

The best, though, was his parenthetical notes to himself in one of the final paragraphs:

[Obama] added that people who make less than $250,000 a year would not have to pay any additional (more than now? how does that help?) payroll taxes, federal income taxes or health insurance taxes.

The bold highlight is courtesy of yours truly.

Yes, folks, we’re deeply entrenched in the Internet age where a few minutes delay can make the difference between a popular article and one that is ignored by the masses, but do you really want to risk publishing something like this? Let’s hope it’s at least edited after-the-fact — that’s one benefit of the Internet, after all.

It ain’t gonna happen folks. At least not any time soon. And the reason is simple: Apple makes money selling music on the iTunes store. Until Apple has a subscription model of their own to use, they certainly aren’t going to cut into their a la carte business by using someone *else’s* subscription model.

At least that’s my take on it. Tell me I’m wrong. I dare ya.

This certainly isn’t the first time we’ve received a phone call like this. With 4 different businesses, each with their own credit and debit cards, plus our personal stuff, this is something we deal with once or twice per year. But it is the first time it’s happened to a debit — not credit — card of ours.

You see, my wife likes to use her debit Mastercard to make all her purchases, since it allows her to track money in real-time, not having to wait for a monthly statement to find our whether or not she’s overstretched things a bit. For this the debit Mastercard/VISA is fantastic. The merchants see it as just another credit card, no PIN is required, yet it pulls the money right from our checking account. For protection, the banks (Citibank included) have a fraud guarantee on debit cards just like they do on their credit cards — or so we thought.

Certainly they will cover any fraud. The difference is that with a credit card, it’s the bank’s money at play in the interim, whereas the debit card it’s our money at risk. And this weekend’s events proved that. Instead of it simply being a bunch of fraudulent charges on a statement that we simply had to acknowledge, this time the charges wiped out her checking account and our overdraft protection line of credit attached to it, leaving us with zero balance left to cover any additional checks. For this, Citibank has no immediate remedy. Sure the money will come back, but it may take a few days or even weeks for the “provisional” credit to be applied. In the meantime we’re out the money. Thankfully we have an attached savings account from which we were able to immediately transfer some interim funds, but had my wife simply used a credit card instead of a debit card, all of this would be moot.

I confirmed this with a high ranking customer service agent. Point blank, I asked him, “so we should only use credit cards and not debit cards, right?” After a considerable pause, his reply was, “Yes sir. That’s absolutely right.”

It’s because of this that I’m canceling all of my debit cards going forward and making them all “ATM Only” cards — where a PIN is required. Surely the banks would prefer that I didn’t — they like the fees they earn from potential debit charges — but if they’re not willing to protect me on them, I’m not willing to play that game.

Recently the RIAA has sent threatening letters to between 30 and 50 University of New Hampshire students here in Durham, accusing them of illegally sharing songs over the Internet using Limewire or Gnutella.

Unfortunately, every article that was written by The New Hampshire (including this one) infers that the RIAA is cracking down on students who are *downloading* music. As we all know, that’s a VERY tough case to prove, since the RIAA can’t possibly know from afar if you previously obtained the rights (through purchase) to have a copy of that song. What they can know — and what they’re alleging these students did — is that they illegally uploaded (i.e. shared) copies of these songs. The RIAA can be pretty certain that these students don’t have distribution licenses for that music, and that’s the point over which they would sue them if the RIAA choses that course of action.

Hopefully someone will properly inform the UNH students, because The New Hampshire keeps getting it wrong.

Technorati Tags: new hampshire, RIAA