Borders Is Lame

All summer I’ve been aching for something good to read. A few days ago, when the “aching” began to cause actual physical pain, I caved and began browsing the web for a book I might like.

I decided that I wanted a collection of short stories. I decided this for a number of reasons. First, short stories are short. I have what probably counts as A.D.D., and it can be tough for me to sit through a old, dry book (I’m looking at you, Great Expectations).

The way I see it, reading a few short stories is like watching an episode of The Simpsons, a couple of Family Guy, and maybe some Arrested Development or something. A long novel is like watching Cassablanca.

Also, short stories allow authors to tackle subjects that can’t quite carry themselves through an entire book. In particular, authors often write short math- or science-related stories. One of my favorite stories, The Library of Babel, is one I read years ago. I wanted a collection of stories like that.

My googling eventually brought me to the book Einstein’s Dreams which, although not quite a “collection” of short stories, is pretty close to what I wanted. The only semi-competent bookstore near me is Borders, so I searched their website with my zip code. I was told this:

WTF?

“Likely in store”? What the hell does that mean? Shouldn’t the Borders cashiers be competent enough to scan each book that gets sold, and shouldn’t the computers be competent enough to update the store’s inventory?

I realized, as you probably have, that “likely in store” is their way of telling us that if we can’t find a book in the store then they aren’t responsible. Of course, that big, red button that says “reserve in store” indicates that they have it.

So I went to Borders. Just for la-la’s, I ran the same search on the in-store computer and it told me the same thing. OK, I’ll go find it. Hmm… Literature… Fiction… Fiction/Literature… Aha! Alan Lightman (the author)!

Guess what. No Einstein’s Dreams. I asked a “sales representative” to help me find the book. He heroically took me over to the Fiction/Literature section, failed to find the book, and informed me that the book was not there.

“But the computer says ‘likely in store’!” I protested.

“Yeah, but likely doesn’t mean definitely.“

It took all of my will power to keep myself from telling him to go fuck himself sideways. All the damn “likely in store” label does is give the Borders employees an excuse to not find a book that was either misplaced or somehow lost.

Then again, I guess this is why Amazon is so successful.

iTunes DJ

In case you’ve missed the hubbub about iTunes 8.1: Apple has released the new ‘iTunes DJ’ feature for iTunes. What is it? It’s sorta like the old party shuffle, where you queue songs for your party and groove to the rhythm (or whatever), but with a couple things added:

• Sync with Genius (la-de-freakin’-da)
• Request songs with your iPhone/iPod touch

The latter feature is, of course, more impressive, and also completely useless. Like “Woohoo! Let’s make sure our DJ uses iTunes because wouldn’t it be cooler to request a song with my PHONE rather than speak to the guy in person? Alright!”

But it is my opinion that this is simply a marketing ploy by Apple — and a good one to boot. This article, for example, suggests you should only party with people who use Apple products:

Invite your friends over (though only if they have an iPhone or touch, naturally) and let the guests choose the songs.

Clearly you’re not cool unless you have an iPhone. But we already knew that, didn’t we?

Apple Computer: Fascists?

I’ve notice a couple articles circulating the internet about the recent discovery of a “blacklist” of applications on the Apple iPhone. Of course nobody knows what the blacklist is really for, but this site, this site, this site, this site, this site and this site (and a few more “this sites”) appear to make the assertion that this blacklist is “bad” or even “wrong.” Some go so far as to suggest that the blacklist is “Orwellian” and reminiscent of 1984.

Now here’s the thing: Apple Computer is a business, not a government. How can Apple possibly be Orwellian if they’re not a totalitarian government? Yes, Apple keeps absurdly strict control over their products, but you know what? If you don’t like it, don’t buy a fucking iPhone.

It’s that simple. It’s not like the US Government has mandated that all webcams be constantly transmitting to the NSA 24/7, it’s not like phone companies allowing the government to listen to customers’ phone conversations without notifying anyone; it’s Apple doing what they want with their product.

The only thing that actually bothers me is that this blacklist doesn’t seem to be mentioned anywhere by Apple. If its purpose is something like deleting potentially malevolent iPhone apps, then I think they have an obligation to inform the consumer. In the end, though, we don’t know what the blacklist is used for if it’s used at all.

Viacom Suing Google

I can’t help but wonder if people are trying to take advantage of Google’s sudden success, or if billion-dollar lawsuits are just common things in the corporate world. If you’ve been reading the news, you’ll probably know that Viacom is suing Google for copyright infringement. Viacom claims ownership of over 150,000 video clips that were posted with authorization on YouTube.

But I think Viacom deserves a big thumbs down for this. YouTube hosts over 80 million videos. How can they expect Google to have a person check each and every clip to see if it violates any copyrights? It’s not physically possible.

Besides, it’s not like Google encourages copyright infringement. I think they set a precedent with the whole “Lazy Sunday” business — a precedent that both viewers and copyright holders can agree upon. That is, if a copyright holder objects to their material being displayed on YouTube, they can notify Google and Google will take down the relevant clips if they are, in fact, in violation of the copyright.

Google even said on their YouTube blog

“We know how popular that video is but YouTube respects the rights of copyright holders. You can still watch SNL’s Lazy Sunday video for free on NBC’s website.”

What more does Viacom want? How can they sue Google for copyright infringement if a) Google can’t possibly know about every clip on YouTube and b) Viacom hasn’t even asked Google to take the clips down?

I suppose I don’t really understand big business or the corporate world, but it seems to me that Viacom is trying to make money off of Google for something that isn’t really Google’s fault at all.