So you're sitting there watching the incredible production that is the X Factor, and while immersed in the drama of this so called vocal competition you think to yourself, "Wait a minute, are they lip syncing?"
Yes, they are. And it's shameful, childish, and embarrassing to reality television. X Factor should be ashamed of running a vocal competition only to put those hopefuls out there like puppets for a dog and pony show with fake animals.
For some reason, during group numbers and many other performances they have the contestants sing in the studio, and use all the studio trickery in the world to optimize their voice, and then play it back on TV while they act like they are singing live.
Come on X Factor, loose the tracks, loose the lip syncing, and replace the host while you're at it. The rest of the show's content and production is way too top notch to stoop to such ridiculousness like lip syncing.
If I was going to grade Herman Cain's response to his accuser's allegations on a scale of 1 to 10, I would give him a 9. He came across very strong in his press conference today. But for a quick recap, let's review the key statements so far.
Sharon Bialek says, "He suddenly reached over... put his hand on my leg, under my skirt, and toward my genitals." She then says that Cain added, "You want the job, right?"
Herman Cain spoke today in a press conference and stated with confidence that Bialek is lying. Three times he said, "I have never been inappropriate with a woman." I do find it interesting that in his language he repeatedly "rejects these claims." For better or worse, the words reject and deny are two different words in my book. I reject gas prices, but they are what they are. But seriously, I knew lots of people in college that viewed their actions as appropriate, when many would easily argue the same actions inappropriate. The choice of words was to grey for the subject at hand.
Still, at this point I error on the side of his innocence. There are just a few things I would have had him say had I been on his team.
At length, Cain described how he and his team watched the allegations on TV "over and over, over and over, and over and over." During that time he says, "I tried to remember, if I recognize her, and I didn't. I tried to remember if I remembered that name, and I didn't."
Now wait a minute. You mean to tell me a woman has come forward and accused him of putting his hand on her leg, up her skirt and then some... and he his racking his brain trying to think, do I know this woman? Have a seen this woman? Do I recognize her? Do I recognize her name?" Really?!
Let me say this. If you're a guy, and you were in a car, and you've been married for 30 years, and you put your hand up another woman's skirt where Sharon says you did.... you're going to remember that. So his thoughts racing to, "do I recognize her" and "do I remember that name" is really something else. Certainly any man, including Cain, can think to himself, "I either did, or did not sit in a car with a woman that I was not married to, and put my hand up her skirt." That either happened, or it didn't. Who cares if you recognize the woman? Who cares if you remember her name? It's the primary allegation that needs refuting.
Why couldn't he have just said, "This claim of me sitting in a car with this woman and putting my hand up her skirt is the dumbest thing I've heard since Obamacare. That never happened. I don't know this woman, and I'm pretty sure I've never even seen her in my life."
It's a tough call to judge at this point. I do think he came off real strong in his press conference, much stronger than I expected. What he said and the certainty in which he said it were very compelling. His strength in answering the reporter's questions was exceptionally strong. But still, at its core, I think he must emphatically deny the actions that he has been accused of. That has to be in addition to him not recognizing her. Without doing that, he isn't slamming the case shut. He's closed the door, but there's still a draft coming in, and it doesn't smell quite right.
What do you think?
The latest trend in processing donations is this idea that you can "text to donate." In some cases this is a good idea. However, for churches that utilize online giving, the value for donations by text is questionable at best.
For starters, donations that come in via text messages can take anywhere from 30 to 120 days to settle. The donor texts their donation, then the mobile phone service provider adds the dollar amount to their bill. At some point in the next 30 days, the mobile phone bill gets mailed to the donor. Around 15 - 30 days later, the donor pays their mobile phone bill. At some point after that, the phone company sends the donation (minus their fees) to the organization who solicited the donation. That's a long time for a donation to get to the recipient.
Other problems with texting to donate are with the donation caps. Mobile phone companies typically cap the donation at $10. This helps avoid abuse and fraud. Compare that to the average online donation of $200, you would be paying a lot of services fees and waiting a long time for those $10 donations.
The real major issue with donations by text is the amount of money the non profit actually gets to keep after all the fees. There are few backbone service providers that provide the glue to move money over these text donations. They have monthly fees anywhere from $50 to $200, additional transaction fees, and set up/registration fees. On top of that are the fees the mobile phone service providers charge. There is no flat rate across the board here as all mobile service providers impose their own fee structure. AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and other mobile carriers all have their own schedule of fees. Normally you can expect that to be around 10%. An article recently published by Café Online stated that organizations are now retaining UP TO 90% of text donations, and that is suppose to be GOOD news. Loosing 10% off the top of each donation is not good news, that's awful news. Put those fees on top of the monthly fees and transaction fees imposed by the application providers and now you are looking at something hopefully in the 80 percentile range.
All in all, because it's new and buzz worthy, text to donate is going to turn heads, but in the end, it just doesn't add up.
Are you one of the thousands of people who can't upload your mobile photos to Facebook through the iPhone app? Rest easy, the fix is here.
The iPhone Facebook app has had a bug for sometime now that yields an annoying error every time you try to upload photos through the app. Error: Your photo could not be uploaded at this time. You can save this photo and try to upload it again later.
However, you can save and try later, but it still won't take it. Until Facebook fixes their iPhone app, you'll have to use the work around fix.
Go to www.Facebook.com/mobile from your iPhone browser. Log in. On the landing screen you will see a link near the bottom left that speaks to uploading photos via email. They will assign you a random email address like blabla123blabla@m.facebook.com. Add a contact in your phone named Facebook and type the assigned email address in as the contact's email. Now, when you view your pictures on the iPhone picture viewer you have the option to email that photo to someone. Email it to your Facebook contact and just put your comment/caption in the subject line and wa-la, it will show up on your wall lickity split.
If you haven't seen these things yet, go ahead and learn what they are and how to use them, because they are the next big thing. These two-dimensional barcodes can be read by a number of devices, but most importantly smart phones like the iPhone and Blackberry. A phone can quickly scan the QR Code (QR = Quick Response) with its internal camera, and that might translate into plain text or take the phone's web browser directly to a URL.
Why is this so important? For one, these square-shaped QR Codes are going to start showing up everywhere. Two, they are free to use and store a LOT more data than the typical bar code. Three, they can be used in so many different ways. Imagine watching a commercial and seeing a QR Code in the bottom corner of your TV. While watching, you might let your phone scan the code from where you're sitting and it could take your phone's browser to a web page with more information about the product, or directly to a screen to buy what you just saw. Or the QR Code could automatically have your phone call a certain number. No typing, just a quick scan and you're off. There are probably hundreds if not thousands of different applications for these things and ease of use and probable adoption by many industries will make it as common as displaying a phone number in the years to come.
Want to try it out? First, download a QR Reader for your smart phone (I use QR App on the iPhone). Then try these below.
