More in an irregularly occurring series...

Apple lost its case against the anonymous folks who leaked information about an as of yet unreleased product. The computer/iPod company had argued that product leakers and their activities with bloggers were not protected by first amendment, but the courts have disagreed. Maybe now Apple will see the range of leakery that reigned in the times of MacWeek.

A side called "Advertising for Peanuts" clearly explains a big issue in the marketing/PR/advertising world, where we note the war between the creative side and those who own the product, who think you have to cram all sorts of niddly details in a piece, when simplicity is much more of a sure thing. They say, simply, "This usually results in a crappy commercial." Duh. Now if only those who are the problem would ever see the solution...

NBC News anchorman Brian Williams sits down with Apple CEO Steve Jobs following the company's unveiling of a new Apple store in New York City, and peers into his mind, calling him an iconoclast and salesman in one. Jobs argues that innovation needs to ever continue, and that you can't be satisfied with your latest success.

Meanwhile, in Microsoft land, Mini-Microsoft reports that the rumored reductions in force (RIF) are beginning in some areas, a move applauded, yet echoes concern that those cutting jobs are the ones who need to be leaving themselves. Of course, in a Dilbert-run world, that's how it is and always will be, especially in the largest of large companies. While Mini can hope, reality is just that those who have the money and power will continue to do so.

Listening to ''LSI (Love Sex Intelligence)'', by Shamen (Play Count: 11)

As mentioned previously, we had a rare opportunity to attend a Giants game in San Francisco tonight. With my A's in the midst of losing the team's seventh straight contest in Texas, at least one Bay Area team could try and make headway in the win-loss column, even if they were wearing black and orange, not green and gold. A vendor from the office had offered a free game with all the amenities possible, and we agreed to go, even if we still demanded to wear our A's cap and A's sweatshirt - both essential elements at every good ballgame.

The seats, in a depressed area alongside first base and the visitors bullpen, were very interesting. Though closer to the players than any other seats I've ever attended a game in, they didn't offer the clearest view, surprisingly, as the angle meant some pitches or plays were obscured by a thick, padded bar running along the top of the fence. Despite that annoyance, we were close enough to the action to fear the occasional foul ball, and we could see Barry Bonds grin as he trotted to first base on a walk, and we could judge how ballplayers' uniforms looked - from the old-school approach preferred by Rockies first baseman Todd Helton, sporting knee-high socks, or the baggy jeans look preferred by Rockies relievers.

In fact, at one point, a sky-high popup made its way toward us, and I had my glove in the air, only to see the ball drift further back and out of reach. A minute later, my phone rang, and a colleague, seeing the game on TV, said, "Why didn't you catch that?", having spotted my A's cap when the overhead camera traversed our area. She was teasing, but it was fun to see we had made it on the big screen, even if only briefly.

In great contrast to the A's struggles, the Giants never trailed in the game, and finished it up strong, pulling away en route to a 9-0 victory that saw great hitting, not only from Bonds, but from a rookie first baseman, Travis Ishikawa, who after limited plate appearances, is now sporting a .667 average, and is slugging 1.000, sporting 2 doubles and 2 singles in 6 at bats. Meanwhile, Jason Schmidt continued his hot pitching, following last week's 130+ pitch effort against the A's with seven shutout innings. Barry didn't hit 715, but there were fireworks after the game of the real variety, as to celebrate Memorial Day, San Francisco's night sky lit up with bursts of color, previewing what will very likely be quite a similar show in Oakland this next Monday.

Though I had a good time, no amount of free food and excellent seats can obscure the fact that this wasn't my team on the field. The A's weren't there, and as a real fan I should not have enjoyed the Giants game any more than if I had stayed at home to see the A's fail on television, and surprisingly, in some ways, that's true. But I'm glad we went.

Listening to ''Perfect Silence (Album Mix)'', by Blank & Jones (Play Count: 4)

We've lately been trying to save money. Beyond avoiding outlandish purchases, we're taking a lot of shortcuts to avoid spending money where we don't have to, so when we have the opportunity to get something for free, and have a good time as well, bring it on.

Last weekend, when the A's had three sellout games against the Giants, the team put on a promotion where Round Table Pizza gave away personal pizzas to every member of the crowd. Simply by exchanging the tickets, we could get free pizza for the next week. Having attended all three games, that meant on Monday, Thursday and today, we were at our local Round Table, spending all of $1 or $2 on lunch (covering drinks and tax) and doing our best freeloader impersonation.

This was made even better tonight, when a vendor from the office treated us to field-level tickets at the Giants game tonight in San Francisco. Not only were the tickets free, but so was the food, and drink, and continuing in my cheap phase, I convinced a colleague to drive there and back so he would cover gas. In fact, we parked outside of the stadium... again for free. Good deal! All told, we got three lunches, dinner, drinks, a game and parking for the princely sum of about six bucks this week - not saying that the food will do me any good, and that my waistline may be increasing at the same rate as my wallet, but it's a start.

Listening to ''Inertia'', by Fragile Feat. Alex Lemon (Play Count: 3)

This struck me as a challenging equation this morning, so I just had to do it. The answer has already been determined, but I'd be eager to learn how you would address it.

Problem Set

With my birthdate being April 8, 1977, and I've worked at the same company since January 24, 2001, and today's date being May 25, 2006, this means that I've been employed at the company for 1,947 days, of my total 10,639 days alive on this planet, good for an 18.3% mark.

A colleague of mine, born on April 24, 1982, joined the company on October 18, 2004, and has worked at the company for 584 days of her total 8,797 days alive on the planet, giving her a 6.6% mark.

Assumptions

Both of us will continue working at the same company, uninterrupted.

Question

On what day will my colleague have been working at the company a higher percentage of her life than I have?

To be answered tomorrow...

Listening to ''The Nightfly (Short Cut)'', by Blank & Jones (Play Count: 4)