Monday, November 10, 2008

90's One-Hit Wonders

You may remember I posted this about six days ago, explaining my plan for using 90's one-hit wonders for a CD. I've decided on a handful of songs, and even though I haven't ordered them, I'm going to put them here.

  • In the Meanwhile by Spacehog - This is such an awesome song, and you only hear it on the radio about once every three years. But it will never leave your head.

  • Got You (Where I Want You) by The Flys - Simple, but quite powerful.

  • What I Got by Sublime - Okay, so this technically is not a one-hit wonder. But it's one of the very few songs by Sublime that I like, and I've always gotten a very care-free vibe from it. Also, you don't hear it very often on the radio, and it fits with the theme of the CD.

  • No Rain by Blind Melon - A pleasant if ironic little song about being happy sung by a guy who killed himself shortly after making the music.

  • Mother Mother by Tracy BonhamShe was angry, so she wrote a cool little rock anthem.

  • Possum Kingdom by The ToadiesI think that possibly only two other songs got as much radio play as this one in the 90's, and those were Black Hole Sun by Soundgarden and Smells Like Teen Spirit by Nirvana. Definitely a one-hit wonder, though, and so much fun to play on guitar.

  • Closing Time by SemisonicVenturing into the pop world brings us hits like this which are simple, but amazingly easy to listen to.

  • Sex and Candy by Marcy PlaygroundI think the common element here is simplicity. Also weird music videos.

  • Seether and Volcano Girls by Seether - A two-hit wonder, for sure, and not the first of this list.

  • Miserable and My Own Worst Enemy by Lit - This rock trio (I think) made these two songs immensely popular and then promptly disappeared. Another two-hit wonder.

  • Touch, Peel, and Stand and Shelf in the Room by Days of the New - On the subject of two-hit wonders... The lead singer's voice is certainly unique. I'd recognize their brand of acoustic rock anywhere.

  • Down by 311 - I can never figure out what to think of these guys. Still, there's no denying the awesomeness of this 90's rock/hip-hop infusion.

  • Pepper by Butthole Surfers - For no good reason that I can conceive of, these guys had to change the original art for this album, Electriclarryland, in the name of censorship. The cartoon drawing of a person's head with a pencil stabbed through his ear was replaced with what would appear to be a gerbil or prarie dog. Dramatic B***H*** Surfers... Are dramatic!

  • Bound for the Floor by Local H - Most times, if you ask someone the name of this song, they'll tell you it's "Born to Be Down," which it most certainly is not. Furthermore, ask them who sang it, and they'll stare at you blank-faced. The lead singer looks eerily like Patrick Fugit.

  • Christian Woman by Type O-Negative - We always used to refer to the singer of Type O-Negative as Crackhead Steve. His voice is unnatural. This video is creepy and the lyrics are way more vulgar than the song's tone might let on.

  • Cumbersome and Water's Edge by Seven Mary Three -
    Both are powerful songs. The video for Water's Edge is exactly how I always imagined it would be, though I've never seen it until today.

  • Jenny Says by Cowboy Mouth - Is it possible to not like this song? Even after you've heard it dozens of times?

  • Superman's Dead by Our Lady Peace - A band that's really quite good by all accounts really pinnacled with this song. Sure, most of it's unintelligible oooohs and aaaahs, but it's quite catchy. Life's a subway, by the way.

  • Low by Cracker - I can only imagine this song is about drugs. But then, weren't most songs from the 90's?



I hope you enjoy this music as much as I am now and hope to in a couple years.

PS - I'm adding a song to this list: Plowed by Sponge. I just couldn't live without hearing this song once every couple years. I'm surprised I even forgot this in the first place.

Friday, November 7, 2008

Tweek City

I watched this very independent movie today called Tweek City. I must be the only person on the planet who liked this film. If you asked me what the point of it was, I couldn't tell you. I liked the mood of it, and I felt that the lead actor, Giuseppe Andrews, played it very well.

It's about a guy who's trying to get his life back together while undergoing withdrawals from speed. He has trouble doing so and falls back in with some friends who only lead him back to the drugs and the wild nightlife. He faces constant rejection and death everywhere he goes, and as he tries to seek out the meaning in his life, as he searches for his place in the crazy underworld he inhabits, the solutions he finds for himself are constantly shot down by everyone else. He descends into paranoia and fear and ultimately strips himself of everything he thought he might have been, both internally and externally, and is forced to face the things which he faults himself for.

It's a very intriguing character study without a whole lot of plot, but I feel it rises above its budgetary limitations quite well. It's a shame that more people don't like it. The general low scores tell me I probably shouldn't recommend it to anybody for fear that my credibility as a film recommender might come into question. The IMDb score for the movie at the time of this writing is 3.9 (real bad) after 106 votes. I should be #107 with my score being a 7. Nobody at Rotten Tomatoes has bothered to review it. It's a shame.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Microsoft's evil plan

I promised earlier to discuss something. Quoth myself:

Windows 7 is now apparently ... requiring you to log into Windows Live services [when logging into the OS]. That's the same Windows Live that keeps getting blasted for sucking so much. Only it's no longer an option. At least that's the image given by CNet's video review of the Windows 7 Alpha. I will expound on how this is only a method to stack the usage statistics later on in another blog entry.



The type of activity I'm getting at can also be seen in the world of broadcast television. You know how there are like, twelve ESPN channels, but only one of them shows anything worth a damn, and the second one is what you turn to during commercials just so you don't have to watch commercials? By that logic, nobody actually watches ESPN 7. That's actually true, for the most part. Pretty much the only people who watch ESPN 7 are the folks who care about the World Cup of Shuffleboard, Featherweight Division. And that's not anybody.

So how do the television studios continue to fund these channels that nobody watches? And if nobody watches them, why bother funding them? The answer to the second question is "advertising." But how the studios continue to get paid for advertisement slots is a little more complicated.

Have you ever decided to purchase a TV station, say Showtime, and discovered that you also wound up subscribing to things you didn't want along with it? You bought Showtime, but got Grapefruit TV and the Johnny Mathis Network with it against your will. So because you bought a subscription to a popular station, you also bought a subscription to a station that nobody will ever watch. You have to do this because the networks sell these TV stations to your local cable companies the same way. They really want to be able to offer Showtime to their customers, but they aren't allowed to do so unless they also offer Grapefruit TV and the Johnny Mathis Network to you.

Follow me here... If every customer who buys Showtime also buys Grapefruit TV, then the total number of customers who pay for Grapefruit TV is equal to the total number of customers who pay for Showtime. This way, the networks can say, "Sorry, we don't have that advertisement slot open on Showtime, but we've got the same time slot open on Grapefruit TV, which is in just as many homes and will reach just as wide an audience." Of course, there isn't an ounce of truth in that statement, but the statistics look great on paper. So they can keep selling the advertisements and keep rolling in the money, even when nobody's actually watching the advertisements.

It's unfair, and they're cheating their advertising customer base by stacking the statistics.

Ergo, when Microsoft forces you to create a Microsoft Live account, they're forcing you to sign up for a service you may not have wanted. It probably won't cost you anything, but that makes it seem harmless, and you sign up for it nonetheless. Ordinarily, you probably wouldn't even sign in to check your Windows Live Mail or chat with other people on Windows Live One Chat Center (or whatever ridiculous name they've given it). Ordinarily, you'd just use your computer the way you want to use your computer. But you're also being forced into signing into that account every time you log on to your computer and have an Internet connection.

So if Microsoft Windows 7 is in use on thirty percent of the nation's computers, then Microsoft can safely say that thirty percent of the nation's computer-owning population use their services. They can then sell advertisements or push their own adverts on you. It's unfair to you. You are a helpless user of Microsoft's software. You are paying $200 for a functional operating system, not paying $200 to help Microsoft fund themselves further. The money you pay for the OS then becomes money that Microsoft didn't have to spend on developing a sales strategy for advertisements or for OS licenses to people who might otherwise make a different purchase. You are essentially helping the spread of Microsoft, which is a company that doesn't need help spreading.

Trust me on that.

Windows 7 so far...

I've now seen about a dozen Windows 7 demos, and I have to say that I'm unimpressed overall. The features they're raving about fall into three categories as far as I'm concerned:

  1. Features that have been available in previous Windows releases, and also other operating systems before it

  2. Features that have not been in Windows before, but have been in other operating systems, and

  3. Somewhat original features that represent a more "Windowsey" approach to features that have made other operating systems famous

Before I begin with this, I want to make a disclaimer by saying that I know these demos are just alpha release. I know this. I know that Windows 7 will not be forced upon the unwilling mass market until 2010 or later. But Microsoft is already talking about things as if these are great, amazing improvements, and I simply disagree. Let's go over them, one category at a time.

Features that have been available in previous Windows releases, and also other operating systems before it

Microsoft is, of course, keeping the Vista's newish start menu with the built-in search. This is good, because it may have been the only worthwhile new feature in Vista. I wouldn't ever use it, because I know where I keep my files, and I usually use toolbars and shortcut keys to get to my programs faster, but for your average Windows user, this is a good thing to keep around. Too bad you have to keep a poorly-written, stodgy, resource-hogging Indexing Service running to get decent performance out of it. They'd be better off using a different filesystem that doesn't fragment files and keeps better track of files on its own. golfclap

In addition to this, they're keeping the Vista control panel with a couple small tweaks. This is where I start to dissent from the plusses. I hate the Vista control panel with the fiery passion of a billion fusion reactions. It doesn't need to stick around any longer. It needs total retooling, and all options for a particular action or category need to be organized better, and all in the same window. I'm tired of digging around aimlessly trying to find common settings. I don't care if this means that terminology for these settings needs to become more terse. If you're going to try to be in control of your computer, you might as well learn what your actions are actually called.

Another thing that's sticking around with one small change is User Account Control. I found this to be one of the biggest detractors of Vista, and proof of Microsoft's severe lack of understanding on the subject of security. Simply asking the user if it's okay for Vista to run virtually any program it encounters is not enough. Especially when a simple keystroke (Alt+C) skips straight past this. Also since disabling it is so easy. For Vista, they ripped this concept straight out of Linux operating systems where a superuser password is required to access administrative materials. The difference is that Vista does not require a password on every account the way Linux does, and so any hacker or bot program can easily get past this "feature" by sending a keystroke instead of having to crack passwords. It's not security. It's annoying.

They've changed it up a little bit. See, before, you could only disable it or enable it. There was no in between setting. So you were either constantly annoyed or less constantly annoyed, but never really any more secure than you would be without UAC at all. Now there are four settings - on, off, and two in betweens that let you choose how often, and for what purposes UAC should notify you that the program you are running is requesting administrative access. This is admittedly better than it used to be, but I'm afraid I have to point another bitter finger at the control panel, which presents this single option as a full window with a slider bar instead of the two checkboxes that it should occupy as a footnote to the security options. This is exactly the kind of dumbing-down that ruins the current control panel scheme as Microsoft would have it.

It looks like MS has done away with the Vista sidebar, but kept the gadgets. This is probably a step forward for them, but if they really want to copy Linux and Mac, they should put the gadgets on a separate layer that shows and hides when you press a predefined toggle key, or click a button. Instead, the gadgets are constantly taking up space on your desktop, and if things are as they were in Vista, they'll have a higher Z-order, so you won't be able to select desktop icons which are behind them. So they're crowding up precious desktop space.

Also, Windows 7 has taken the concept of a tool ribbon which has delighted very few users of Microsoft Office 2007 and redistributed it across every single program Windows has to offer! This has got to be the worst idea Microsoft has come up with yet. The people who like it say they like it for the better organization of functions and for the smaller screen real estate it consumes. However, Microsoft has implemented this in such programs as Paint and WordPad. Can somebody please clarify for me how it consumes less screen space and presents your options in a better way to put ribbons in simple programs like this instead of actually displaying ALL of your options at once? I just don't understand. We've gone from having small buttons for tools on the left and small squares for colors on the botton to having giant, lunky boxes taking up a third of the program's height, and ALL OF THE FUNCTIONS ARE OBSCURED!!! I don't get it. This doesn't make any sense. I hope somebody from Microsoft gets hit with a meteor because of this. Not because of some trivial rearrangement of buttons in a stupid program that nobody ever uses, but because of how obviously asinine they are to assume that there is always a one-size-fits-all solution to every problem. This is stupid, and a major reason for me not to use Windows 7 right now. For the record, I don't like it in Office, either.

Features that have not been in Windows before, but have been in other operating systems

It looks like they're trying to make Bluetooth easy to use. Good job, Microsoft. It's about time somebody took the initiative to turn the complication of the Bluetooth wireless "standard" into a point-and-click-and-be-done-with-it interface. Too bad Linux got there before you. In some distributions, like the very popular Ubuntu which has become the Messiah of the Linux users who want Linux to arrive in the mainstream, you don't even have to install software. There's not even a wizard like the one demonstrated in Windows 7. It takes two clicks and a bonding password, and you're done.

Somewhat original features that represent a more "Windowsey" approach to features that have made other operating systems famous

So Windows now has a different taskbar (or it will). Instead of showing you the names of the programs that are running, you only get icons. In this way, you cannot differentiate between shortcuts in your Quick Launch bar and programs that are already running. This is exactly the kind of change they need to make to get confused people to like the next Windows operating system. Also, the only two differences between this and Mac's dock are that Windows allows you to close programs when you're done with them, and Mac's version looks good.

</sarcasm>

The benefit here is that when you mouse over the icons for running programs, you get a preview of the window. Which... Wait... Okay, so Linux has been doing this for quite some time now, and Microsoft did it with Vista... So it's not really as original as it may seem. I guess the only thing original about this feature is that if you have, say, multiple documents open in Word, you'll get a preview for each document. Clicking on the preview opens the program directly to that document. That's pretty cool. I only hope that the two previews are clear enough and large enough for me to determine which of the documents I'm opening. I have never liked the taskbar grouping that's been around since XP, so I doubt I'm going to like this feature. Especially because it won't display words. Perhaps part of the desktop customization Microsoft is screaming about will allow me to disable this feature. I'm undecided on this feature as of right now, but I'm leaning toward "I don't like it."

Another thing that no operating system I've ever witnessed has ever done that Windows 7 is now apparently doing is requiring you to log into Windows Live services. That's the same Windows Live that keeps getting blasted for sucking so much. Only it's no longer an option. At least that's the image given by CNet's video review of the Windows 7 Alpha. I will expound on how this is only a method to stack the usage statistics later on in another blog entry. Suffice it to say it's unfair. Par for the course for Microsoft, in other words.

Conclusion

I know we're still years away from Windows 7 being a public threat, but in all seriousness, if this is all Microsoft has changed, if this is all Windows 7 can offer, then I don't know why anyone should bother. I mean, sure, Microsoft has contracts that ensure that the OS will get used on every single PC purchased until they decide it should be a different version of the same old crap. But this doesn't help them in any new way. If Microsoft wants to sell more units, they need to get folks to upgrade. What I've seen so far is not a reason to upgrade. If anything, it's a reason to stick with the tried and true, or venture into Linuxland where these issues are not a problem.

The point is, so far, I have not seen an upgrade. I have seen an update. I have to fall back on my precious Ubuntu here to point out that more positive changes are made to that operating system with each six-month version than Microsoft has ever made between versions, even when they've had years to work on it. I'll say right now that I'm not sold, and that it's going to be a tough sell for me. I'll stick with XP for the occasions that I need Windows, and I won't be changing until Microsoft produces, at bare minimum, a multiple virtual desktop environment.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Songs You Haven't Heard In Fucking Forever

I've made an important decision today.

I'm going to make a mix CD. It has to be a CD for this to work properly. The plan doesn't have the same effect if it's a playlist or something like that.

I'm going to make a mix CD and fill it with one hit wonders from the nineties and other songs that you just don't hear much on the radio anymore, music that I don't listen to on a normal basis because I don't have the full album. We're talking stuff like "Got You Where I Want You" by The Flys. "Christian Woman" by Type O-Negative. "What I Got" by Sublime. Stuff like that. I'm going to grab a Sharpie and label it, "Songs You Haven't Heard In Fucking Forever." I'm going to put the CD in a player and listen to it once.

And then I'm going to throw it someplace hard to find where I would never look for it. And I'm going to leave it there until I forget that it's there at all. So then, two years later, when I'm emptying out some closet looking for my long lost something-or-other, I'll accidentally find it. And I'll see the label that says, "Songs You Haven't Heard In Fucking Forever" and I will not remember ever having made this mix CD.

So I'll pop it in a CD player and listen to the songs, and when they say,

I've got a dalmation.
I can still get high.
And I can play the guitar like a
Motherfuckin' riot.


my heart will fill with joy.

Monday, September 29, 2008

Floola

Ladies and gentlemen, I've been becoming more and more exasperated with my inability to have full iPod functionality under Linux. Sure, Rhythmbox is great for music, and so is Amarok, and both of these are really quite popular solutions, but nothing compares to what I've just come across.

Floola.

Seriously. It's for Linux, Mac, and Windows. I don't know about the Mac or Windows versions, but under Linux, it's a single, pre-compiled executable file. I had to install one package, but that was very easy to do, and well worth the extra work. This is the best non-iTunes iPod interface I've ever seen.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

In Brief Episode 2

I have finally, at long last, watched the two sequels to Mad Max: The Road Warrior and Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. I've got something to say about the latter two, but before I get there, let me fulfill this episode of In Brief.

Mad Max (1979)
In this, Mel Gibson's first real movie role and George Miller's first feature-length film, we meet Max Rockatansky. He lives in a world that seems "post-apocalyptic," as they say, although that isn't exactly explained until this movie's sequel. At best, the world has degenerated into a state of lonesome highway speed demons banding together in gangs and destroying each other using spectacular speed- and stunt-driving maneuvers. Max is a cop whose difficult job is to stop them. But when Max's personal life begins to be affected by terrorizing street gangs, he takes it personally and takes violent vengeance on those who have threatened his family.

Mad Max is a movie that I consider a guilty pleasure, but every time I call it that, I feel like I'm doing the movie some horrible injustice. It's really a good movie, especially if you watch it with the original Australian soundtrack. See, when the movie was originally released, the American distributors thought that the Australian accents were too difficult for American audiences to understand. This is, of course, untrue. If you were able to follow Steve Irwin, you can make it through Mad Max. The movie is well-shot, well-acted, and full of really good, explosive action. No, your brain doesn't need to be functioning to get the full effect of Mad Max. You can just enjoy it. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior (1981)
I've always heard this refered to as simply "The Road Warrior," but IMDb has the main title simply as "Mad Max 2." This is my review, so I'll call it what I want to, dammit.

At the end of Mad Max, Officer Rockatansky takes care of business and disappears down a long, dusty highway, a rogue, a changed man, his loyal dog trailing him. The first thing that happens here -- we're given insight into how the world came to be the way it is. It involves a war over oil and a sudden lack of gasoline, which is now a more precious commodity than ever before. Nuclear war breaks out, leaving the world in a state of street gangs and Mad Maxes.

Max almost immediately makes enemies with a new street gang whose crew members include Dude With Leather Shirt Everywhere Except His Nipples, Guy With Loud Red Mohawk Who Rides A Motorcycle With Nipple Guy Riding Bitch, and their leader, Really Big Guy Who Appears To Be Wearing Clothing But Who Is Really Just Wearing Strappy Leather Underwear. In truth, I think their real names are Pappagallo, The Toadie, and Lord Humungus. There's this oil refinery that's producing actual gasoline in the middle of the Australian desert, and there's a group of people who have set up camp around it. They want to get out and go to the sea a couple hundred miles away, but cannot due to their inability to move the enormous tank of gas with them. Max can help, and he leverages the community for some gas of his own. It is action-packed and explosive, and also a pretty good movie if the outrageous and frequently skimpy costumes don't bother you too much. Most of all, this film and its prequel remind me of a time when special effects were real and not computer generated. That's perhaps the best part of both of these.

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985)
Here we find Max entering one of the more civilized areas of post-apocalypse Australia: a place called Bartertown. Max's instant reluctance to obey the rules earns him a visit to the leader of Bartertown, Aunty Entity, played (to death) by Tina Turner. His audacity impresses her, and he learns of the town's method of producing electricity: burning pig feces for the methane, and of their method of dealing out justice: a caged, domed arena complete with fatal weapons called Thunderdome. Max causes some trouble and is banished from the outpost, where he wanders on the verge of death in the desert until he discovers a random river and a colony of youngsters there who believe Max is Captain Walker, an assumed war hero who they idolize as a messiah. Max and the new crew head back to Bartertown to teach them a lesson.

This movie starts off really well, with better cinematography than the previous two, but quickly loses steam when you realize that Tina Turner's part is not really a small one. Also, where the first two movies are gritty and ugly, giving a very grimey and visceral feeling like the audience should be glad they don't have to live in the films' setting, "Beyond Thunderdome" suffers from being gritty and pretty. It feels more like Indiana Jones - a glitzy, Hollywood adventure flick -- than a disgusting piece with any real merit. I found it to be pretty enjoyable, but without the same flair that the two prior films had. I won't be watching it again any time soon.

Something worth saying
I feel that both The Road Warrior and Beyond Thunderdome have something important to say. Or at least they start off that way. Niether really goes into much depth on their subjects of choice, but here's what I get:

The Road Warrior talks about the scarcity of gasoline and how it really is in short supply. It talks about a war that broke out over that matter. What are we fighting for in Iraq right now if not oil? Let the politicians say what they want - it's a war for freedom, it's a holy war, whatever. It's a war for oil. How far away are we from a reality like Max's?

This ultimately leads to a situation as in Beyond Thunderdome, where justice is served gladiator-style and political struggles occur based around those who claim to have political control over an energy crisis much like our own, and those who have manual control over it. Of course, at the present moment, the people with political power are also the ones with manual power, and that's a bad thing, too, but we may be headed toward this kind of gridlocked eventuality.

I wish the movies explored these themes more fully, but they don't. They're action flicks, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it still all leaves me feeling like I wanted to see a proposed solution. Perhaps that's what the action was after all. If there's a conflict without an easy solution, simply destroy the problem completely and totally with unrestrained, vigilante violence. That's not too far off from the message of V for Vendetta, which is one of the most important films of the past decade. People should not be afraid of their government. Governments should fear their people. Likewise, the folks who think they control their system should never forget the likes of "Mad" Max Rockastansky, a man who doesn't understand totalitarian control, and won't stand for it.

Friday, September 19, 2008

The Mojave Experiment...

I'm pissed. And not just kinda. Like, really really pissed.

Microsoft has recently put forth a series of advertisements in promotion of Windows Vista, their latest stodgy, crippled, overpriced operating system, in which they trick innocent people (possibly actors) into thinking that the operating system they're using on a demo computer is the "brand new Windows operating system, Windows Mojave." They've set up a website as well (MojaveExperiment.com to spread the word. Then comes the big reveal where they tell their victims that it's not really this "Mojave" thing, but Windows Vista. It's all very carefully planned and misleading. Some evidence of that follows. For the record, I had to view several videos to gather all of the information that is here. I actually had to work to find out all the relevant information. All the data is not present at any one single point, and I imagine this is all part of their need to trick folks into trying the operating system.

One video on the site says that the laptops they're using for the Mojave tests are "brand new, straight out of the box and into the hands of the users." Another video says that the laptops are actually these two Microsoft employees' work computers, and are at least a year old. A third agrees that they're a year old, but claims that the laptops are really the employees' personal computers. It seems the only consistency here is inconsistency. And don't tell me that two computer geeks have owned a computer running Vista for over a year and use it for work haven't modified the software in all that time. Assuming it came preinstalled with Vista (and it did), I should hope that they've at least installed Service Pack 1 since then. That's miles better than it used to be. Also, I see a strange lack of desktop icons that should be there on a brand new, bloated as hell, crammed to the brim with advertisements, new HP computer. Also the desktop background's different. And I'm sure they've installed MS Office and a few other programs since Vista comes with absolutely no software that anybody could use to do any kind of job, especially one within Microsoft. So there's no way you're going to get me to believe that these computers have not had any customization over the past full year. Hell, you can barely convince me that they've been running for a full year without needing an OS reinstall.

They also say that they're not "special" laptops, just HP dv2000 series models running Intel Core 2 Duos at 2.2 GHz with 2 GB of RAM and an NVidia GForce 8400 video processor. This laptop (when new, and there aren't any more new since they are, in fact, over a year old) cost about $1700. That's a pretty special laptop, especially considering that most affordable laptops still don't even have dual-core or 64-bit processors in them, and usually 1 GB of RAM or less. I would go as far as to say that the laptop they use in these videos is at least twice as powerful than your average affordable laptop. The video card in that puppy is one model number lower than what I have in my desktop to play some pretty high-end video games. It's not the best thing on the market for desktops, but it's pretty close to the best thing on the market for laptops. There's nothing that this laptop shouldn't be able to do. I have run web and file servers on less.

Another video talks about security. If we are to believe the video, Windows Defender makes Vista "60% less likely to be infected by a virus," which, in my personal experience, is untrue. In my personal experience, Windows Defender does nothing at all. The official Microsoft statistics for it show that 22 million pieces of spyware were detected by Defender during its trial run under Windows XP, and that 14 million of those were removed. That's where the 60% statistic comes from (it's actually 63%). However, we are not told from these statistics (as it is impossible to tell us) how many pieces of spyware it did not detect at all. Also, we're told that you're 60% less likely to get infected, which is not the truth. What this shows is that you are 100% as likely to get infected, but 63% of it will be removed. A 63% removal ratio is not a good ratio. Not good at all. If I have one piece of spyware on my computer, I want it gone. I don't want to rely on a nearly fifty/fifty chance of it actually being removed.

Another demo shows us that programs can be run in a Compatibility Mode. This is a counter to users' complaints that Vista is not compatible with a great deal of software and drivers. However, we all remember XP's Compatibility Mode and how it never worked. In my personal experience, the one in Vista is no better. I am at a loss to find anything other than how-to articles related to the subject, so I have no third-party opinion to share with you on the subject of Vista's Compatibility Mode. The demo in the video shows the experimenter running what appears to be a Bluetooth application in Compatibility Mode, though we are never shown that it didn't run in Normal Mode first. We have no proof from Microsoft that this is a valid test.

The "organization" video comes with a notice from the gentleman on the right-hand side that these computers are "definitely, definitely not top-of-the-line." Then the guy on the left lists the amazing specs of the computer. Then the guy on the right reiterates that it's "definitely not top-of-the-line." They tell you that this computer can be purchased for $650 to $700. This, of course, is not a lie. You can buy that computer at that price because that computer is now a year old and has no warranty left on it. A new one, as I have said, will run you well over $1000. This video emphasizes the Start menu search function, which I'll admit is a pretty cool feature. Too bad they stole it straight off Mac, but that's not the point. The point is they've actually implemented a cool feature. Not to belittle it or anything, but their method of demonstrating it here is somewhat flawed. It works like this --

LEFT: How would you start the calculator under Windows XP?
RIGHT: (fumbling for words) I'd go to Start -> Programs -> Accessories -> Calculator -- It takes too long.
LEFT: Well, check this out.
(Left clicks on the Start menu, types "calc" and up comes the calculator at the top of the Start Menu.)
LEFT: See? You don't even have to type the whole thing!

The trouble with this exchange is that the filename for the calculator application is, in fact, calc.exe. So when you type "calc" into the start bar, it's finding calc.exe, not necessarily the term "Calculator." The same affect can be achieved by clicking Start -> Run and typing "calc" in Windows 95, 98, 2000, NT, XP, and even Vista. Though this demonstration is flawed, I still will admit to the usefulness of the Start menu search function. It really does work pretty well, but only if you have the Windows File Indexing service on all the time, which can be taxing on the proc and memory of your computer. It's something I ordinarily turn off because, well, I know where I keep my files. I have organization and don't rely on my computer for such.

There are other new features involved, and you can watch all these demos at the website. There are some really cool things that Vista can do, but the long and short of it is that it's way too heavy on your hardware to be considered a useful operating system. For instance, when Vista creates thumbnail images for pictures on your hard drive or thumb drive or whatever storage medium you've chosen, it keeps the full-size image in memory, then performs a shrink command on it, then displays the shrunken image in the explorer window, keeping the larger image in memory. This created a problem for me when I was looking through photos taken with a professional camera. Each image occupied 15-20 MB depending on the color range in the picture. Instead of taking the images one at a time, shrinking them, then keeping the shrunken version in memory, it tried to load several hundred 15-20 MB images in memory at once. 1GB of memory couldn't hold it all. It fell back on Page File. I had to force reboot the PC to get out of the function due to the interconnected design of the OS and double my computer's memory just to be able to browse.

My point is that you should go ahead and try Vista if you want, but for God's sake don't pay for it first. Microsoft is running an extremely dishonest advertisement to overcome a lot of their software's completely valid detractions. They're not fixing much because to do so would involve writing an entirely new OS, and they'll be damned if they'll do that and not ask for another $200. It's bad enough that they're asking for that right now for an OS that is inferior in many ways to a great deal of free-of-charge operating systems. Just see my link list at the top-right for more information on this type of stuff.

Monday, September 8, 2008

In Brief Episode 1

This new "In Brief" segment will contain short reviews of movies that I've watched recently. This weekend, I picked up a couple of old movies. Netflix shipped me Bringing Up Baby and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Between the two of them, I had an enjoyable evening.

Bringing Up Baby (1938)
In this madcap comedy directed by Howard Hawkes, a paleontoligist (Cary Grant) set to be married to a rather uptight colleague has a handful of run-ins with a truly psychotic woman (Katherine Hepburn) who talks ceaselessly and won't listen to reason, much less anything else. Craziness breaks out, circulating a tame leopard delivered to the wrong address and a dog who has stolen the final, precious bone to Grant's brontosaurus skeletal construction.

I guess this movie was alright. It was certainly funny, though it took some work for me to get into it, and it caused a great deal of exasperation on my part for about half an hour in the middle. It's just that the plot is almost too unbelievable even for a screwball comedy. I know that disbelief is a huge part of what's supposed to make these movies funny, but I had a lot of trouble buying into this one.

Also, Katherine Hepburn is truly annoying. And by truly annoying, I mean that there has never been a more annoying performance in cinema history. Not even the cameraman character from Cloverfield was this obnoxious. Still, it's probably worth watching, but only if you're the kind of person who really likes old movies.

Who's Afraid of Virgina Woolf? (1966)
In this example of fine writing adapted from stage to screen, Elizabeth Taylor plays the daughter of the headmaster of a respectable private college who is married to a history professor (Richard Burton). The new biology professor and his hysterical (in both the crazy and funny way) wife have been invited over to the Taylor/Burton house after the welcoming party, where they continue to drink and drink and drink. By the time the night's over, betrayals and confessions have been drawn into the light.

This is a one-time movie for me. It's a very good movie, but not a very enjoyable one. It stars the most despairing, self-loathing, despicable cast of characters I've ever witnessed. A viewer cannot root for any of these characters because the viewer must hate every last one of them. They gripe, complain, argue, scream, and commit acts of adultery in plain view and knowledge of one another.

Like I said, the film is worth watching. I'd go so far as to say that it's mandatory viewing material... But just once. Seriously. I don't ever want to spend another two hours with this group of drunken miscreants. The worst thing is that they keep passing it all off as games. It's all a game to everybody, whether they'll admit it or not, and the end effect is an enormous level of depression on the movie's audience.

Monday, August 18, 2008

Favorite movies of all time

I was recently asked to tell somebody on the spot what my Top 10 Movies Of ALL TIME EVAR!!! are, and I can't tell you how difficult a task that is. I can list maybe my top ten comedies or dramas or action flicks, but how do you compare Some Like It Hot to The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly? I am going to have to get back with you nonexistant readers on this. Perhaps I'll break the list up...

Saturday, July 19, 2008

My Favorite Shots in (mostly) Recent Film

What would a blog about movies be without some sort of list? I have compiled a short list of some of my favorite movie shots of recent memory. These are not listed in any particular order, but they all seem to me to be some of the most expressive frames in recent movies.

I have left off of this list a great deal of old movies, some of my favorites, even, for the sake of making the list more accessible. Nothing bugs me more than clicking some Internet link that promises me the 10 BEST SCENES OF WHATEVER IN MOVIES EVAR!!! only to find that these movies are so esoteric that they've been seen by a grand total of twelve people worldwide.

I've chosen one old movie and a couple of foreign movies, but all-in-all, these should be fairly commonplace films. I haven't ranked them at all. They're all equally awesome shots in my eyes. I've gone on enough on purpose and reason and stuff, so here we go. (By the way, most of these images will get cut off on the right side due to Blogger's formatting. For your convenience, you can click any of the images for the full thing to load up in an otherwise blank page.)

#1: Jurassic Park
Steven Spielburg is not actually very high on my list of great directors, and Jurassic Park is not very high on my list of good movies, but there are a few shots present here that make me smile. Both come from the now-infamous T-Rex scene.

We discover that something is truly amiss when the glass of water on the dash that Dr. Ian Malcom has so recently demonstrated the Chaos Theory (in unfortunately brief and -- pardon the pun -- watered-down terminology) to Dr. Ellie Sattler (thanks, IMDb!) with begins quaking. Waves circle inward from the glass, and this may be the most suspenseful introduction to an action sequence ever filmed.

Not long after, they are driving in their Jurassic Park tour vehicle at break-neck speed away from Mr. Rex. The driver (Sam Neill? It's been awhile...) looks in the side view mirror to see a screaming dinosaur intent on eating them surprisingly close to the car. But to top it off, the mirror has that message that you don't see anymore etched across it: OBJECTS IN MIRROR ARE CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR.



#2: Nosferatu
Max Schreck is absolutely terrifying in this silent film from 1922 that precious few people I know have seen. Nosferatu is the first vampire movie based around Bram Stoker's Dracula, and it's shots like the one below that creep me out even more than modern vampire movies with their special effects and enormous budgets.



The Dracula figure creeps up the stairwell. We have not seen him yet at this point in the film. This shot keeps his form a mystery from us, while hinting at its grotesquery. We can see his curved and sharpened nose, his menacing fingers outstretched in something resembling a strangulation gesture, his other arm pulled back offensively. Shadows encase the scene. This is truly one of the best horror films ever made, and it's shots like this that solidify it. Here is another, equally creepy shot, the reveal shot, when Nosferatu's offensive face is finally given to us.



#3: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Yes, I know this was used on the cover art of the DVD and movie posters for the movie, but there is a reason for that (finally). This is one of the most expressive camera angles I've ever seen.



The cracks in the ice discomfort us, not just because we know the danger involved in laying down on a frozen pond with a breaking top layer, but because we know by now that the relationship between Clementine and Joel is doomed for failure. The cracks show us that they are different, maybe too different to work things out, and yet they are encased by these faults, bound inexplicably together by them.

#4: Blade Runner
Granted, this is a movie that will probably end up on any "best of" list that I will ever put together, but this list is one it belongs on more than any other. This movie is almost entirely about the cinematography. The image here is from the opening shot, showing us a dystopian future view of Los Angeles.



The credits play out here, and we are whisked away to an interview between Leon and an administrator of the Voight-Kampff test where we are shown that replicants are identified by attributes of their eyes. Eyes are an important aspect of this film, and it follows that we should be presented with a great deal of eye shots. Ridley Scott doesn't disappoint. The film is brimming with such shots, images that make you believe that you're looking past the characters' appearance (appearance vs. reality is a major conflict of Blade Runner) and into their souls.

#5: Punch-Drunk Love

Another fantastic opening shot.



Barry Egan is a depressed loner with a penchant for trying to comprehend things which don't make sense to him. In this scene, he sits alone in the back of his warehouse, his desk full of clutter amongst such an expanse of emptiness, on the phone with a customer service representative for a pudding company trying to understand that they actually included and are ignoring a major loophole in a promotion they are running.

Some of the most beautiful imagery in the film comes after he falls in love with Lena, a stranger that may or may not be an attempt by one of Barry's seven sisters to hook him up with somebody.



His symmetry is found in the lovely Lena.

#6: Cache
Cache is a French film by a German director, Michael Haneke. It is a brilliantly made movie about guilt and shame. The title of the movie literally translates to "hidden." The opening credits pop up slowly in typewriter fashion over a very long shot of nothing happening. The text is tiny and difficult to read. The movie's title eventually pops up within crunched-together movie-making roles, but it's hard to see. The opening credits set the stage for a movie where you're constantly looking for clues in the immense clutter and the strange sense of order that comes from it. Here are two shots from the main character's home.



The bookshelves and media cabinets (what a horribly American term to describe a French film with) are so crammed that we strain to see titles on them, thinking that maybe one of them holds the secret to the mysterious stalker-esque video tapes that continue to appear on the main character's front porch. The crowds of people acting normal make everyone a suspect. The answer to this enigma does lie somewhere in the movie (or perhaps outside the movie; Haneke's a fan of breaking the fourth wall), but it truly is quite hidden.

#7: Funny Games (German)
I've selected the German version of Funny Games because I haven't seen the Noami Watts American version directed by the same German director who made the original as well as the previous movie on this list. Michael Haneke here breaks the fourth wall in showing us that we know how murders go and we know how these disgusting games are played because we see them in the movies all the time. In this particular shot, one of the central family's tormentors has killed the family dog and is now playing Hot and Cold with the mother to direct her to the dog's body. Of course, the mother doesn't know the dog's dead, and we as the audience haven't seen the dog die, nor heard it, nor borne any form of witness to the act, but, as the director suggests, we know how this game goes. To solidify this in our heads, the tormentor (whose name keeps changing throughout the film) turns, stares directly into the camera, and winks at the audience.



#8: One Hour Photo
One of my favorite thrillers in the past couple of decades involves Cy, a photograph developer for the local Wal-Mart style megastore. He develops the photographs of a seemingly happy suburban family and, in his lonely desperation, dreams of being a part of their family someday, an "Uncle" Cy the Photo Guy. Every frame of this movie is still. There is no movement of the camera. And each shot is perfectly framed, as if we are looking at an actual developed photograph. The shot that sticks out in my mind is one I could not find a screen capture of. Cy sits alone in a cheap and dirty restaurant with a scowl on his face as light pours through filthy bulbs onto his table. It's the very embodiment of loneliness and disgruntledness, and it fits the plot perfectly.

Saturday, July 5, 2008

RSS

Just a quick note, ladies and gents: I've added an RSS feed subscription tool to this page so you can stay on top of things. You can click on the first dropdown box in the top-right corner here and choose your RSS tool of choice. If you don't know what you're doing, choose Atom. It's probably the most generic and widely supported of the formats. This keeps me from constantly having to post those retarded blog posts at MySpace, the now slightly less than evil website of slightly less than doom.

The Linux Killers

I'm always telling people about Linux. It's great! It's awesome! I feel like a Christian evangelist when I do this. I just feel so strongly for the operating system both as a substance of ethics and as a simply more logical, cost-effective, personalizable, progressive, unique solution for using a computer.

But then I usually hear from friends who are technologically inclined some kind of backlash against it. My distribution of choice is Ubuntu. And it makes me think that perhaps, after all these years of people saying, "Linux has really come into it's own," and being torn down by someone else proving them wrong that maybe Linux is really, truly, there.

This is what I hear:

  • You spend so much time configuring Linux that you end up not having any time actually using it.
  • Linux is too complicated for the average desktop user.
  • My software won't run on Linux

I would like to address these points. It seems like these are excuses to avoid a learning curve. I just don't understand the need to pay a couple hundred bucks for an operating system or at the very least, risk being arrested for software piracy, when you've got completely free-as-in-speech and free-as-in-beer operating systems out there that best Windows in all aspects.

Configuration
I recently installed both Windows and Ubuntu in a dual-boot configuration on my computer. Here is my experience with installing Windows:

  1. Windows gets installed first since I want GRUB, a third-party bootloader that comes packaged with Ubuntu Linux, to be my bootloader. I want this because it's easy to configure. Wow. The first step and I'm already making my decision based on how easy Linux is to configure compared to how difficult it is to configure the same thing in Windows.
  2. Insert Windows disk. Boot to it. Uh-oh. This Windows XP installer disk doesn't recognize my computer's HDD. Why? Because it doesn't have native drivers for SATA hard drives.
  3. In an existing installation of Windows, I download NLite, a tool to reconfigure and create a new bootable Windows disk from an existing one. I go to Gateway's site (the computer is a Gateway) looking for SATA drivers. I find one, but it's for Windows Vista only. So I have to search around there for model numbers, etc, and spend a good half hour finding an appropriate driver. I use NLite to slipstream the driver into the Windows installation disk. I build a new ISO. I burn that ISO to disk. Back to square one.
  4. Insert Windows disk. Boot to it. Cross fingers. Hooray! Now Windows sees my hard drive. Run the installer, partitioning the drive for 30GB to Windows, 70GB unaffected (this will be my Ubuntu Linux partition). Install Windows by letting the installer run, occasionally entering information like time zone, computer name, etc. Of course, these things are prompted for somewhat randomly, and in the middle of the install, so there may be a good five to ten minutes of idling while I'm away doing other things, unaware that these messages are currently on the screen. Yes, I know the messages will pop up during the install. I've installed Windows hundreds of times for hundreds of people, but I have dinner to cook and things to get on with in my life, so I step away during the mostly automated part of this.
  5. Thirty to forty-five minutes later, the computer boots to a Windows login prompt. I log in. I'm presented with a low-resolution desktop. I check the Windows Device Manager to find that I'm missing several drivers. These are video drivers, ethernet drivers, wireless network drivers, motherboard chipset drivers, modem drivers, and audio drivers. This means that my monitor will show choppy video at low resolution, will not connect to the internet or any network in any way, will not know how to work with the most rudimentary of hardware, connect to the internet via dialup (big deal, hah), or play any sounds whatsoever.
  6. Since I have no networking abilities, I go to a different computer and browse Gateway's site, Intel's site, Softpedia, and countless forums looking for WinXP drivers for this laptop. After several trips back and forth between two computers using a flash drive, and about two hours of trial and error, I have finally found all the necessary drivers for Windows. Everything works, but the Wireless connection is iffy because Windows has this problem where you may or may not need third party wireless connection manager software or services to get wireless cards working properly, and it takes me a few minutes to make sure I can actually connect to my wireless network.
  7. I don't feel like ever going through this much hassle over drivers ever again, so I make sure to burn the functional drivers to a disk and store it in a safe location with other computer software essentials.
  8. Now, I know there are going to be security problems here, so I go to download all the Windows patches. I spend another hour doing this, and several reboots, and finally have everything put together. Only, I know that I now have registry issues and wasted hard drive space because that's just how Windows is.
  9. I download a freeware Windows cleanup utility (these things exist in droves because of their inherent necessity). The one I like is called CCleaner, which is short for Crap Cleaner. This tool cleans Windows, which is to say they think that Windows is Crap. It cleans up a hundred megs or so of wasted hard drive space, and finds 152 registry issues that need fixing. I let it do its thing.
  10. So now I've effectively spent about three to four hours just to get Windows up and running smooth, but I've still got to install software like a word processor, anti-virus software, anti-spyware software, instant messengers, and more. I'm just not gonna bother with it now. It's already eleven o'clock PM, and I haven't even started my Ubuntu Linux install. Everybody knows that it's so difficult and time-consuming to configure that I don't want to waste all my time with Windows, since I'm clearly going to be up all night installing Linux and making it work properly.

So now it's time to install Ubuntu Linux. This might take a while. Here goes:

  1. Insert Ubuntu Linux live CD (standard desktop distribution format). Boot to the CD. I get a menu. I choose to run the Live CD. Within five minutes, I'm looking at a full-resolution (for me, that's 1440x900) desktop. There's an icon here that says, "Install." I double-click it.
  2. Over the first few screens, I tell it what language I speak, what keyboard I'm using, and what time zone I'm in. Then I go to a hard drive partitioner. Unlike the Windows installer, this will let me choose some simpler options (you know, like if I'm a n00b at installing OS's) like "Guided - Use entire hard disk" or "Use largest contiguous free space" which will let you resize an existing partition without losing data or making an OS suddenly not boot. But I've done this a couple of times before, so I choose the advanced method. It's nice that Ubuntu recognizes my hard drive, and even nicer that I can set up a new partition table in five minutes. I've got 512MB for my swap file (which will likely never be used), and the rest is for my OS install. The partition I set up for Windows goes untouched.
  3. I click "Forward" and I'm presented with a summary of my intended actions. I read over them. They say what I want them to say. I click "Install." A progress bar comes onscreen. It takes twenty minutes for the progress bar to fill, and it tells me what's going on each step of the way. Partitioning, copying files, package upgrades (which it skips, since I've opted to not connect to the internet), and then it's done. It tells me I can keep using the Live CD or I can reboot. I click the "Reboot" button that it provides for me.
  4. My desktop drops away. I get a decreasing progress bar. After a moment, I am told to remove the CD from the drive and press [Enter]. The CD is ejected automatically for me. I remove the disk and press the key. The computer reboots.
  5. I am presented with GRUB, my bootloader of choice, which has been configured by the Ubuntu Linux installer to include Ubuntu, a Safe Mode for Ubuntu, Windows XP (yeah, it detected that automatically), and a memory test application, which is nice if I ever have memory problems, but I admittedly have never used this function, despite its prescence in Ubuntu distros for a couple of years. I boot to Ubuntu in Normal Mode.
  6. My desktop is here in full resolution. I'm hearing logon sounds. Ubuntu is telling me that there's only one driver that it didn't automatically install. But it's not telling me it couldn't find the driver. It's telling me that Ubuntu does not have the legal right to install the firmware for my wireless network card without prompting me first. So it's prompting me. It installs the firmware upon my command, and all I've had to do is plug into a cabled network for the time being. All my drivers are installed, and I never had to go back and forth with another computer. Compared to the amount of time that it took to get this far with the Windows install, I'd say this configuration is going pretty quickly. It's taken me about one-tenth of the time.
  7. Not to mention, I don't need to install an office suite, because OpenOffice.org 2.4 has already been installed. It's a free one, and it's already reading the proprietary Microsoft Office 2007 formats. I have no need for security software, because Linux isn't about to catch a virus or any kind of malware anytime soon. My instant messenger is already installed, as well; it's called Pidgin, and it works as an IM merger between AIM, ICQ, GTalk, MySpace Messenger, Microsoft Messenger, XMPP, Jabber, and other protocols that I've never even heard of. I'm all set. I'm done.
  8. Now for the bells and whistles. I click on my Applications menu (the Gnome Desktop equation of the Windows Start Menu) and click Add/Remove... I run a search in the new window for "Advanced Desktop" and put a check next to Advanced Desktop Effects Settings, the first result. I click the Apply button. The package manager automatically downloads all the software dependencies and configures it all and then tells me it's done. I launch the configuration window from System->Preferences and a few clicks later, my desktop is fully functional with the extra benefit of having multiple virtual desktops and gorgeous, screen-rip-free transistions between them. Here's a demo (pops) of those effects.

All in all, configuration turned out much easier and less time-consuming in Linux than in Windows. In fact, I got farther with my Linux config than I did with my Windows config in a total of about one-quarter of the time. So, uh... myth debunked, I guess.

Complication
Let's get this one out of the way. Windows causes fragmentation of the hard drive because of its obviously inferior file system. Windows has the registry which is the primary target for evil-ware due to its blatant security vulnerabilities, and also contains erroneous data that even Windows itself can't seem to keep track of. Windows has an updater program for itself and separate updater programs for every other application it runs, depending on the application, so that at any given time that I want to do updates for my Windows OS, I have to run umpteen different updaters and reboot umpteen different times for no apparent reason whatsoever except that Windows has "tight integration," which is another way of saying, "one application crash always has the very frightening possibility of rendering my entire OS useless."

Ubuntu Linux (and most other Linuxes) do not allow hard drive fragmentation to happen. Period. No complication there. Linux has no "registry." No complication there. All of your applications get updated through a single updater program which also updates your OS, and only asks you to restart your computer when something really necessitates that action. No complication there. So... Where's the complication?

"Well," the Linux know-nothings will say, "there's the command line. You can't actually accomplish anything without the command line."

To which I respond: "Fool! You know nothing! Haven't I already installed the OS, installed software applications, not to mention new firmware for my wireless NIC without using the command line once‽"

Yeah, I even say the interrobang.

The point here is that leaps and bounds have been made to move the Linux user interface away from the command line and toward what we now consider a "desktop" approach. The Gnome Desktop Manager (GDM) and the K Desktop Environment (KDE) are two different ways that users can interface a Linux desktop, and even though I'm a fan of Gnome over KDE, I will recognize that both environments have innumerable benefits over the Windows desktop, especially in the way of simplicity with customization. I can't even begin to go into the details of all the specifics that can be customized within these desktop environments, but I can tell you it's very easy to do, and neither interface requires a single command at the terminal level to do any of that, nor do they require the editing of any configuration files. You can even have the option to boot into one or the other at any given time. You can swap back and forth between desktop environments at the click of a button!

So if both Windows and Linux are just as easy to configure, and you can get more out of a Linux desktop than you can out of a Windows desktop, then where's the trouble? Another myth debunked.

Software
Your software is written for Windows, compiled under Windows, and therefore will only run under Windows. Half the time you'd be right. The other half of the time, you'd be wrong. First, you have to understand that anything written in the Java language can be run under Linux just as easily as it can under Windows. There is no difference whatsoever. Second, you can always see if the same software is available under Linux. It might be, but this is a case where I will admit that you'd be stretching for hope. However, the real solution is to find an open source version of the software.

Need MS Office? No you don't. Strip yourself of your petty dependency that costs money every three years when Microsoft decides they need to rape your wallet. Use OpenOffice instead. It's already well caught up to MS Office, and updates are frequent. The development of open source software is much faster by nature than the development of closed-source, license-ware, copyrighted software. The fact that the market is not willing to pay $150 every month for a new version means that feedback and development cannot be addressed in a timely manner.

Need Microsoft Money? No, you don't! Try Home Bank. It's open-source. It's free of charge. It's just as good.

Linux has free, open-source software solutions for all of the following categories:

  • Office Suite
  • Finance Management
  • Screenwriting
  • Email
  • Secure web browsing
  • Instant Messaging
  • Computer Programming
  • Web Page Development
  • Note-taking
  • Casual Games
  • High-speed 3D First-Person-Shooter Games
  • Commercial Games, like Penumbra: The Black Plague (pops)
  • Advanced Graphics Editing
  • 3D Modelling
  • VOIP Phone Dialing
  • Media Playback
  • iPod and other portable media player interfaces
  • DVD Playback
  • CD/DVD Burning
  • Professional Audio Recording/Editing
  • AND MUCH MUCH MORE!

And if for some reason, you can't find a viable, free of charge substitute for your paid-for Windows software, you can always try running it under WINE. WINE stands for Wine Is Not an Emulator. It's basically a rewrite of the majority of Windows system files for Linux to allow Windows software to run in a Linux desktop environment. MS Office runs under WINE, if you're really that attached to it.

And if that's not enough for you, it should be said that all of this software is available to download and automatically install and configure itself through a simple point-and-click interface, without ever having to insert a CD or manually locate a misplaced installer file.

Myth debunked again.

All that said, there are some cases where Windows is better. Commercial gaming, while present on Linux, hasn't reached full force here, so for the latest and greatest games, Windows is a better choice for you. But since Linux allows you to dual-boot so easily, why not make the switch? Where are the detracting points? They can all be debunked. Why? I hate to say it because it's been said so many times before now, with limited truth, that Linux has truly come into its own. With a little extra popularity, it can become the operating system, or set thereof, that puts Microsoft in its place.

In other news, Bill Gates is retiring this month. Coincidence?

Saturday, June 21, 2008

Guess How I Know It's Summer?

I know it's summertime because I've seen two movies at the theaters in the past month and both of them have sucked. Before, it was The Strangers, which has been poorly accepted by critics (myself included), and slightly better accepted by audiences, judging by its IMDb score and the oddly long legs of the flick.

Tonight, it was M. Knight Shyamalan's latest blockbuster powerhouse of crap, The Happening. Somehow, critics think even more poorly of The Happening than of The Strangers. That's not to say that The Happening was good, just better than The Strangers. By definition, everything is better than The Strangers.

The Happening has some genuinely funny moments, like when Mark Wahlberg talks to a plastic tree, and also some unintentionally funny moments that ruin the movie. Also taking hand in making this one a bomb: poorly written characters. These characters, like in every other Shyamalan film, have a personal struggle to make it through which they are concerned about even through the overt problem of the entire northeast United States committing gruesome suicide. Needless to say, just like in every other Shyamalan movie, they manage to overcome this internal struggle. The characters are all cartoon characatures with a small selection of emotions that don't allow for nuance.

Also, like in every Shyamalan movie, I guessed the plot "twist" six minutes into the movie. Granted, The Happening's "plot twist" feels less like a condescending self-affirmation on the level of Stuart Smalley than, say, The Sixth Sense, or The Village.

Receiving the theme of The Happening is like being slapped across the face with a tuna. Yes, we should live every day as if it were our last. Of course, love conquers all. And we may never know every single reason for nature's actions. Duh. We've had this pressed on us since we can remember.

There are a handful of scenes where Shyamalan attempts to create art, like the shot I kept hearing about where a pistol changes hands a few times, that fall flat on their faces. It makes Shyamalan look like a guy who only wishes he could be pretentious.

The acting here is pretty bad, though not awful, and certainly not the fault of the actors. They were given a pretty crappy script. Shyamalan can't write, and he basically gave each character one or two basic emotions and absolutely no tension. There's hardly any conflict here, and that's what drives characters' actions.

Our favorite director whose first name is "M" has basically taken other movies that came before and mixed them together to create something decidedly not new. More specifically, The Happening is kinda like The Last Man On Earth meets The Poseidon Adventure. His Netflix account should be revoked unless he starts renting better movies. A good one for him to watch would be the German Funny Games, which I watched recently in response to The Strangers. He'll pick up a few methods of handling suspense and horror and even paranoia, which is something he obviously tried to make central here, and failed.

All in all, this is probably worth watching if you rent it, or better yet, if your friend rents it and invites you over. Shyamalan probably has another Unbreakable in him, but I firmly believe that he should stop writing his movies and just stick to the direction. That said, even The Happening had a handful of shots that made me laugh due to their overdone cliche methodologies.

The Happening is just not happening.

Sunday, June 1, 2008

The Strangers is the worst horror movie ever made.

Let's talk about what makes a horror movie good.

For me, I don't necessarily need to be scared, since I don't get scared at most horror movies, but if it can make me frightened, that's definitely a plus. I guess what I really need is for the movie to make me feel like if I were in the same position as the characters that I would do the same things they do to try to get out of that situation, and that what they're doing would be all that I could do. I need psychological frights, not cheap jolts to my ears when the music spikes to accompany a bad guy leaping into frame.

If you agree with me, don't watch The Strangers which just came out. I would have felt cheated if I hadn't had to pay to see this pile of garbage. It's like the screenwriter and director picked up a document called "How to Make a Horror Movie" and followed its formula to a T.

The first problem The Strangers has is its pacing. It's dreadfully slow. Boring, even. The director, Bryan Bertino (a first-time director, and it shows), is trying to go for something artful here, but long shots of characters walking (seriously, I watched Liv Tyler walk slowly for two minutes solid, at a stretch) doesn't make art. Neither does framing a victim behind bar-like shapes that make them appear to be "trapped" in the frame of the picture. That's not art. That's cliche.

Speaking of cliche, this movie makes its own cliches. By the time I was done watching this flick (if you can call it that), I was prepared to vomit if I had to see one more masked figure walk slowly out of darkness behind somebody. This isn't even scary the first time it happens. Why should I be scared the next fifteen times?

That's not even the worst of it. The characters here are James (Scott Speedman) and Kristen (Liv Tyler), and they must be the flat-out stupidest characters I've ever seen in any horror movie. See, I can suspend my disbelief if a character in a horror flick does something stupid when they're in the height of their distress, but these characters are doing stupid things before the titular tormentors are even in the house.

Kristen gets scared when her boyfriend goes out for a pack of smokes and strange knocking comes on the door. She tries calling him. How incovenient (or rather, how really convenient for a screenwriter) it is that her phone's battery is dead. So she plugs it into the wall. Then she gets a cordless land-line phone and calls James on his cell. Somebody cuts the phone lines in the house. (Cliche!!!) So she runs back to her cell phone, UNPLUGS IT, and marvels that she still has no battery power. She gives up. Any person with any amount of rationality knows that YOU CAN MAKE A PHONE CALL FROM A CELL PHONE, EVEN IF THE BATTERY IS DEAD, IF YOU HAVE IT PLUGGED INTO THE WALL!!!

During another scene, she screams when she gets frightened, letting her stalkers know exactly where she is. But all of a sudden, she gets concerned that the lamp in the room is on, which -- ZOMG! -- might alert her stalkers that she's in the room. Her solution? Try and turn the lamp off. That might be a good idea, if she weren't too fucking stupid to figure out which direction to turn the switch on the light. Failing at turning the lamp off the normal way, she resorts to BEATING THE LAMP ON THE GROUND, MAKING LOTS OF NOISE, AND COMPLETELY DEFEATING ANY CHANCE SHE MIGHT HAVE HAD OF NOT BEING DISCOVERED!

When James makes it home, the strangers disappear. Of course, he thinks she's gone crazy (CLICHE!!!) since there's no evidence, but when the phonograph turns itself on, he knows somebody's in the house. So he goes to his car to get his cell phone (since Kristen's has been thrown into the fire by a potential killer), and sees that his car's windows have all been beaten in. Nevermind the fact that the masked madmen managed to smash these windows without making any noise whatsoever. He already knows that Kristen's cell phone has been taken away from her by the killers. He can assume the same about his own. Yet he walks slowly to his car carrying a butcher knife and what does he find? Yep, his cell phone's gone. And now he's being attacked. So Kristen runs out to him. Why? Because the script told her to. They proceed to be attacked by the killers in a truck.

Here's another good one. They're face to face with one killer in the truck. They've got two directions they can run. They can bolt off into the very nearby woods which have trees so dense that no truck could ever possibly drive through them, or they can run back to the house. What do they do? Run back to the house. Why? I speculate they do this because the screenwriter wrote it that way. Do their survival instincts ever kick in?

No.

So now they're back in the house. This is James's father's summer home, so he says he knows where his father keeps a gun. He apparently doesn't because he scrambles to find it. He looks for a full-size shotgun behind books on a bookshelf with shelves so narrow that you could never fit a full-sized shotgun on them. He eventually finds it on top of the bookshelf, which makes more sense. They find some ammo in a shoebox in a bedroom closet. Why James's father would keep his firearms and his ammo in two completely separate locations is beyond me.

So they load up. Right as they're about to get to the two-inch-thick solid wood front door, an ax comes chopping through it effortlessly with one blow. Wait. That's not wood. That's styrofoam. Now there's a hole in the door big enough to see the killer's mask outside it. He shoots from a distance, but there's no way in hell that he could possibly hit the ax-wielder because it's a freaking scattergun aimed from twenty feet away from a hole the size of a human head. Instead of walking up to the hole and scaring the bejeezus out of their tormentor, then shooting, taking off half of that person's face, he shoots once from a distance, then runs the other direction - BACK INTO THE HOUSE!

He eventually makes his way outside after another dreadful period of silence and him killing his best friend (or maybe it's his brother, I can't tell because none of the characters have even that level of depth) on accident, he winds up hiding in the woods. He sees one of the killers and that killer doesn't see him. Instead of using that to his advantage and, I don't know, shooting her to death, he lets her find him, then gets his ass kicked and the shotgun taken away.

This leaves Kristen on her own. She runs out of the house, and falls into a ditch that wasn't there when James left the house. Her leg is hurt. Instead of crawling up and away from the house, since none of the killers know her whereabouts, she decides she's going to be stupid again and crawl back toward a barn which is right next to the house.

Allow me to describe this barn. It's very dark. The front door to the barn is very well lit. If somebody were to try to get in, Kristen would know immediately, and be able to do something about it. The other entrance is a window that's so high up and so small that it simply wouldn't be viable to enter through it, especially if you were trying to sneak up on a person. The barn is full of could-be weapons. You've got chainsaws and machetes and a place where an ax used to be, but truly, anything in this room could be used to do some serious damage to a person if thrown or swung. Instead of wielding any of these items, Kristen chooses to turn on an old amateur radio to call for help, as if anybody actually uses those anymore. That's why this piece of shit is IN THE BARN!!! Of course, talking over the radio alerts the killers to her whereabouts (she doesn't even learn from experience in this movie), and one of them swings an ax in through the high-up window, effectively scaring her and destroying the radio... but not much else. Like I said, that window is too high and too small to actually be a threat. But does Kristen keep her position in this safehouse? Hell, no! She runs back to the house which is huge, has multiple entrances that can't be watched all at once, and has been proven several times already to be a major danger zone.

She's very quiet in the house, and her leg (which keeps healing itself and then getting worse again as convenience allows) is all better for the time being. The result is that somehow the killers don't know where she is. One even walks into the room with her and walks straight past. She should grab the knife that's sitting on the counter nearby and stab the fucker in the back. But she doesn't. She hides in a closet.

You ever notice how all closets in horror movies have doors with slats in them? You ever notice how the victims can see out these slats perfectly well, but the killers can never see in? Same deal here. Though hiding in this closet isn't too bad an idea. You can see the killers when they walk in (and one does, and he walks in circles, sits down in an easy chair, then stands back up and does more circles for about five boring minutes), and there are most certainly no other entrances. Kristen's almost in control here. She should jump out and kill these masked freaks while she's got this opportunity to do so. It should be mentioned that NONE OF THEM ARE CURRENTLY ARMED!!! But she failed Kindergarten, so she doesn't do that.

So they get her and they get James (who's still alive) and they tie up the couple and stab them a bunch. There's this great, operatic scene where the killers remove their masks. But we still don't see their faces, so what's the point? Oh yeah. Running time.

I won't tell you how this ends, because you don't want to know. It's too insipid for words (though the screenwriter certainly put those words on paper at some point). What I will tell you is that you don't want to see this movie. Your intelligence, if you have any, will be insulted. I should also mention that the flick is full of inconsistencies, like the ditch that wasn't there before and the fact that, though Kristen cuts her hand really badly on a butcher knife early in the movie so that her hand is bleeding profusely for the following sixty minutes, there isn't any blood on the knife at any time until Kristen gets full-on stabbed by it. I can also tell you that the movie opens on some title cards followed by a 9-1-1 phone call recording of Kristen screaming and saying that there's blood everywhere and that she doesn't know where she is, but that scene is never in the movie because it couldn't have possibly happened because the phone lines are cut and all their cell phones have been destroyed.

I will also say that the movie doesn't trust its audience. It opens on title cards that explain the situation. And a voiceover reads it back to us in full. Thanks. I, unlike Kristen, got through the third grade. I can read just fine. In fact, if I could watch the French original that this movie is based on, I would watch them in French with English subtitles. I would read my way through that movie. Also, they set up this scene where, when we're first introduced to these two retards, Kristen is crying and James is disappointed. He takes her back to the summer home where she's shocked and a little guilt-ridden to find that he's really romanced the place up. There are candles everywhere, music ready to play on the record player, and rose petals all over the floor. He sets a ring box - the kind you get from the jewelry store - down on the table. I assumed, as I hope everyone in my theater did, that he had just proposed marriage to her and had been rejected. But that apparently wasn't enough. We need a series of two or three flashbacks to explain that to us in excruciating detail.

There's also this one scene, when the door is knocked on for the first time, where James says, "What time is it? Like, four o'clock?" Then we get a shot of a clock on the wall announcing the time as 4:05 AM. It's a small thing, but it's just another example of how this movie spells everything out for you and leaves absolutely nothing to your imagination except for how the characters got so stupid.

The killers' excuse for coming into the house and killing them comes in the last fifteen minutes of the movie and the last fifteen seconds of the trailer for the movie: "Because you were home." Let that be a metaphor for this movie as a whole. It doesn't make any more sense. I mean, sure, they were psychotic people with a penchant for murder, so they picked some random house and killed people in it. But it's supposed to be a catalyst for the entire ninety minutes and it just doesn't work. It might have worked if the killers had character depth. Look at The Devil's Rejects to see how a "just because" logic can work very well. I must say that I have not seen a movie this bad since I watched fifteen minutes of Norbit on a lunch break at work once.

Don't watch this. Please, for the love of God, don't watch this. Even when it's on HBO at midnight in a few months, don't watch this "because it was on."

Monday, March 10, 2008

Time...

File under
Examples of Man Trying to Control Nature
·or·

Things Which Are Arbitrary
·or·
Why Even Bother?

Daylight Saving Time came and went, much without incident, even when we were expecting the worst. I guess that proves that when you expect the worst and the unexpected happens, it's really not all that bad in the end.

DST did make me think about the nature of time and how none of it makes any difference anyway. See, time is this intangible thing. I can't touch it. Niether can you. But we all know it. It's really nothing more than a measurement, so it's no more real than a centimeter or an inch. Time is how we measure the sun's progress through our skies (and I don't want to be corrected by some heliocentric theory-proving smartass, either; I know how it works, I'm just being romantic).

So man creates time as a measure of this and somehow we decide that one sun-cycle should be broken up into twenty-four pieces called hours and that those should each be busted up into sixty smaller segments called minutes and that (probably for the sake of accuracy) minutes are really a sequence of sixty even smaller units, seconds, but for all humanity's infinite wisdom, we manage to contradict ourselves in correction after we realize that we were off by some tiny margin in our initial assessment of this breakdown. That twenty-four count of hours should probably have been a little closer to a twenty-five count. And the assessment, after all, was more than just a little bit off.

What was decided was that one year (previously considered to be consisted of 365 days) was 365 ¼ days. So we were underestimating. So now every four years, we throw an extra day in for good measure, to prove ourselves right. But there's nothing to prove except that we were wrong.

Where did we go wrong? Was it when we decided that the day should be twenty-four hours long when it should have been more like thirty? Was it when we decided an hour should be sixty minutes when in reality it should have been seventy-five? Or when we realized that our measurement of one minute was nine hundred seconds too short? The answer, of course, is none of the above.

Where we went wrong was deciding that we as humans could control nature. The sun rises and falls when it's going to and, since Earth is tilted, most likely any breakdown of time measurements we could create would be somewhat inaccurate. I'm not the only person to realize this. Obviously someone else came to this conclusion first, because for about half the year, the United States of America pretends that we're reliving an hour just so we can sleep and work better. Time, as an intagible entity that doesn't really exist, marches on while our perception of it changes dramatically. It's like time travelling. At two AM on the fourth Sunday of November (I think), our clocks are supposed to jettison straight back to one AM. Then in the springtime, when the clock strikes two, we leap straight to three o'clock in the morning. We first create time and then dispose of it. Our days are just as long, just a little brighter. Here's a diagram.

So you see, we live 1 AM twice on November's fateful day, and disregard 2 AM completely in March just to suit our needs of having daylight to work in. Since daylight is overrated anyway, and since we actually have the ability to do this, I can safely conclude that time is just a way for man to attempt to control something which he created. If time were really nature, we wouldn't be able to do this. You can't disregard what is obviously there.

And if this spelling-out of what you're all already aware of didn't help you see it any better, perhaps this will serve as proof that none of it matters anyway. I don't eat lunch at noon. I eat lunch when my stomach growls. My hunger is not controlled by time. It is controlled by my nature of consumption and excretion. So why bother changing the time if all it means is that my stomach will growl an hour earlier?

Friday, February 22, 2008

What Dell Can Do...

Preface the First

I'll begin by saying that I wish people would get off MySpace and put their blogs somewhere else. I'm sick of advertisements flashing around my reading material and I'm sick of my customers coming to me saying they clicked an ad and their computers filled up with spyware shortly thereafter. MySpace is a whorish website which exposes the true nature of Microsoft theology: do nothing you're told to do and you won't have problems, which is backward and stupid.

Folks, learn about RSS and get with the program.

Preface the Second

Now I'll say that I'm one of Dell's biggest detractors. Even in a market vastly populated by low-grade, cheap hardware being sold off at high prices and being called "quality" materials, Dell makes some of the worst computers a person can buy. Proprietary motherboards, power supplies, and cases don't make anybody's lives easier. We should strive for standardization, especially in a world dependant on the solutions sold to them and even more especially in a world where the buyers of technology have little to no tech knowledge, so the purchase decision can be based on bottom-line price, not what a biased, sales-oriented website tells a person.

But lately, Dell has shown some promise.

The Bulk of It

What you can gather from above regarding my opinion on the end-user desktop computing market is:

  • Knowledge of the subject is generally minimal
  • You can't expect the entire world to be a tech nut
  • People should at least attempt to keep up with tech trends (like RSS)
  • PC sales are based on advertisements, not truth
  • Windows, while a functional OS, creates far more problems than it solves

Further, you can gather that I'm a Linux enthusiast. By no means am I an expert. But I am a geek for it. And I do believe that the ideas behind it embody the solution to many problems. Linux, especially amongst the Debian family of distributions, is all about community. Community support, community development, community involvement. It's all free for distribution and mostly free of charge.

Imagine this utopia: You live in a town. You have a tomato farm. Your neighbor ranches chickens. The guy across the street can grow wheat and turn it into flour. Down the road there's a dude with a huge building. Everybody takes what they make and puts it on a shelf in the building. When you need something, you walk in and take it. Most everybody contributes. The contribution is the price of the product that you take. It's the same concept behind Ubuntu and other Linuxes.

No viruses, no spyware, no bugs. Linux is robust. Linux doesn't crash. Linux doesn't cause unfixable problems.

And now Dell is putting Ubuntu Linux on a small portion of PCs that they sell. This may be the one thing Dell has ever done right. Will people buy it? Maybe. Maybe a geek like me. Should everyone buy it? No. But most people. Should Linux be bigger than it is? Yeah. Definitely.

What experience do I have that allows me to make this claim? I do desktop support for PCs that people buy. A good 80-90% of peoples' PC problems are the result of Windows. These customers are frustrated with Windows. They're as sick of Windows as I am sick of flashy ads urging me to put a pie in Britney Spears's face when I'm reading my friends' weblogs. Linux is a solution for this. I offer it every time. Sure, you could call that moonlighting, but is it really so wrong to do that? I don't think so. I use Windows for two things: commercial video gaming (read: gaming that costs money) and programming in Windows-only programming languages. Aside from these two things, Linux does everything else I could ever want to do.

What keeps people from using Linux? It has a bad rap, and I know why. Windows is sold to a buyer. Linux is not sold at all. It is given. With all the benefits of Linux, the fact that it comes at no cost seems too good to be true. So I understand the skepticism. I am, after all, a master of cynicism. Also, Linux has this "geek chic" culture surrounding it. So a buyer thinks, I am not a geek. I cannot use Linux. I will be lost. And they knock it before they've tried it.

Dell can help solve this problem. The problem is, after all, an issue of image. PC sales are based on advertisements, not truth. Advertisement, I believe, can allay the lack of knowledge about the product. If I stand on a soapbox here at my blog, or if I show up at Starbucks with a stack of Linux Live CDs and purport to know that I hold in my hand the end-all, be-all of computer problem solutions, who will listen? No one. Because I'm just a guy. I'm a geek. I get Linux. My response, of course, is, "Do you get Windows?" No average PC user can honestly say, "Yes." So what's the friggin difference?

But if Dell advertises to the masses saying that Linux is a solution for a good 70% of the PC-using population, they can convince people. Whether they'll do this or not will be left up to Microsoft, I fear. If Dell makes claims that Linux is better than Windows (in other words, if they speak the truth), and their efforts succeed, they'll be shooting themselves in the foot, considering all their profit comes from the fact that they pre-install Windows Vista on damn near every PC they sell.

Dell can help. I'm willing to take a step back from my anti-Dell ranting to allow them time to perfect their "open" product line and fix their company.

In conclusion, I propose that people comment here on things Linux does not do or things that Linux does not make user-friendly, or encase in a GUI. That way I can prove you all wrong.