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.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Microsoft's evil plan
I promised earlier to discuss something. Quoth myself:
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 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:
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.
- Features that have been available in previous Windows releases, and also other operating systems before it
- Features that have not been in Windows before, but have been in other operating systems, and
- Somewhat original features that represent a more "Windowsey" approach to features that have made other operating systems famous
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,
my heart will fill with joy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
