Welcome ME as you new computer geek overlord! Muahahaha!

Everything in your life, with the exception of your bodily functions, perhaps, is controlled by computers. What if an evil geek computer genius decided to terrorize the world by taking over all the computers? Sound farfetched? Maybe.

But maybe not.

OK, I called it correctly, this time. Die Hard 4 and Harry Potter are the two movies I will see this summer. And if this review is any indication, I should walk out of this one with the same "Wow! Was that cool, or what?!?" that I left the very first Die Hard, way back in the dark ages of 1987 (or so).

To enjoy "Live Free or Die Hard" requires one imaginative leap of faith -- that it's possible for evil geeks to gain control of anything, from the stoplights in Washington to the power grid that controls the entire Eastern corridor. Quibble with that and have a miserable time, or accept that and, in return, get a film of nonstop interest and incident, where the bad guys control everything and the good guys constantly have to scramble. Two hours and 10 minutes go by in a shot, carried along by some great action sequences, including a fight to the death in an elevator shaft. By playing it old school most of the way, the movie earns the right to a spectacular sequence relying heavily on computer graphics, in which an F-16 attacks a truck being driven by McClane -- and destroys an entire highway.

Yep. This is old school Bruce Willis, and definitely cool. And then some.

Ahem. Some reviewers didn't like it. This reviewer sounds like someone who would find fault with "Bambi" just because the deer could talk. Dammit. Not everything needs to be a serious and completely realistic treatment. Reality is just that--shockingly real, and in real life there are few things morally unambiguous. Life is messy and solutions, if any, are depressingly hard to come by.

And you want to saddle your entertainment with all that "it needs to be like real life" bullshiat? No. Hell no. Movies, like novels, are meant to be an escape from the reality of here and now, and to portray worlds where the hero can be a guy (or girl) just like you, and in the end still kick the bad guy's ass.

Is terrorism serious? Of course it is. There will be no good, simple solutions to it. Period. But wouldn't it be nice to think there was some way, any way to defeat the terrorist baddie and win the day? Well, I submit that for 2007, that way is John McClane.

Case closed. Yippi-ki-yay mofo.

$54M Pants

Yes, some fool sued a dry cleaner for $54 million in damages because of a lost pair of pants. He lost, fortunately. And the plaintiff was a judge. I guess "judgment" is optional when they make you a judge, because this fool seriously lacks it.

I quote U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform President Lisa A. Rickard from the article: "Some will say this outcome proves the system worked, and justice was served. To the contrary, this case only proves that the system is truly broken and in bad need of repair." Can I get an amen?

I am reminded of a fictional legal system invented by Frank Herbert. I think he first mentioned it in the novel Whipping Star, but I know it comes into play in a few of his novels. The Gowachin are a frog-like race, and in their system the losing attorney, regardless of the side he represents, suffers the penalty. Murder trial? You better be sure you can convict, because if not, they execute you. Sue someone for millions? You will definitely be putting your money where your mouth is.

Just a thought.

BTW, you should check out these lesser-known Herbert novels. In my library he ranks right up there with Asimov and Heinlein. Yeah, I'm old.

Blade Runner

I found this short article on Slashdot. Adam Savage, the non-bald redhaired dude on Myth Busters, talks about why this is one of his favorite movies. It's one of my favorites, as well. Without a doubt, Ridley Scott rules. Lemme see ... Alien, Blade Runner, Legend (w/Tom Cruise--see it! And don't forget the alternate version AND score by Jerry Goldsmith), Gladiator (though not my most favorite), and Kingdom of Heaven. His work is always very visually unique (the long way around calling it "stunning").

Of course it's all about money

I have posted about this before, but AT&T's dimwitted idea that they can successfully block "illegal" access to copyrighted material is just about as dimwitted as you can get.

On Red Herring they posted some juicy quotes and some even squishier statistics. To wit: "Somebody running a server in their basement on our network and uploading illegal copies movies raises the costs for everybody else and jams the network in ways we’re not compensated for," attributed to Jim Cicconi, AT&T head of external and legislative affairs. Hey Jim, why don't y'all just start charging by the MB, then? Simple answer to that: no one would sign up for your service, that's why. Or perhaps what he's really saying is that they have no way to limit how much can be uploaded from your server in the basement, which on the surface seems like a much simpler problem to solve. After all, it's only about money, isn't it?

The article mentions that in 2005 the movie biz (whoever they are) claims to have lost $2.3 billion in piracy. If they mean that ticket sales were down, I'd guess it's not piracy that's to blame. I haven't seen more than 2 movies in the past 2 years, and it ain't because I download them, either. A suck ass movie is a suck ass movie. This year is the year of the sequel. Probably the only movies I might see are the new Harry Potter movie and the new Die Hard. Yeah, both are sequels and I probably will regret at least one of them. So little time, so many bad movies.

"... A sizable chunk is traffic that is illegal," opined Mr. Cicconi, though I'm sure that's his personal opinion, and not backed by any thing resembling reliable statistics. Jay Samit, a music industry "veteran", replies: "The sizable reason why people bought broadband is to get to that [pirated] content, so you’re making money off that," Mr. Samit told Mr. Cicconi. I call bullshit to that. I have a cable modem so I can surf free pr0n at lightning speed. Oops, maybe that was TMI. I bought my first Windows XP computer back in 2001, and tried to get Windows updates via dial-up. I don't have to tell you how freaking long that takes at 28.8K, which was as fast as good ole AT&T could connect me, most of the time (all right, they were Ameritech/SBC back then, but you get my point). I could not see waiting hours and hours just to keep my computer up-to-date. Less time for pr0n surfing, since you really can't do anything else online while it downloads. I have never nor will I pirate movies or music online. I buy probably 10 CDs a month, maybe 5 movies per year. For what little good it actually does, as a former musician I patronize the accepted channels.

"Having this big faceless entity blocking content could make people nervous," said attorney Kraig Marini Baker, in an interview. Mr. Marini Baker represents media companies, including Viacom, in digital rights issues.

Mr. Marini Baker said he expects media companies to welcome AT&T's entry into the piracy protection space, as long as AT&T eventually comes up with a system for content owners to make some money off their circulating content. [Emphasis mine]

"Content owners are always going to want as many tools and as many people filtering to the extent that they can leverage that and monetize it," said Mr. Marini Baker.

I doubt it's about actually blocking content, but more about how to make money of the content. This plan might backfire, somewhat. Just how willing would you be to have AT&T jump up in your face (via dialog box) to tell you that some piece of content you are about to access is copyrighted, and that you can access it for the bargain price of $2.95, conveniently charged to your credit card? Of course, you have no chance to tell them that what you're doing is legal and you shouldn't have to pay. They have already made the assumption that since you have a broadband account with them, you must be a pirate. Think about it. How many times would this have to happen--piracy or not--before you went shopping for another ISP? Exactly one.

They'd be arguably better off charging by the megabyte, and giving 50% of the overage over ... say, 50 MB (or so) ... to the RIAA and MPAA just to keep them quiet. Of course, we all know how well the pay-per-megabyte plan would work. I mean, if it worked they'd be doing it already, don't you think?

We welcome our DHS overlords--not

Let me just Godwin this thread at the outset. All us Americans want is to be left alone to go about our business. Dealing with neo-Nazi rent-a-cops who are drunk with their supposed "power" isn't on our agenda. Anywhere.

Advice to asshat DHS (and TSA, or whatever the fuck they want to call themselves): either arrest us or get the fuck out of our faces. Go home and beat your wives, instead. Don't waste our time puffing out your manly chests and making hollow threats. You think you have a case against us? Charge us and let the games begin. Otherwise, STFU and go away.

Reason #10,258 for never doing business with AT&T

I've seen this basic article on BoingBoing and now here, on TechDirt. It mentions that AT&T will try to "filter" copyrighted content its customers might be looking at. Well, not only do I say "good luck with that" for the same reasons TechDirt mentions (can anyone say "technical infeasibility" or "false positives"?), but I find it hard to believe that any tech-savvy person would continue to use an ISP who clearly doesn't have their interests in mind.

You have to ask who is paying their bills, Mr. and Mrs. Joe Public, or big media? Of course, that's a rhetorical question since it's pretty obvious.

As I said, this has to be reason #10,258, at least.

O the irony

Today I've actually been doing a code review, so looking over these WTFs has not just been entertaining but educational and enlightening, as well. Indeed.

Check out the code. If you aren't technical, I will explain it below.

  public void Authenticate( string username, string passhash )
{
    SqlDataReader source = _Database.Query("SELECT * FROM users;");

    while ( source.Read() )
    {
        if ( source["user"].ToString() == username
        &&   source["pass"].ToString() == passhash )
        {
            this.authenticated = true;
        }
        else
        {
            this.authenticated = false;
        }
     
    }
}

Ahem. Similar to the idiocy in this code, I actually once observed a programmer looping through a 100 entry array looking for a specific entry, but not exiting the loop once the desired entry was found. Sure, you get consistency--consistently slow.

This code (as promised, I am explaining) reads the entire contents of a table, looking for the user/password combination in order to validate the user. If the table is small ... say 1 record ... then it's not too bad. Put a very large number of records in it and this routine slows to a crawl. Specifically, a table crawl, as these things are called.

Well, the fun doesn't end there. Once the desired entry is found he does not end the loop. He just keeps looking. So if the user isn't the last one, this routine always fails. Of course it's possible to just read 1 record from the database.

Reminds me of the old joke: Why do you always find something in the last place you look? Because only an idiot (or a programmer) would ever think to keep looking.

OMGWTF! ROFLMAOCSOMN

OK, geek alert for this post. I found this site lamenting--celebrating?--the very worst in technology practices, including Stupid Programmer Tricks, of which we know there are Legion.

From the comments in the recent article "It's Like Calling Assert", I glean the following Ode, which (if not already) should be considered a classic:

An Ode to the Ay of Certain Developers:

Forsooth! And how doth the keyboard clack
As when, among twin perils of unnecessary loops and strange Inner Platforms,
Bestride the angry waters of unfamiliar syntax and new paradigms
Doth the Certain Developer lament: alas and alack!
My brain hurteth so: ay ay ay
This mountain, this Learning Curve, I durst not climb.

But wherein his refuge? Of what dost thou speak?

I speak of the inevitable temptation, to wit:
As Alexander crossed the Hellespont,
As Odysseus braved the maelstrom,
Verily as Hercules confronted the Hydra,
So our hero confronts the Language Beast,
And vanquishes the angry unknown, be it syntax or context,
With an onslaught, truly a fusillade: the Wrapper of our Discontent,
That the Language may, to his will be bent.

Funniest part is that I often say things like "that makes my brain hurt" when I hear extreme illogic (or stupidity) being espoused.

And with that I send thee off into The Wrapper of Our Discontent.

PS. The title? O my god, what the fark! Rolling on the floor laughing my ass off, coffee shooting out my nose. A fair approximation of my reaction, though kept carefully internalized.

Pendantic Pickle Nipping

Got you to read this, didn't I?

All I would say to Shamus is "I feel for ya, dude." I read his blog daily. He's a techie, he writes well, he plays DnD, and his DMotR webcomic is genius.

And despite wishing I had his "problem" (that of being popular and widely read by others), I understand how he feels. Some people, unfortunately many of the people who feel compelled to comment on others' blogs, simply want to find fault with whatever you say. And see, I said "many of the people", a possibly exaggerated statement that would (if I had readership) spur someone to disagree with me. What does make a serial commenter tick?

I rarely comment on other blogs. Not if I disagree, even less when I agree. If I am ... moved to say something on-topic, I write my own damn blog post and say my peace there. I don't get comments here, (well, almost never) because practically no one (except Teh Spork) reads this. No matter. I'm not writing this for anyone else, I'm just expressing my opinions because I can.

Because Shamus is a nice guy and personally vested in what he does, he takes seriously this kind of snipery. He wants to be liked (and admired, of course), and because he's serious he feels he must treat others seriously. Of course, not all of them are worth it. Some enjoyed roasting ants with magnifying glasses, and when that thrill wore off they moved on to doing the equivalent on Teh Intarwebs. Yep, I know these kinds of guys. They enter (and win) Obfuscated C contests, and are proud of it, too.

WTF? National Internet Safety Month?

Found this via /. Those evil Microsoft haters who only exist to rant. I don't exist to rant, but I do it all the same.

But really, did you know this was "National Internet Safety Month"? Makes me think of programs when I was a kid (you know, eons ago in some deep-dark past when TVs had knobs) trying to encourage kids to brush their teeth. National Brighten Your Smile Month, or some such.

I'd rather see National Protection from the Terrorists Month, myself. Yes, we all could use some education about the real dangers the terrorists represent, since after all, they can actually blow my house up. Or something like that.

I'm not ranting that terrorism isn't real or doesn't represent a threat, but it's on par with tornadoes and earthquakes. We can get both of those things here, in the Great Midwest of Central Ohio. However, I don't sleep under my bed at night in the off chance a tornado will come along and bring everything down on my head. You know?

What's his name, mayor of New York--ah, Bloomberg--says we should all get a Life and quit worrying about things we can't control. OK, so we can control how safely we surf the Web. Sure, I think firewalls and anti-virus software are good things. I have both and I'm fanatical about my browsing safety. That's because I detest having to rebuild systems corrupted by rogue software, so I do what I can to keep malware off my home network.

But announcing an official freaking Internet Safety Month is like sanctioning every anti-virus vendor out there to hype up the damage potential of Teh Intarwebs. As the article says, "keeping those pornographers and sexual predators away will cost you a mere $70 a year…" Ahem.

Sadly, I get it. It's not about safety, it's about making money. Yep. Scare 'em, then tell 'em how much it will cost to alleviate their anxiety. I say: don't be anxious; don't worry about all the potential dangers, just be careful. Chances are if you aren't technically savvy, your kids are. What better way to ensure your computer is properly "protected" than to turn it over to your average 10 year old. Just be sure they ask before charging up your credit card.

The article alludes to the fact that the kids are wiser and less naive than we imagine. I think it's really the adults, who have come into this technology thing rather late in life, who are perhaps the more naive. Particularly if you believe you can install some sort of Internet monitoring software that your kids can't somehow get around.

Note to self: better change my password to something less obvious than "password". Have a nice day.

The Electromagnetic Spectrum

As envisioned by xkcd.com. Ya gotta look closely (at the full-size image, dude). It's spectralicious^TM.

First Amendment Wins One

As a follow-up to my earlier post regarding our constitutional victory over the FCC, I found this very well constructed article. The author, Jeff Jarvis, makes many of the same points I made in my post, namely that societal mores have changed to the point that such indecent language is indeed more common than it may have been previously. But he also makes the point that some programs and some people seem to be permitted certain ... license, where others are not.

Clearly this is discriminatory and unconstitutional. No speech should be censored, regardless of who is uttering the speech or in what context it is uttered, because the value of the speech is subjective, and not for government to decide. Only the individual can make these determinations, to which I have already suggested that if TV programming--any TV programming--offends you, change the channel or turn it off. Just as they have the right to utter the speech you might find offensive, you have the right not to hear it.

But before you go off on me for sputtering absolutes, let me say this: I believe that market pressures will ultimately prevail. If the networks begin peppering programs with rude language and overtly sexual or titillating (I just wanted to use that word!) images, then in all probability people will begin flocking away from them. The lack of viewership will cause lack of sponsorship, and this will cause lack of broadcastership. Or whatever. Ultimately, we will get the TV we want and deserve.

Now, if I could just figure out why we deserve Survivor and American Idol, we'll be all set.

Another Kingly Follow-Up

After looking over my supposed royal ancestry, I believe one of the trees I found and imported was in error. Specifically, I have found several web resources that state that Lady Margaret De Holand (1381-1439) was not the daughter of Thomas De Holand, 1st Earl of Kent (1314-1360), and Joan (Plantagenet) of Kent, Countess of Kent (1328-1385). She was the daughter of Thomas De Holand, 2nd Earl of Kent (1354-1397), and Alice FitzAlan (1350-1416).

This particular Margaret De Holand also did not marry Marmaduke De Lumley. She married John De Beaufort. The Margaret De Holand who married good ole Marmaduke was born circa 1353. So, I may have misconnected two people with the same names, but different birth dates.

So, for the time being, never mind.

Incidentally, Alice FitzAlan's mother was another Plantagenet, Lady Eleanor. Those wily Royals intermarried early and often, explaining why they had so many recurring genetic health problems in later generations.

"Protect The Children" Just a Euphemism for Censorship and Control

From today's headlines, a federal appeals court has ruled that fleeting curse words on network broadcasts do not automatically mark programs as "indecent" and trigger FCC fines. The article, from the Austin American-Statesman, goes on to quote FCC chairman Kevin Martin when he comes right to the point, "I completely disagree with the court's ruling and am disappointed for American families." FCC Commissioner Michael Copps also chimed in with "the FCC has a duty to find a way to breathe life into the laws that protect our kids. That may entail an appeal of this decision."

I think the FCC is taking this issue of "bad" language too far and blowing it out of proportion. Real life is sometimes rude, and whether we like it or not, our kids will be subject to the vulgar and sometimes graphic language of adults. Of course we need to protect them from those things that can do great damage to them. I would, however, argue that bad language isn't one of those greatly damaging things. Portrayed violence, in my opinion, is much more dangerous (though there is much disagreement about that) because it trivializes doing harm to our fellow humans. Personally, I wouldn't want my children (though I do not have any) becoming desensitized to violence. It is simply not something that we should ignore or even appear to condone due to our indifference.

But, as for the FCC's present concerns, do I want to listen to prime-time TV laced with expletives? No, but I have one potent weapon at my disposal, as does every family in America--I can change the channel. And frankly, given the dubious quality of much of our current network programming, I recommend it.

Echoes

If I can be serious, here.

I may be too late to do any justice to my family's "roots". My father, who really never talked much about his family, died last January (2006). His mother died in 1968 when I was too young to understand these kinds of things. Perhaps I can get some family information from my uncle George and aunt Evelyn. These folks are my last link to my father's side of the family.

My mother doesn't remember as much, anymore, as she used to. My fault for not bothering to get more from her, sooner. You never think about those things when you're young and your parents aren't even that old. My great-grandmother died in 1986 at the age of 95. Not only did she know everything about her family, but she kept diaries and has written down the marriages and births of everyone in her family. My mother thinks she still has the old family bibles around. I know the diaries (some of them, anyway) still exist because I've read through them.

My mother's cousin (my great aunt, I think) who lived nearby died earlier this year. She knew a lot about the family, as well. I think I may have other relatives, but no one like my great-grandmother.

I remember years ago thinking that as a writer I ought to interview some folks and capture what they said. I am even interested in these things, since understanding your ancestors is part of understanding yourself. Sure, there are some criminals, some alcoholics, some adulterers, and some fools, but there are also some doctors, some inventors, a few rich folk, and a lot of just plain average everyday people, like me.

There are some smarts on both sides of the family. My paternal grandfather was a doctor. His father was an inventor (and was one of the "rich" ones, though sadly his wife managed to spend it all). My mother had two great uncles who were doctors, as well. That family must have been fairly well off, since her great grandmother Janie had eleven children, all of whom not only made it to adulthood, but most of whom lived into their 90's. There were lots of folks in her family who lived to very old ages. This in a time and in a place, rural Ohio, where life wasn't all that "easy".

I represent a biological dead end in the family. No kids. My brother has three, though, so it looks as though they will be carrying on the family name. Meanwhile, I am going to track down my great grandmother's bibles and diaries do my best to write some of this stuff down. No good reason other than to forge a little stronger link to the past.

And put order to these echoes.

How about a 5th century King of Kent?

This is a ridiculous follow up to my previous post.

I know this borders on the absurd, since by the time you get to the year 440 CE you are pretty much related to everyone alive today (I think that's the case). Regardless, I found more than one family branch coming from kings, and one case where it looked like royal brother and half-sister married. Heh. That explains a lot.

I found a point much nearer to the present where first cousins married, though none of those people are directly related to me--only by marriage. I do have mouth-breathing cousins and uncles (don't tell them that, though) that are about 3 generations away from their kissin' cousins. Oh, well.

From the previous list, I noticed that Joan Lumley, b. 1430 (month and day unknown), married a man just 4 years older, and had a child in 1440. Yep. She got married in 1439 when she was probably just 9 years old, to a "man" who was maybe 13. I guess it was one of those "arranged marriages", or something. Oh, and talk about an early start!

My favorite name from the bunch has to be Marmaduke De Lumley. I can't even say it without laughing, but he was probably much more serious about it.

So, why don't you all go back and see if you can find out which kings are your ancestors?

Guess who is 29 generations from Henry III Plantagenet?

Yeah. Had a few hours to kill today, so I did a little family research at Ancestry.com. Who knew, but I stumbled across royalty in my bloodline, though by now it's pretty well diluted.

Here's the list, see if you can follow it:

Henry III Plantagenet: 1207-1272 King of England
Edward I Plantagenet: 1239-1307 King of England
Edmund Plantagenet: 1301-1330 1st Earl of Kent (beheaded)
Joan Plantagenet: 1328-1385 m. Thomas De Holand: 1314-1360
Margaret De Holand: 1353-1360 m. Marmaduke De Lumley: 1314-1365
Ralph Lumley: 1360-1400 (beheaded)
John De Lumley: 1383-1421
Thomas Lumley: 1404-1497
Joan Lumley: 1430-1492 m. Bertram Harbottle: 1426-1462
Elizabeth Harbottle: 1440-? m. Richard Harding: 1439-?
Alice Harding: 1462-1534 m. John Chase: 1455-1499
Mathew Chase: 1486-1578
Thomas Chase: 1520-1586
Christian Chase: 1555-1599 m. Henry Atkins: 1551-1628
Alice Atkins: 1580-1650 (in Massachusetts) m. John Stevens: 1575-1627
Barbara Stevens: 1611-1681 m. William Ilsley: 1612-1681
Mary Ilsley: 1638-1678 m. Samuel Moore: 1630-1688 (New Jersey)
Frances Moore: 1678-1725 m. Phillip Doddridge: 1672-1725
Elizabeth Doddridge: 1701-1761 m. William Winans: 1700-1760
Hannah Winans: 1733-1815 m. Job Cozad: 1769-1815 (McArthur, OH)
Henry Cozad: 1792-1857
Daniel Cozad: 1819-1888
Sarah M. Cozad: 1850-1932 m. Phillip M. Arganbright: 1848-1925 (Vinton Co., OH)
Cynthia Jane "Grandma Janie" Arganbright: 1874-1952 m. Bertram Burt: 1873-?
Roy C. "Grandpa Burt" Burt: 1893-1966
Genola M. Burt: 1914-1977 m. Lindsey Sowers: 1914-1981
Rosetta T. Sowers: 1931- m. John V. Horst (Sr.): 1928-2006 (Columbus, OH)
John V. Horst (Jr.): 1955-

The m. abbreviation means "married", in case you wondered.

I debated in showing the names of people who are living (just my mother and me, and my siblings), but since all this is public record, I thought the risk was minimal. So, I can trace my ancestors back about 1000 years, give or take. (I know the Plantagenet kings go back further, but I haven't bothered to trace them.)

Anyway, I think it's kinda cool, dontcha know?