Recent Posts

3851

Living Room / Re: What are your favorite movies?

« Last post by 40hz on March 13, 2013, 11:01 AM »

^ For me it's not enough to have a train scene or have the train be just another locked room gimmick. It has to be an integral element to the story. Von Ryan's Express for example. Or  The Great Train Robbery. In those, the train introduced unique elements that much of the plot depended on.  

The subway fascinates me because I (along with a few equally daft friends) used to be an avid "abandoned," "lost" and "hidden places" explorer back in my college days. It was a very enjoyable hobby that made it almost too easy to get yourself arrested - or even killed. (You soon discovered that better than half those DANGER! KEEP OUT signs were put there for very good reasons.) Anybody stupid and ballsy enough to go crawling around in places you'd probably definitely be better off staying away from will understand what I'm saying here.  
 

3852

The Getting Organized Experiment of 2009 / Re: Do Visions and Missions work for you?

« Last post by 40hz on March 13, 2013, 06:59 AM »

Regarding success as relates to vision, I have yet to see a company which experienced early success that hasn't followed this timeline when writing it's "official" history:

Year   Official story
-----   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  1      "We're happy to say we've been very fortunate..."

  2      "We have worked hard, and have also been fortunate..."

  3      "With hard work, a sound business plan, plus a little luck..."

  4      "Sure there was some luck involved, but we also had a plan - and worked it..."

  5      "WTF do you mean luck? Luck had nothing to do with it. This was all
           meticulously planned and executed from the get go..."

  6      "We have always had a clear mission, solid planning, and a set of core values..."

  7      "Long before this company first opened its doors, Our Founder had a vision..."

 


Humans sooooo need their 'divine' revelations, superheros and messiahs don't they? Even when it comes to something as mundane as business.

3853

Living Room / Re: What are your favorite movies?

« Last post by 40hz on March 13, 2013, 01:04 AM »

Switching gears for a second, does anybody find movies that take place in subways or on trains (or in train stations) particularly enjoyable like I do? (Freudians can feel free draw their own conclusions about that... )

Here are two "subway" movies I really like.

First up is the 1985 film Subway - a sweet little French work that is surprisingly poignant while still remaining fun.

Fred, a raffish safe blower, takes refuge in the Paris Metro after being chased by the henchmen of a shady businessman from whom he has just stolen some documents. While hiding out in the back rooms and conduits of the Metro, Fred encounters a subterranean society of eccentric characters and petty criminals. Despite being pursued by the henchmen, Fred finds the time to flirt with Helena, blow a safe, rob a train, evade the hapless Metro police and start a rock band ...

Sorry...I couldn't find a trailer dubbed or subtitled in English for this one.

The second is a much more unusual movie from Hungary called Kontroll.



issue-ridden Hungarian metro ticket checkers deal with crazed commuters, underworld characters, violent sports fans, a politically posturing transit authority bureaucracy, back-stabbing coworkers, bouts of narcalepsy, a giant teddy bear...and a demonic looking serial killer living in the tunnels who gets his kicks by pushing unwary passengers onto the tracks just ahead of the approaching subway car.

Despite it's underlying story, it's actually a very funny and endearing film. (I think I'm in love with Ezster Balla...)



Highly recommended.

(No subtitles with this one either I'm afraid...)

--------------------

And if your taste in subway drama runs more to pure horror, here's the subterranean answer to Blair Witch simply titled The Tunnel

An investigation into a government cover-up leads to a network of abandoned train tunnels deep beneath the heart of Sydney. As a journalist and her crew hunt for the story it quickly becomes clear the story is hunting them.

Last I looked, you can watch the full movie on YouTube. Link here.

3854

Living Room / Re: What are your favorite movies?

« Last post by 40hz on March 13, 2013, 12:17 AM »

Really, what's not to like about Zardoz?

-mwb1100 (March 12, 2013, 04:09 PM)

The thing that really bugged me about Zardoz was it's obvious moralizing and a relentlessly formulaic counter-culture vibe. (A product of the times since 1974 was a good year for that sort of mindset.) I mean, like ok...warlike men bad...military bad...liberated feminist females good...government is evil...technology is evil...we get it already.

I think my real complaint was that it never really lived up to it's premise. I was expecting some big revelation and some clever OMG plot twist. And it never materialized. The story was fairly weak and predictable - and the utterly unsatisfying ending was easily one of the most contrived reveals ever attempted. I mean seriously - all that for that?

Unfortunately, Zardoz isn't alone in that regard. Some more recent films such as The Number 23, Lady in the Water, and Shutter Island all had that same problem: intriguing concept, good build-up, capable cast - and then...nada. Almost like the producers didn't have a clue where to take it so they just wrapped it all up with a contrived resolution and a lousy payoff. Which was a shame considering the money they spent making them. And an even bigger shame considering the money their audience spent to watch them.

So it goes.

3855

Living Room / Re: Judge skeptical of "torrent chaser" law firm's antics. Jail time threatened.

« Last post by 40hz on March 12, 2013, 11:38 PM »

Maybe *for once* we have a judge that could deny their (probable?) motion to say "haha we were kidding, suit withdrawn"

-TaoPhoenix (March 12, 2013, 11:21 PM)

It's a little too late for Prenda to do that. Besides, as was explained in an earlier Popehat article:

On January 28, 2013, Prenda Law — still through Mr. Gibbs — filed a voluntary dismissal of Ingenuity 13 LLC's case against this particular John Doe. Federal plaintiffs can dismiss a case voluntarily without prejudice (that is, maintaining the right to bring it again) fairly freely. Generally a notice of dismissal is a form; Prenda's was a petulant swipe at Judge Wright...
.
.
.
But here's the thing: even when a plaintiff dismisses a case, a federal judge does not lose jurisdiction and power to inquire into the conduct of the attorneys and parties in the case. When a federal judge is angry at you, filing a dismissal is akin to dropping the red flag, backing away, and telling the charging bull "hey man — we cool, we cool." As we'll see, Judge Wright intended to exercise his power.

Nope. Far too late to just say "forget it" and walk away. This will have its due.
 

3856

Living Room / Re: Judge skeptical of "torrent chaser" law firm's antics. Jail time threatened.

« Last post by 40hz on March 12, 2013, 11:03 PM »

Ok...the much anticipated order to show cause hearing mentioned earlier has come to pass. And it's truly amazing what can happen when you succeed in seriously angering a US federal district judge sitting in his official capacity.

It was a complicated day for Prenda Law and one of it's associates, an attorney by the name of Gibbs.

Rather than even attempt to recap it (because it's all so frakin' good) check out the write-ups provided by Popehat and ArsTechnica.

Here's a few quotes from Popehat:

Brett Gibbs Gets His Day In Court — But Prenda Law Is The Star
Mar 11, 2013 By Ken.


My past coverage of the Prenda Law saga is here.

There are few things more terrifying to a lawyer than a furious federal judge.

Today I saw one of those things.

It was a federal judge who was furious, intimately familiar with the case, and consummately prepared for the hearing.

Today United States District Court Judge Otis D. Wright II made it explicitly, abundantly, frighteningly clear that he believes the principals of Prenda Law have engaged in misconduct — and that he means to get to the bottom of it.

It was one of the most remarkable hearings I have ever witnessed.

Judge Wright Minces No Words


Judge Wright took the bench, grim and stentorian and bow-tied, and immediately commenced to take absolutely no shit from anybody. "I spent the whole weekend reading a deposition," he said, referring to the astounding deposition of Prenda principal Paul Hansmeier. "It is perhaps the most informative thing I have read in this affair so far." There was a collective intake of breath from the onlookers, who guessed that was not a good thing for Prenda Law. They were right. "There was so much obstruction in this deposition that it's obvious that someone has an awful lot to hide," Judge Wright commented later.

And here's a bit from the ArsTechnica article:

LOS ANGELES, CA—In a Los Angeles federal courtroom on a blindingly sunny Monday afternoon, US District Judge Otis Wright expressed incredulity at the sheer gall of the Prenda porn copyright trolling firm.

Judge Wright had ordered six other Prenda affiliates (or alleged affiliates) to show up in response to his order regarding possible sanctions for their behavior. None of those named parties showed up to the hearing in person, apart from Alan Cooper of Minnesota. (Cooper has alleged that Prenda attorney John Steele used Cooper's name improperly as the CEO of copyright licensing firm AF Holdings.) Lawyers Steele, Paul Hansmeier, Paul Duffy, and Prenda paralegal Angela Van Den Hemel had filed a notice on Friday saying that travel to the Central District Court of California was impossible for the out-of-state parties. Today, they were represented by another attorney who identified herself as Heather Rosing.

Judge Wright also angrily questioned Rosing about her clients’ failure to show up. When Rosing tried to speak on behalf of her clients, Wright told her that if they weren't present, he wasn't interested in hearing her talk about them.

This just keeps getting better and better. And it ain't over yet, folks. Not by a long shot.  

3857

Living Room / Re: What are your favorite movies?

« Last post by 40hz on March 12, 2013, 07:19 PM »

For cheezy but enjoyable I'll take the original (1976) Logan's Run any day.

-40hz (March 12, 2013, 01:07 PM)

Hey, I happen to love Logan's Run! 

-app103 (March 12, 2013, 07:07 PM)

Me too. Nuthin' wrong with cheezy. As long as it's good cheezy.

Logan's Run is primo cheezy. 

3858

Living Room / Re: Linked In... too linked in?

« Last post by 40hz on March 12, 2013, 04:50 PM »

THEN we might take privacy seriously. But not before.

-TaoPhoenix (March 12, 2013, 04:37 PM)

Or maybe even not at all seriously any more - we'll just start believing whatever we want to believe about anything.

Oh...wait...we do that already, don't we?

----

p.s. regarding tinfoil hats:

Don't be too hard on yourself. There was a time up until a single incident a couple of years ago where you'd find less than a dozen hits on me. And of that number, maybe six or seven actually were me.

Then my lovely alma mater put my name and old home address in their online alumni directory without my permission. I had even sent them an e-mail specifically saying they did not have my permission to do so. Ever since then I'm considerably less hard to Google. You'll now get 240 or so hits, of which about 80% are about me. And the only thing that changed in anything I had been doing up until that point was my alumini listing.

So it's not as crazy as you may think. It only takes one. Especially when the information gets shared or is readily accessible to somebody who uses it for some "business" purpose. (If I get one more 'affinity group' offer for investment advice or insurance I'm gonna scream!   )

3859

Living Room / Re: Google Glasses BANNED!

« Last post by 40hz on March 12, 2013, 04:37 PM »

A wise old college professor of mine once said that when people demand new laws, it's invariably with the intent of regulating somebody else's actions or beliefs. Never their own. Because rules are for other people.

-40hz (March 12, 2013, 07:08 AM)

+1

The most dangerous people are the ones that KNOW what right/wrong is and what you *should* and *shouldn't* do. They're invariably out to save the world because nobody else is capable of running their own life without "guidance".

-Renegade (March 12, 2013, 07:33 AM)

Yup. They're called members of the government and clergy.

beep-beep-beep***basement alert***beep-beep-beep

3860

Living Room / Re: Linked In... too linked in?

« Last post by 40hz on March 12, 2013, 02:25 PM »

Yeah, I know you're right.  But it's still pretty jarring.  Unfortunately, there are legitimate things that I want to do in my private life that require my real name, and that's where the cracks start to show.

*sigh*

-wraith808 (March 12, 2013, 02:20 PM)

I hear and am sighing right along with you, Bro. Truly I am....

3861

Living Room / Re: Reach Into Transparent Computer, Grab Content

« Last post by 40hz on March 12, 2013, 02:20 PM »

I think touchscreen designers may have it backwards. I think a screen that can touch you would have much greater market potential than a screen that you can touch.

The opportunity for a renaissance in the porn industry alone would be worth billions...
 

3862

Living Room / Re: Linked In... too linked in?

« Last post by 40hz on March 12, 2013, 02:15 PM »

I keep my personal and professional profiles/lives separate.  It's a pretty artificial demarcation, and I know that with effort someone can cross the streams.  But that effort is the point.

-wraith808 (March 12, 2013, 09:29 AM)

And that's about as good as it gets if you're going to participate at all. I have the smallest web profile and presence (by design) of anybody I know. And even then, I wind up in things without my knowledge or consent.

Best to just do what you can and not worry about it too much. Because short of setting up an alternate identity - and using it exclusively from day one - there's no longer much hope of being completely invisible online any more. And that's not something that's ever going to change short of an infocalypse. And I don't think many of us would welcome the chance to experience something like that.
 

3863

Living Room / Re: What are your favorite movies?

« Last post by 40hz on March 12, 2013, 01:07 PM »

Movies with Sean Connery are practically all in the same league as the Clint Eastwood movies. 'In the Name Of The Rose' is a great movie from S.C.

-Shades (March 12, 2013, 07:44 AM)

*cough* Zardoz *cough*

 

-4wd (March 12, 2013, 08:26 AM)

Hahahahahah~!  

-Renegade (March 12, 2013, 08:32 AM)

Zardoz! OMG - Even Barbarella came off looking good by comparison to that orphan.



ohmygodohmygodohmygodipromiseillneverwatchitagainohgodipromiseipromiseipromise!!!!!

For cheezy but enjoyable I'll take the original (1976) Logan's Run any day.



At least you got to admire the comely and wholesomely sexy Ms. Jenny Agutter in that one.

3864

Living Room / Re: silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content]

« Last post by 40hz on March 12, 2013, 07:32 AM »

3865

Living Room / Re: Google Glasses BANNED!

« Last post by 40hz on March 12, 2013, 07:08 AM »

people saying that there out to be more bans are the same people saying that there shouldn't be controls on guns.  Hmm...

-wraith808 (March 11, 2013, 09:19 PM)

A wise old college professor of mine once said that when people demand new laws, it's invariably with the intent of regulating somebody else's actions or beliefs. Never their own. Because rules are for other people.
 

3866

Living Room / Re: Left-handed help needed !

« Last post by 40hz on March 11, 2013, 06:43 PM »

+1 w/ Barney on Dragon Naturally Speaking. I've been using it for several years now and haven't regretted it once.

Hope you get feeling better soon.

3867

Living Room / Re: Google Glasses BANNED!

« Last post by 40hz on March 11, 2013, 06:39 PM »

It's a privately owned establishment. They are completely within their rights to set what they will and will not allow people to do on their property.

-SeraphimLabs (March 11, 2013, 12:00 PM)

Precisely.

Then facilities that want to disallow recording only have to purchase a small transmitter to provide the required disabling signal.

-SeraphimLabs (March 11, 2013, 12:00 PM)

That's a little dicier a proposition if the disabling mechanism isn't built into the device itself. And I can't see Google willingly doing that without legislation forcing it to do so.

But that then becomes a slippery slope since the same technology also could be used to also disable ordinary cameras, cellphones - and even news cameras.

Note: RF jamming is generally illegal in the USA. Where allowed, it requires a special permit due to the risk of a jamming signal interfering with legitimate permitted communications, GPS devices, and public safety communications such as fire and police radios.

3868

Living Room / Re: What are your favorite movies?

« Last post by 40hz on March 11, 2013, 06:25 PM »

I think my favorite "western" is the sci-fi classic Outland with Sean Connery as Federal District Marshall W.T. O'Niel. This is a traditional story of corruption set in a frontier mining town - except this time it's on Io. This flick has it all: the lone honest lawman, the corrupt big company mine boss, the burned out doctor, dishonest deputies, the local saloon, dance-hall ladies, hired gunmen ...






Films like this show just how enduring those old cowboy themes can be.

3869

Living Room / Re: What are your favorite movies?

« Last post by 40hz on March 11, 2013, 07:20 AM »

Strange Days is one that you really like, or you don't

-wraith808 (March 10, 2013, 10:59 PM)

Liked it.   The story was good. But Juliette Lewis's performance as his drug fueled rock star ex-girlfriend was amazing. Forget the legs - which are very nice btw. This lady can sing! Thought I was watching a cross between Tina Turner and Gracie Slick watching that scene. Oh yeah!
 

3870

Living Room / Re: Yahoo email servers hacked

« Last post by 40hz on March 11, 2013, 07:13 AM »

Yahoo! webmail! hijacks! are! back!...

Yahoo! has blamed cross-site scripting security bugs, which it claims to have squashed, for a recent upsurge in webmail account takeovers.

via Daily Network Security Podcast

-erikts (March 11, 2013, 12:51 AM)

Pretty typical reaction of Yahoo - if they didn't write such god awful buggy webscripts themselves it might make it harder for hackers, and the problem might not go on for months!

-Carol Haynes (March 11, 2013, 04:23 AM)

And lets not forget they got hacked and had this same sort of thing happen to them previously too.

3871

Living Room / Re: "Half of our users block ads. Now what?"

« Last post by 40hz on March 11, 2013, 06:42 AM »

2. Re: The "entitlement" claim, most of TV was offered for free via ad revenue for decades, so it's not quite fair to suddenly decide that "it's different on the internet" and that a former TV viewer, now an online article viewer, suddenly became "entitled".

-TaoPhoenix (March 10, 2013, 11:15 PM)

Also, lets not forget that virtually all the underlying technology running the web was paid for with US tax dollars. Something that was repeatedly emphasized by just about everybody during those early years when the general public was first granted access to the Internet. Likely it was intended as a bit of "meme engineering" to prevent some business from trying to do a grab on it and become the next Bell Telephone monopoly; and also to forestall the US government from having a change of heart and revoking public access.

So if John Q. Public suddenly got it in his head that he "owned" the web and that it was "already paid for"...well...that's hardly unexpected. That's what he was told. Repeatedly.

Why that idea became, by extrapolation, an assumption that everything carried on the web (i.e music, movies, content) must also be free is a question that has been widely discussed and argued. So it's hardly worth going off on a tangent to repeat any of it here. Suffice to say, everybody has their own favorite theory on why this 'entitlement' mindset emerged.
 

3872

Living Room / Re: Google Glasses BANNED!

« Last post by 40hz on March 10, 2013, 09:54 PM »

So... continuing to be Mephistopheles

These glasses have applications and implications far outside of being a simple device of entertainment, even if not in that particular form.  So what happens then?

-wraith808 (March 10, 2013, 09:20 PM)

I'm guessing there were some people in McDonalds that were supposed to be somewhere else or with somebody else who got a little bent and bitched to the management.

3873

Living Room / Re: Google Glasses BANNED!

« Last post by 40hz on March 10, 2013, 08:56 PM »

To take the devil's advocate stance here- so we're banning things based on what others *might* do with them?  That seems a bit draconian...

-wraith808 (March 10, 2013, 08:39 PM)

True. But I'm pretty sure (based on what has gone before) that we could come up with a pretty accurate probability of what will happen once these things hit the street. Some uses and abuses are so obvious it's not so much a question of "if any will" as it is a question of "how many will."

So c'mon Beelzebub. We're all geeks here. We already know how this is likely to go down in an unregulated environment. Look at what happened with 'lipstick' cameras and nanny-cams. Those "benign by design" devices proved to be a major if unintentional gift to the voyeur porn market. Ditto with the cameras embedded in half the laptops being sold. Even public school administrators got caught abusing their trust, to say nothing of breaking the law, with those gadgets.

Like all tech, it can go both ways. And if I had to give odds on which side is going to be more 'innovative' and quick off the mark, I'll give you two free guesses as to which side I'd put my money on.
 

3874

Living Room / Re: "Half of our users block ads. Now what?"

« Last post by 40hz on March 10, 2013, 08:42 PM »

the losers are the honest content producers and consumers.

-mouser (March 10, 2013, 08:11 PM)

this!

3875

Living Room / Re: "Half of our users block ads. Now what?"

« Last post by 40hz on March 10, 2013, 07:04 PM »

Sounds like you're trying to point out the sense of entitlement from publishers. "Since I made this, I must be paid for it whether you like it or not." It works both ways there.

-Renegade (March 10, 2013, 06:49 PM)

Sorry Ren, but that's not what I'm saying at all. 

I'm putting the burden on the 'publishers' to produce something worth buying or quit the field. Just like I'm suggesting the 'consumers' pay for what they use if there's a price tag attached and if they really want it - or do without.

No justification of 'entitlement' in what I'm saying for either side.

I don't believe in taking money for nothing any more than I believe in appropriating something for nothing unless it's freely given as a gift.

I operate within a fairly simple moral framework. It's not too fancy. But it works for me. Beyond that I make no representations or warranties. YMMV.