12 hours at work, and yet far from challenged. Tired, but completely bored. I practiced bass for less than an hour, and now my hands feel so much better although somewhat tired - and I could almost hear the music in my head. I need lessons though, or this will be a longer road than it needs to be. Genius or not, self taught is slower than having someone hand me a set of instructions.
Another 12 hour day tomorrow, and my exam next week on the same day as the Dentist. Too damn busy, but it's all going to be worth it. In the last few years I've experienced something that's never happened before: hard work actually pays off. Not labor though, the work of learning. Work smart, not hard. The more mentally challenging my landscape, the brighter my day.
Almost hurts to type, but I'm sure I'll get over that.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
SSL secure, browsers NOT.
It turns out that the government IS spying on not just anyone, but EVERYONE. Not just any government - all governments. Browser weaknesses allow ANY browser accepting CAs to be used as an espionage tool without alerting the user. The weakness? Certificate Authorities willingly leak keys to agents who ask for them. This allows seamless interception of ALL messages, Email, web browsing, and in the case of Windows - your entire operating system.
1st Nail:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/researchers-reveal-likelihood-governments-fake-ssl
2nd Nail:
http://www.thoughtcrime.org/software/sslsniff/
3rd Nail:
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Sony-PlayStation-PS3-VeriSign-SSL,news-3235.html
In Science, it is necessary to provide only ONE piece of evidence to disprove a theory, and at least three pieces to promote a theory. That makes things pretty robust, and that's why the "theory" of evolution is so strong. After 100+ years, nobody has introduced anything to actually disprove evolution. In the meantime, thousands of pieces of supporting evidence flow in each year - reinforcing the theory.
When THREE pieces of evidence come in to disprove a theory - it's considered absolutely dead in the water, sink it, bury the pond, and plant tulips. The theory that browsers are secure is utterly shattered.
Sleep well.
1st Nail:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/researchers-reveal-likelihood-governments-fake-ssl
2nd Nail:
http://www.thoughtcrime.org/software/sslsniff/
3rd Nail:
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Sony-PlayStation-PS3-VeriSign-SSL,news-3235.html
In Science, it is necessary to provide only ONE piece of evidence to disprove a theory, and at least three pieces to promote a theory. That makes things pretty robust, and that's why the "theory" of evolution is so strong. After 100+ years, nobody has introduced anything to actually disprove evolution. In the meantime, thousands of pieces of supporting evidence flow in each year - reinforcing the theory.
When THREE pieces of evidence come in to disprove a theory - it's considered absolutely dead in the water, sink it, bury the pond, and plant tulips. The theory that browsers are secure is utterly shattered.
Sleep well.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Asimov was right...
This is similar to my P.I. article.
America's highest technology has been outsourced overseas in never-before seen multinational supra-corporate development - in which corporations take precedence over nations.
Here on the Rolls website:
http://www.rolls-royce.com/defence/products/combat_jets/f136.jsp
And again, here on the Register:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/19/f35b_vertical_landing/page2.html
It is clearly and openly discussed as a corporate enterprise covering multiple nations security forces. Rolls Royce must have pretty high security clearances. Sure, I bet they're required by a contract to conform to security standards and not to share the technology, but never before have corporations been the guardians and keymasters of critical technology. In the past this was always a US laboratory staffed and operated by an elite team of scientists - who often worked WITH corporations and the military, but not FOR.
Nations are merging into corporate "bloks" as predicted by Communism. Yeah, you know, Communism, the USSR, et al. The Russians were right. Human rights and civil rights, nation economies, and peace are all less important today than corporate profits. Anything is good when it's gold is the growing and prevalent morality.
America's highest technology has been outsourced overseas in never-before seen multinational supra-corporate development - in which corporations take precedence over nations.
Here on the Rolls website:
http://www.rolls-royce.com/defence/products/combat_jets/f136.jsp
And again, here on the Register:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/19/f35b_vertical_landing/page2.html
It is clearly and openly discussed as a corporate enterprise covering multiple nations security forces. Rolls Royce must have pretty high security clearances. Sure, I bet they're required by a contract to conform to security standards and not to share the technology, but never before have corporations been the guardians and keymasters of critical technology. In the past this was always a US laboratory staffed and operated by an elite team of scientists - who often worked WITH corporations and the military, but not FOR.
Nations are merging into corporate "bloks" as predicted by Communism. Yeah, you know, Communism, the USSR, et al. The Russians were right. Human rights and civil rights, nation economies, and peace are all less important today than corporate profits. Anything is good when it's gold is the growing and prevalent morality.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
More Marketing Bullship using made up numbers
Apple Insider, also known as the Apple Liar magazine, is so far up Apple's backside that I can't believe anyone takes this seriously as journalism. The most recent fiasco today is the tiny, statistically insignificant study that the released citing how " 40% of Blackberry users would buy an iPhone."
BULLSHIT. Why would you trade in a Rolls Royce for a Toyota?
Technology impairment aside, why would I want a phone that locks down everything, deletes my personal data without asking, and basically have to deal with a tyrannical company that's imitating Microsoft business practices? Few people like AT&T, and though the iPhone was cool when it came out, Apple shot itself in the butt by forcing ALL iPhone owners to use AT&T - a convicted felon.
AT&T then of course proved that it's now a different company by behaving responsibly and opening up the phone... not. That's alternate universe-land. AT&T proceeded to lock the iPhone down even further.
A quick look at this "study" - an abuse of the word if I've ever seen one, reveals that less than a 100 people responded to the Blackberry question, not 1000+ as the advertising insists. Even 1000 users is irrelevant if they're all coming in through a Pro-Apple marketing campaign!
The company that released this bogus data gives NO sources, no methodology, and in short, there's no way to check their numbers. In other words, it's all lies. On the internet, if you don't provide proof, you might as well be lying.
Why? Because it's too easy to just quote your sources [ABC survey co] and methodology [rigorous double blind, randomized questions] as well as your data manipulation methods [incidence of dual ownership, leapfrogging, per capita, etc.]
The iPhone marketing scam, I mean this latest advertising disguised as a survey, does none of that. After "registering" with the "survey" company, you get a little bit more data - enough to see that they're basically lying through their teeth.
CAVEAT EMPTOR.
1 DO NOT believe everything in print.
2 Consider the source.
3 A little paranoia will save you a lot of money.
re:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/03/16/39_of_blackberry_owners_say_theyd_switch_to_an_iphone.html
BULLSHIT. Why would you trade in a Rolls Royce for a Toyota?
Technology impairment aside, why would I want a phone that locks down everything, deletes my personal data without asking, and basically have to deal with a tyrannical company that's imitating Microsoft business practices? Few people like AT&T, and though the iPhone was cool when it came out, Apple shot itself in the butt by forcing ALL iPhone owners to use AT&T - a convicted felon.
AT&T then of course proved that it's now a different company by behaving responsibly and opening up the phone... not. That's alternate universe-land. AT&T proceeded to lock the iPhone down even further.
A quick look at this "study" - an abuse of the word if I've ever seen one, reveals that less than a 100 people responded to the Blackberry question, not 1000+ as the advertising insists. Even 1000 users is irrelevant if they're all coming in through a Pro-Apple marketing campaign!
The company that released this bogus data gives NO sources, no methodology, and in short, there's no way to check their numbers. In other words, it's all lies. On the internet, if you don't provide proof, you might as well be lying.
Why? Because it's too easy to just quote your sources [ABC survey co] and methodology [rigorous double blind, randomized questions] as well as your data manipulation methods [incidence of dual ownership, leapfrogging, per capita, etc.]
The iPhone marketing scam, I mean this latest advertising disguised as a survey, does none of that. After "registering" with the "survey" company, you get a little bit more data - enough to see that they're basically lying through their teeth.
CAVEAT EMPTOR.
1 DO NOT believe everything in print.
2 Consider the source.
3 A little paranoia will save you a lot of money.
re:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/03/16/39_of_blackberry_owners_say_theyd_switch_to_an_iphone.html
Monday, March 8, 2010
Oscars = Incestuous Process = Self-serving.
The largest voting block is: actors.
Thus, an anti-war film, highest grossing movie ever, with stellar performances and all-around five-star skill put into the movie gets beat by a cheap, flawed, and pro-war movie. How? The pro-war movie kissed actors asses.
It didn't help that the BETTER movie had animation and that threatened the Academy, which has always shied away from SciFi for exactly that reason: They're afraid of technology replacing them.
I have bad news for the Academy. Too late. The Oscars will fade into deserved low-attendance and become an inner-circle ritual. That's my prediction for 2010. By 2020, the Oscars will either cease to be run by the same Academy, or will have embraced technology, or will cease to exist.
Why? Compare them:
1. Movie of the year: 11 Million, 500 theaters, most people didn't really like it.
2. Nominee with no awards: 5 Trillion, 50000 theaters, everyone on Earth loved it.
The money will go away from the Oscars and for the films that do NOT win. Thus, the Oscars have shot themselves in the foot and become irrelevant to film, in exactly the same way that actors have just signed and sealed their doom.
Indie producers such as myself and my friends already avoid, abhor, and have extreme distrust of Union-Card bearing actors who want to work with us. They bring the danger of entanglement, cost overruns, and having an actor tell you how to produce your movie. I've seen this, and it sucks. I never want to work with another SAG actor in my life, and I'll refuse to even where there is money on the table.
When you give in to actors, the producer gets another bomb like the one 'Charly' Theron delivered in Aeon Flux. The freakin' anniversary release of the TV show did better than the motion picture on DVD sales. That's how bad, how disappointing, and how stupid the movie was. Sure, take the main character, and completely reinvent it in a way that diametrically opposes the entire basis of the character, and premise of the film. That's Charred, all right.
I've been on sets to observe actors backtalking producers and directors, and flinch when the director or producer fails to correct them. "Actors are fragile," they say. No, Actors are actors. If they can't act, or won't, replace them.
The Academy that runs the Oscars is run by actors, and so every film that wins awards is basically just an Actor favorite. There's no public vote, no vote across the spectrum of movie production - the grips and lighting techs have no say in the matter. It's not a Democracy. It's an industry-serving process as fake as the Monkees and Hannah Montana.
Money is more important than a gold statue, and will continue to be much more sought-after than the lauding of false praises by soon-to-be unemployed actors.
Thus, an anti-war film, highest grossing movie ever, with stellar performances and all-around five-star skill put into the movie gets beat by a cheap, flawed, and pro-war movie. How? The pro-war movie kissed actors asses.
It didn't help that the BETTER movie had animation and that threatened the Academy, which has always shied away from SciFi for exactly that reason: They're afraid of technology replacing them.
I have bad news for the Academy. Too late. The Oscars will fade into deserved low-attendance and become an inner-circle ritual. That's my prediction for 2010. By 2020, the Oscars will either cease to be run by the same Academy, or will have embraced technology, or will cease to exist.
Why? Compare them:
1. Movie of the year: 11 Million, 500 theaters, most people didn't really like it.
2. Nominee with no awards: 5 Trillion, 50000 theaters, everyone on Earth loved it.
The money will go away from the Oscars and for the films that do NOT win. Thus, the Oscars have shot themselves in the foot and become irrelevant to film, in exactly the same way that actors have just signed and sealed their doom.
Indie producers such as myself and my friends already avoid, abhor, and have extreme distrust of Union-Card bearing actors who want to work with us. They bring the danger of entanglement, cost overruns, and having an actor tell you how to produce your movie. I've seen this, and it sucks. I never want to work with another SAG actor in my life, and I'll refuse to even where there is money on the table.
When you give in to actors, the producer gets another bomb like the one 'Charly' Theron delivered in Aeon Flux. The freakin' anniversary release of the TV show did better than the motion picture on DVD sales. That's how bad, how disappointing, and how stupid the movie was. Sure, take the main character, and completely reinvent it in a way that diametrically opposes the entire basis of the character, and premise of the film. That's Charred, all right.
I've been on sets to observe actors backtalking producers and directors, and flinch when the director or producer fails to correct them. "Actors are fragile," they say. No, Actors are actors. If they can't act, or won't, replace them.
The Academy that runs the Oscars is run by actors, and so every film that wins awards is basically just an Actor favorite. There's no public vote, no vote across the spectrum of movie production - the grips and lighting techs have no say in the matter. It's not a Democracy. It's an industry-serving process as fake as the Monkees and Hannah Montana.
Money is more important than a gold statue, and will continue to be much more sought-after than the lauding of false praises by soon-to-be unemployed actors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)