It’s all about where you draw the line

[***Spoiler Alert*** if you haven't yet seen The Dark Knight]

Brian writes an interesting piece on the newest Batman movie. For the most part I agree with him; but one statement he makes is, to put it mildly, complete batshit:

The watchword of the current series is plausibility. Everything has to make sense. None of the equipment is over-the-top for the sole sake of being over-the-top.

Okay. So… Bruce is not himself a tech guy. That is almost the entire point of Lucius Fox.

Would you please explain to me the “plausibility” of Bruce wiring up EVERY CELL PHONE IN THE WORLD into a bat-sonar device? Without Lucius having any clue??? Did he take a correspondence course in “Comic Book Tech”? (It’s on the list right next to “VCR Repair”.) Did he wire it up during a lull in his copious spare time? All those monitors alone must have taken hours to hook up — and to what purpose but to look cool for the camera?

(As a sidebar, that particular bit of tech was certainly a tip of the hat to, if not a setup for introducing, the character “Oracle” from the comics.)

Having a gimmicked phone in Hong Kong worked, because he made it specifically for the job. Somehow magically making millions of regular off-the-shelf units do the same thing was complete nonsense.

(Oh, and while we’re on the subject of implausible schemes, can somebody please tell me how Joker managed to load hundreds of drums of gasoline onto the two ferries without anybody noticing? For that matter — if they were evacuating the city via ferry, how did it not occur to anybody to maybe put people down in the massive, supposed-to-be-empty hold?)

The worst part of it to me was that it was totally unnecessary to the plot. If the plot simply didn’t work without it, they should have called for rewrite. As it is, it smells as though some studio exec watched a pre-release version and said “this movie just doesn’t have enough bullshit.”

The movie was excellent, but Nolan really tripped over his cape with that bit….

Note: This article appears backdated because it was delayed by technical difficulties.

A week or so ago I received a phone call from a polling organization. I donate money from time to time to political organizations, including various conservative organizations and candidates, and the NRA, so I get lots of political mail soliciting more donations, and for the past few years, the occasional phone call.

This one was asking me for my opinion. It sounded like your average poll — “Do you support X Very Much, Somewhat, Somewhat Against, or Very Much Against?” and so forth.

This one was unusual, though, for a couple reasons. First, it was unusually long. They asked several general questions about what causes and ideas I support, and then they moved into a section regarding two local candidates for Congress.

This last part was the interesting part, because it’s where the poll suddenly veered into the realm of dirty politics. The guy said “Okay, I’m going to give you arguments why you might vote against [the Democrat]. These are reasons given by his opponents. Tell me if this reason would influence you a lot to support the candidate, somewhat to support him, somewhat against him, or a lot against him.” There were a whole bunch of these , probably fifteen or twenty. Then he moved on to reasons to vote for the Democrat — these of course being the arguments made by his supporters. Again with the range of for/against for each argument. Then he moved on to the reasons to vote against the Republican, and finally…

“Okay, that’s the end of the questions. Thanks and you have a good night.”

Did you notice the problem there? I think the idea is that they ask you so many damned questions that by the time he says he’s done, you’re happy to hang up. What he’s hoping you didn’t notice what that he never got around to naming any of the reasons people give to vote for the Republican. First, against the Dem, then FOR the Dem, then AGAINST the Republican. This completes our impartial poll. ‘Night folks!

It’s called a “push poll“. It’s illegal in some areas, though not mine, and incredibly unethical. Admittedly, this one was a bit more subtle than most. It’s a new tactic I haven’t heard of before — the poll would have been legit if they’d only balanced the equation.

Illinois politics is such a goddamned embarrassment. Still these hypocrites get elected. Vote early and vote often, as they say.

(in case you didn’t get the title….)

By Joss Whedon.

Limited Time Only.

Why are you still here?

Not much to add beyond the headline, except: why do so many people fear those who obey the law?

With leftist politicians, the answer is plain: They don’t like the “little people” having too much power, and they certainly don’t want them to be too self-reliant. Liberals’ er… socialists’ entire power base is built on people depending on government for what they need. The “public safety” claims are a sham, repudiated time and time again by real-world crime statistics anywhere gun control laws have been instituted or loosened. Ban guns, violent crime goes up. Allow concealed carry, violent crime goes down. Why? Criminals prefer disarmed victims, because they don’t like getting shot.

And to the Mayor of Washington, DC: Thank you for being a damned fool and pushing Keller all the way to the top.

I’m not a coffee drinker, primarily because coffee seriously does not agree with my digestion. When I’m feeling dangerous I will have those tasty Frappuccinos — the ones in the bottles, not a “real” one from Starbucks. Even as diluted with milk and sugar as the coffee in those is, my gut is still a bit unhappy usually, so I still generally limit myself to half a bottle and save the rest for later.

So… when I’m dragging in the morning and need a little “pick me up”, I’ve taken to drinking those energy shot things you get at the drug store — the ones that come in the tiny bottles and cost like six bucks for two. I like the “Five Hour Energy”¹ ones.

The funny thing is, every time I down one of those, I can’t help but feel like Doctor Jekyll downing one of his infamous draughts. Which in turn reminds me of a classic old Carol Burnett sketch in which she and another actor kept drinking potions, gasping, and dropping down behind the table — and then the other would stand up in their place.

Does everyone have these weird mental associations, or is it just me?

I’ll make this quick:

Will you TV commentators please stop referring to Ted Kennedy in the past tense?

Thank you.

I keep hearing about Obama’s outrage over President Bush’s “divisive” remarks regarding people who want to appease terrorists. Bush compared the modern day appeasers to the people in the 1930s who wanted to talk to Hitler rather than actively opposing him, and was speaking in the context of modern-day Israel. Barack Obama is outraged that Bush would say such a thing about him, because, he is not trying to appease terrorists. He has also stated that John McCain is a “hypocrite” for defending Bush.

The notable thing to me in all this is that Bush made no reference to Obama.

Imagine you’re among a group of people, and you make a derisive comment about “idiots” (for example). Somebody in the group suddenly acts all offended and insists that they are not an idiot. You weren’t talking about that person — there are certainly enough idiots in the world that you can make such a statement without referring to present company. What does that person’s outrage say about you? More importantly, what does that person’s outrage say about what they think about themselves?

I think there is an argument to be made regarding Obama’s previous statements about going into the middle east and talking with certain belligerent groups, but that is beside the point: Bush made no such argument. There are prominent people who have been arguing strongly for appeasement¹, enoughs so that Bush’s comment should not be assumed to be pointed at Obama unless you think the accusation fits. Obama’s defensiveness is telling. It is a weakness. Beyond the sense of self-incrimination, it is also indicative of a man who is thin-skinned — enough so that he may have serious difficulty withstanding the unending personal attacks that hound anyperson who achieves the office he is pursuing.

There is a common tactic in politics to demonize your opponent by assuming the worse about them in all cases. If a statement can be interpreted two ways, you assume the worst one, and thus justify thinking the worst of that person. I generally reject that tactic — it is dishonest and hurts the cause of honest debate. On a similar note, I also believe that:

• When John Kerry made his infamous remark about ill-educated people getting “stuck in Iraq”, he was not attacking military personnel, but making a clumsy attempt at a “Bush is stoopid” joke. Nothing more. He fumbled a joke and got unlucky.
• When Newt Gingrich referred to “the language of the ghetto”, he was not referring to Spanish, but to the way that not knowing the primary language of the country you live in automatically marginalizes (or “ghetto-izes”) a person. Putting it another way, if you live in Paris, any language other than French is “the language of the ghetto” if you do not also speak French.

Just looking at my site statistics (using the really amazing Woopra, which you should check out if you have a web site), and I noticed the OS breakdown for visitors to my site. Here’s the top four systems:

• Windows XP: 38.3%
• Windows Server 2003: 36.9%
• Mac: 11.7%
• Windows Vista: 7.47%

Beyond my mild annoyance that they break down every type of Windows, but lump all Mac OSes under one number, I was a bit amused by the fact that Macs outnumber Vista. Two variants of Windows at least five years old collectively outnumber Microsoft’s new flagship product ten to one.

Of course my little slice of the web isn’t going to perfectly reflect worldwide statistics, but it is one more piece of anecdotal sadness for the Regents of Redmond. I saw an article a while back (probably Joel Spolsky) suggesting that if MS sat back and did nothing but bleed money keeping themselves open, it would take then ten years to go out of business. Despite that impressive buffer, they had better get on the ball and try something new — ’cause whatever they’re doing, it’s not working.

My first thought is: get rid of Ballmer — the man’s a bully. Microsoft has used its near-monopoly like a bludgeon, but as time passes they are once again more and more at the mercy of market forces and individual consumers. Clearly he is having a hard time adjusting to that reality.

Or you could just say that Vista is Microsoft’s Copland… but then, I always thought Windows Me was Microsoft’s Copland. Heh. Showoffs.

So the other day I decided to upgrade my hard drive. The ol’ 60 gig was getting cramped, and I was tired of removing stuff to make room for other stuff. I wanted my iTunes library back, among other things….

The tricky part is that I’m talking about my laptop, not a tower.

So first things first: If you ever plan on disassembling a laptop computer, go online first and find instructions — hopefully instructions for your specific model of computer. I was dealing with an old Mac Powerbook, and as Macs have some pretty obsessive fans, you can almost certainly find such a guide for any particular model. I did.

Next: before you start, read all of the directions.

No, really. Put the screwdriver down. Yes, you. Read the directions. All of them. Don’t you look at me like that. Read!

Why yes, Step five really does contain the words “This is scary”. Take a deep breath — It’s going to be okay. Yes, that is a lot of screws, and yes, you have to remove them all. Just keep track of what you remove from where. What do you mean you don’t have a screwdriver that small? What kind of geek are you, anyway?

You need a what? What the hell is a T6 torx screwdriver? Oh, those little star-shaped things? People actually use those? Where do you get one? (Answer: Home Depot or, if you’re lucky enough to have one nearby, Microcenter. See? Aren’t you glad you read the directions first?)

Two Words: Don’t sneeze.

It helps to have a good toolkit. For example, if you drop a screw, you’re going to need a skinny tweezers or a nosepicker¹.

The really scary part is where you have to crack the two halves of the case apart. Some sections part easily, but others are quite happy where they are, thankyouverymuch. Screws are completely straightforward — prying something apart when you’re not sure what exactly is holding it together can be intimidating. Take your time, it’ll come.

Okay, we’re down to the drive. This is the easy part. Remove the bracket, pull out the plug. Good. Good. New one is in. Oh good, it does fit.

And the last step of course, is: “Now do everything you just did, but backwards (and in high heels)².”

Finally, when you get everything back together, just plug in your backup drive, boot from that and restore it to the new drive.

Um, you did make a backup, right?

Oh crap.

I have a tendency to envelop myself in politics and such when bumming around the Internet. I think that involvement in such things can be important in the long term, but over time it really can drag you down — so much backbiting and spite, and the inevitable “anything to win” attitudes and resulting calumny and fraud and… *sigh*

So it’s nice when I come across something like this. It’s just an ad for a TV network, but what a breath of fresh air.

Read the rest of this entry »