What else is new?

As background, no conversation about airline security should take place without at least trying to conceive of the almost incomprehensible size of the air transportation system. The size of the system is the reason everything the public and policymakers “think” should work in airline security doesn’t, and the reason our entire approach to airline security is almost completely ineffective against a threat like Al Qaeda — and the reason security almost always fails when tested by covert testers, innocent civilians and, occasionally, persons with intent.

At this moment, there are roughly 5000 commercial airliners in the skies above you. There will be 28,000 flights today, and 840,000 in the next month — every month. The U.S. fleet consists of some 6000 aircraft — almost all of which will be parked unattended tonight at a public airport. We will carry almost 7 billion passengers this year, the number increasing to 10 billion by 2010, barring an exogenous event like another 9/11.

There is simply no deployable technology that has a prayer of keeping a motivated, prepared terrorist out of the system every time — even most times. TSA misses more than 90% of detectable weapons at passenger checkpoints in their own tests, and it is not their fault, because of the limitations of technology and the number of inspections they must conduct. This doesn’t count several classes of completely undetectable weapons like composite knives and liquid explosives.

What is TSA’s fault is their abject failure to embrace more robust approaches than high visibility inspections, and their accommodations to the Air Transport Association’s revenue interests at the expense of true security, while largely ignoring the recommendations of the front-line airline crews and air marshals who have no direct revenue agenda and are much more familiar with airline operations than are the bureaucrats (remember government ignoring the front-line FBI agents who tried to warn them about 9/11?). Deplorable amounts of money have been wasted on incomprehensible security strategies, while KISS [Keep It Simple, Stupid] methods proven to work have been ignored.

Aircraft on the ramp are just one example of this.

Immediately after 9/11, the Administration deployed the National Guard to airport checkpoints to reassure the public, though the terrorists’ objective was not the checkpoint, but the aircraft. The Airline Pilots Security Alliance (APSA) called for putting National Guardsmen on airport ramps to monitor anyone around the aircraft, conduct random ID checks, and protect the aircraft from anyone putting suspicious cargo in the holds or cabin. We also called for 100% ground employee security screening, which, while flawed, provided some layer of prevention against minimum wage employees planting illicit weapons on commercial aircraft; we also called for behavioral profiling of passengers at security checkpoints.

None of this was done, and the aircraft on the ramp were “protected” only by vigilant employees who had other, more primary responsibilities. These aircraft were still freely accessible to many other employees who worked on the strength of a background check that said they hadn’t done anything yet.

Today, RON (remaining overnight) aircraft are invariably unattended and unlocked all night. Commercial aircraft typically do not have locks in their doors. They are protected by roving airport police patrols and closed circuit cameras. Neither methodology is very robust. A skeleton crew of employees is also on duty who may see something suspicious, but most have gone home. Jetway doors prevent access from the terminal but the exterior aircraft doors are unlocked to anyone who pushes a stairway up to them.

There have been numerous breaches of airport perimeters (see www.secure-skies.org, How Safe Are You?, Airport Perimeter Security), often by people who weren’t even trying. At least one Al Qaeda sympathizer employed as a catering truck driver was arrested after driving onto airports for months, gathering intelligence.

It is certainly possible for a terrorist to jump the airport fence and walk to the airplanes, particularly at smaller airports, some with low fences and no or few cameras. But the greatest threat to RON aircraft is that anyone with an airport swipe card can get on board unsupervised. This includes third-party catering trucks coming in from outside the perimeter (almost impossible to inspect in any meaningful way), subcontracted cleaning crews, and unskilled ramp employees.

There have been at least three “rings” of employees arrested since 9/11: one for large-scale theft from passengers’ bags, and two for putting illicit guns and drugs onboard aircraft. The only reason these events did not result in a successful terror attack is because the bad guys were thieves and smugglers, not terrorists. If those guns had been planted in the cabin of an aircraft, a terrorist team could have simply cleared security with their fellow passengers the next day, and armed themselves once they were onboard.

This threat is mitigated by the fact that pilots, flight attendants, and ramp agents now routinely inspect the aircraft before flight each day, and this provides a measure of security. But it is not foolproof. Since there is little time to do a thorough inspection prior to passenger boarding, well-concealed weapons can be missed. A Maryland college student successfully planted hidden weapons in the lavatories of four or five Southwest Airlines jets several years ago. He carried them right through the security checkpoint. He was successful every time he tried. And in some cases, the weapons were not discovered for weeks. There is also a strong suspicion that weapons were “pre-planted” on some of the aircraft targeted on 9/11.

From a terrorist’s point of view, the downside of pre-planting weapons is that if they are found, the attack is thwarted literally before the plane gets off the ground, and warning is given to the entire air transport system. But remember: the terrorists are also warned of the find, and do not have to risk compromise — they just stay home. Conversely, if CNN isn’t broadcasting found weapons on airliners, the terrorists would know the operation has a good chance of succeeding, even before they arrive at the airport.

By the way, we constantly have to walk the line between sharing enough information to get fixes implemented, while not sharing so much it compromises our safety even more. Everything I’m writing is easily available to a motivated intelligence-gathering cell. There are other problems I won’t discuss, because the information is not publicly available. That doesn’t mean it’s not real.

What needs to happen across all segments of airline security is a philosophical change from trying to prevent an attack (which doesn’t work in a system this size) to defending against one (which does — a la Flight 93).

Almost six years after 9/11, it is inexcusable that — in an environment where TSA misses more than 90% of weapons, RON aircraft are not secured, and ground employees are not screened — fewer than 2% of our airliners have a team of armed pilots aboard, fewer than 5% have air marshals, and the flight attendants have no mandatory tactical or behavioral assessment training. $24 billion dollars later, we are not materially safer, except in the areas of intelligence that prevent an attack from getting to an airport. Once at the airport, there is little reason to believe the attack won’t succeed.

If these airplanes were appropriately defended, it would matter less who got onboard and with what weapon. We could then redeploy TSA assets to protecting RON aircraft, securing the ramps against suspicious persons, and randomly checking employee ID’s, as well as implement 100% cargo/baggage inspection and government funding for explosive-proof cargo compartments and missile defense.

It has taken six years, but TSA is now finally flirting with behavioral assessment training for screeners and random (but not mandatory) ground employee inspections. The airlines complain screening all ground employees would significantly hinder airline operations. They’re right — it would.

As usual, though, it has taken far too long for even these fixes, and there’s no action on the most meaningful improvements: dramatic expansion of the Federal Flight Deck Officer program, redeployment of air marshals on more specific, instead of random flights, and treating crews as critical assets, instead of as members of the general public, in terms of training and information sharing.

There is no question that we will get airline security right someday. My only question is whether, at this point, we will get it right before the next attack. After 9/11, we were given the gift of time and of awareness. I am very concerned we have squandered the gift of time — and there is little left before we are hit again — and we are losing the gift of awareness, as we truly forget what that morning was like. There is no question in my mind, based on everything I hear in my position, that Al Qaeda is actively, aggressively preparing to target the United States again, and that commandeering an airliner is still the easiest, quickest method of possessing a weapon of mass destruction. I am even more concerned that the next attack could be far worse than 9/11, which, while devastating, would pale in comparison to other available targets.

Recalling World War II, the Japanese didn’t surrender after Hiroshima because they believed there was only one atom bomb. It was only after another bomb hit Nagasaki — after we proved we could do it again — that their country collapsed. Similarly, another successful 9/11 would devastate our country in ways we can’t even imagine — probably much more than the first attack, as we realize they can do it again despite our “best” efforts.

Government and airline management are taking an awful chance in promoting the appearance of security, instead of using, as President Bush promised, “every resource available” in this new world war.

I know I’ve gotten pretty far afield of your topic, but I want to give you the sense that RON aircraft are just one small piece of a multilayered security system wherein every layer leaks like a sieve. The problem is much, much bigger than any single element.

In the end, we should be starting with defending the smallest spaces — the cockpits and cargo compartments, and working outward to the limits of our resources; instead of starting with the airport perimeter and working inward, ignoring the actual defense of those spaces that are actually the terrorist targets. And we should be using the resources already in place to the greatest extent possible, instead of trying to bring new, untried methods into play, then waiting to find out they don’t work nearly as well in reality as they do on paper.

Dave Mackett
President, Airline Pilots Security Alliance
www.secure-skies.org

There are quite a few documents out there that claim to be guides for a virtuous and productive life from the Bible, to the Koran, Paulo Coelho's The Alchemist and, of course, Big Tony Robbins's Unleash the Giant Within.

Recently, however, while watching my all time favourite movie, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, it dawned on me that everything you need to know about life is contained in the 102 minute running time of this '80s classic.

As the school secretary points out, "the sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, waistoids, dweebies, dickheads - they all adore Ferris. They think he's a righteous dude," and I'd have to agree.

Ferris Bueller pretty much embodies everything I believe a man should be: a little dangerous, immensely charming, funny, an optimist, adventurous, challenging, a bit dodgy, curious, subversive, latitudinarian and a dab hand with the sheilas.

Anyway, what follows took far longer to produce than it looks, so please read on and discover the secret to life according to Ferris...

Ferris Bueller's Day Off was released by Paramount Pictures on June 11, 1986 to warm but not rabid reviews and went on to earn US$70,136,369 and just over a million bucks in Australia.

No one could have predicted it was to become the guiding light of cool for an entire generation of young hustlers, but then again, I couldn't predict if I was going to survive the weekend in 1986.

Be positive
The first words in the movie are "it is a beautiful day in Chicago."

Writer and director John Hughes could have gone with snow, wind, rain, or a heatwave but he chose the perfect day. I like it.

Bonus trivia: The opening shot of the Bueller home is actually shot in Long Beach, California. This apparently distressed Hughes somewhat since he wanted the movie to be completely filmed in Chicago, his native town.

I've often pondered why Ferris Bueller's Day Off is such a good film and I reckon it starts with Hughes, a true sponge for popular culture. Despite some of the cheese he's produced later in his career, Hughes managed to write some of the greatest teen films of the '80s including Some Kind of Wonderful (1987), Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986), Pretty in Pink (1986), Weird Science (1985), The Breakfast Club (1985) and Sixteen Candles ((1984). That's a hot streak in anyone's book.

You are smarter than your parents
We all know the premise of the film, right? Ferris Bueller, perennial sickie-taker, throws his ninth of the year and has an awesome day off school. You and I know Ferris is faking it at the beginning of the movie, but his parents buy it in spades mainly because of...

The power of the reverse sell
Ferris has not pulled off his scam until he tries to get out of his sick bed saying, "I have a test today." His parents dutifully push him back into the pillow, assured by his academic vigilance.

This is called the reverse sell and it means stepping back, not being too keen to push your product or services, or sometimes even withdrawing your offer to get the buyer to commit.

Works very well in bars about 9pm on a Friday night.

Bonus trivia: Matthew Broderick wasn't the first choice for the role of Ferris. The part was originally offered to Michael J. Fox, a neat twist since Broderick was apparently the first choice to play Fox's role of Alex P. Keaton on Family Ties. According to Wikipedia, Jim Carrey and Johnny Depp were also considered for Ferris.

Little sisters are brutal
Jeanie Bueller nearly blows Ferris out of the water with her "dry that one out, it could fertilise the lawn" line, going on to say, "if I was bleeding out of my eyes you wouldn't let me stay home from school. This is so unfair."

Sweet baby Jesus, Jeanie, don't you know that...

Life is unfair
Suck it up, freaks. As Ferris says: "Please don't be upset with me, at least you have your health."

Bonus trivia: The opening scene in Ferris's bedroom had two sets of real lovers in real life: The actors playing the mother and father got married after shooting the film, while Broderick was putting away Jennifer Grey. Hey, that rhymed.

The art of clammy hands
I even used this at school myself. As Ferris says: "Fake a stomach cramp and when you're doubled over, moaning and wailing, just lick your palms. It's a little stupid and childish but then so is high school. Right?"

Bonus points: Get a sandwich out of your school bag, chew it up and spit a few mouthfuls into the dunny to show your parent/teacher. Works a charm and they never wanna get close enough to smell the gastric juice.

"Life moves pretty fast...
...if you don't stop to look around once in a while you could miss it."

An absolute mortal lock for line of the movie. Line of your life. Get it in a tattoo and read it in the mirror every time you feel like staying home to watch Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? instead of, umm, experiencing life.

Singing in the shower should be mastered
As should shampoo mohawkes.

Believe in yourself
Says Ferris: "Not that I condone fascism. Or any 'isms'. 'Isms', in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an 'ism'. He should believe in himself."

Slow clap for the second most profound line of the movie.

Have a rich buddy
Like Cameron. They can pay for stuff and usually own cars, boats and holiday houses down the coast and sometimes sport drug addictions you can coat-tail off.

All good if you ask me.

Bonus trivia: Did you know Allan Ruck, who played Cameron, was 29-years-old when he filmed the role? Amazing that he's done so little since, unless you count a role in Spin City as a move-up.

For the record, at the time of filming, Broderick was 23, Jennifer Grey was 25, Mia Sara was just 17, Charlie Sheen was 20 and Kristy Swanson was all but 16 years old.

Swanson, who went on to fame as the orginal Buffy in the film Buffy the Vampire Slayer cracks a small part as Simone Adamley, the eager-beaver classmate of Ferris who informs the economics teacher (played by a poker-faced Ben Stein), that Ferris is crook.

"You're not dying, you just can't think of anything cool to do."
Which relates to about 80 percent of people. No imagination.

There's always someone trying to hold you back in life
Like Edward R. Rooney, Dean of Students. Who's the Mr Rooney in your life?

85 percent of what you learn in school is useless crap
"In 1930 the Republican controlled house of representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of ... class? ... anyone ... anyone ... the Great Depression, passed the ... anyone ... anyone?"

Bonus trivia: Stein, who plays the teacher in this scene, holds a degree in economics, and ad-libbed the bit where he drones on about the the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act.

Never underestimate the power of gossip
So by the time we're 12 minutes into the movie, we've got chicks saying things like, "they said he's like on the verge of death. This guy in my biology class said that if Ferris dies he's giving his eyes to Stevie Wonder."

All I'm saying is make sure you're on the right side of gossip and people aren't talking about you and the gaffer-taped guinea pig.

Younger kids are feeble-minded and can be manipulated
Ferris tricks the freshmen at his school to spread more gossip and build the rumour of his sickness. I like to tell small children I can see through walls and that eating dirt makes you run faster.

Be able to move in all circles
As the school secretary points out, "He's very popular, Ed. The sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, waistoids, dweebies, dickheads - they all adore him. They think he's a righteous dude."

Yeah, I know I already used this quote - but you're still reading aren't ya?

Tell your parents you love them
Ferris does a lot of this. So should you. Your parents are worth it.

Be persistent
Cameron, who is also sick in bed at the start of the film, debates whether or not to go to Ferris's house but he knows he's dealing with a force of nature: "He'll keep calling me, he'll keep calling me until I go over," says Cameron. It's a good reputation to have.

Date hot chicks
Sloane is still smoking, even after all these years.

On an unrelated point, you'd have to admit FBDO was a bit of a career graveyard for the actors involved. No one save Broderick really did anything after it. Mia Sara's not exactly a household name is she?

Back up your bullshit
Sure the whole dummy in bed and snores on the stereo strained credulity but it provides another powerful lesson. If you're gonna play silly buggers, cover your tracks, kiddies.

Pity no-one told Kevin Rudd's brother.

The 1961 Ferrari GT California...
Hot cars do rule. But you know that, don't you?

Says Cameron: "Less than a hundred were made. My father spent three years restoring it. It is joy, it is his love, it is his passion."

"It is his fault he didn't lock the garage", replies Ferris.

Later in the movie Ferris even gives us the hard sell: "I love driving it. It is so choice. If you have the means, I highly recommend picking one up."

I got the bus to the work today. Sad Sam.

God won't save you
Cameron crosses himself when he realises Ferris is taking the Ferrari and we know where that gets him.

Bonus trivia: As Cameron states, less than 100 of the cars were made with no two being the same. They are valued at over US $3 million. However, the car used in the movie was actually a modified MGB.

Extra bonus trivia: According to Save Ferris website, "the Ferrari's personalised license plate was NRVOUS standing for, of course, nervous. Did you know that all of the Bueller cars' license plates were also personalised and referred to other John Hughes films?

"Tom Bueller's license plate reads MMOM referring to Mr Mom. Katie Bueller's reads VCTN referring to National Lampoon's Vacation and Jeanie's license reads TBC which, of course, refers to The Breakfast Club. Ed Rooney's plates read 4FBDO, standing for, For Ferris Bueller's Day Off."

Have a plan
So if you're dating someone as hot as Sloane and she asks you, "what're we gonna do?", you need to have your ducks in a row, or as Ferris says: "The question isn't 'what are we gonna do', the question is 'what aren't we going to do?'"

I'm excited by that prospect and I'm not even a 17-year-old girl.

Bonus trivia: Did you know they made a Ferris Bueller TV show? God, it makes me wanna vomit my heart on whoever thought of this pile of crap. Thankfully it died a painful death but it did star Jennifer Aniston as Jeanie Bueller.
Bet she didn't bring that up at the casting for Friends.

Never trust a bloke who tells you to relax.
Like the garage attendant who takes off in the Ferrari and runs the mileage up on it.

"You fellas have nothing to worry about. I'm a professional", he says.

Didn't Conrad Black say that when he bought into The Sydney Morning Herald?

Expensive snooty restaurants blow
But it's cool when you get handed warm towels in the brasco by the piss-boy.

You can never go too far
"Only the meek get pinched. The bold survive", says Ferris.

Baseball is the greatest game in the world... you just don't know it.
"Ayy batter batter, sa-wing batter."

Bonus trivia: The Wrigley Field scene is shot on location there only because the Chicago Cubs were in town on the day of the shooting; otherwise it would have been shot at the old Comiskey Park, because John Hughes is a White Sox fan (pity they're ten games under .500 this year but they did win the World Series in 2005).

Art is cool
The paintings selected for inclusion in the Art Institute of Chicago scenes were chosen because they were favorites of Hughes, who spent many hours at the Institute while growing up. Included was Edward Hopper's painting Nighthawks which was famously parodied by Gottfried Helnwein in his work Boulevard of Broken Dreams featuring Marilyn Monroe, Humphrey Bogart, James Dean, and Elvis Presley.

Karaoke rocks
And only soft-cocks and bores don't partake of it. If you don't have at least one great karaoke song in your repertoire, you should. Ferris has at least two including 'Danke Schoen' and 'Twist And Shout'.

When your girlfriend screams "get off the float!" [or stage], just make the pistol gesture at her with your fingers and keep singing.

Lucky rabbits' feet work and I don't care what you say
Ferris rubs his in the cab when they're pulled up next to his dad and they don't get sprung. It also leads to the next epiphany...

Your dad probably wants to shag your girlfriend
Creepy but true. Come on, have you seen how Mr Bueller looks at Sloane?

Attitude is everything
When Cameron says of Ferris, "As long as I've known him, everything works for him. There's nothing he can't handle. I can't handle anything. School, parents, the future. Ferris can do anything", you got the whole movie in one.

Ferris handles everything because he tells himself he can. Cameron can't handle anything because he tells himself he can't. Kids should have to watch this movie a hunnie times before Year 8, I'm telling you.

Musical interludes sometimes just work.
And the 'Twist and Shout' one in FBDO is one of the best.

Highlights include the gyrating construction worker and the shimmying window cleaner; the all-black dance team who come down the stairs, the identical triplet dudes with beards (wearing suits), the black guy who looks like he's having a fit when he's dancing, the chick who somersaults above the crowd, the little kid who covers his ears, Ferris' dad dancing in his office and the look Sloane gives Ferris while he's singing, like she wants to lick him everywhere that matters. Just gold.

The only other musical interlude that comes close in recent years for my money is the 'I Say a Little Prayer' rendition in My Best Friend's Wedding led by Rupert Everett. Advances the plot, gives you character information, is damn funny and you can't get it out of your head. I may be gay.

"Anyone who would nail me wouldn't go to a parade."
So says Ferris. Still trying to work out what this line means, 21 years later.

Parking inspectors suck
Even if they're ticketing Mr Rooney's car.

You gotta have friends
What can you say about buddies who'd send a singing nurse over to your house who recites: "I heard that you were feeling ill, headache, fever and a chill, I came to help restore your pluck because I'm the nurse that likes to..."

Don't marry the first woman you sleep with
Says Ferris: "Cameron's never been in love. At least no one's ever been in love with him. He's gonna marry the first girl he lays. And she's gonna treat him like shit because he's gonna kiss her ass for giving him what he's built-up in his mind as the end-all, be-all of human existance."

You all know my thoughts on promiscuity. Let's just say that having a few different shags before you commit to the one person for the rest of your life can save you some heartache. And cause some heartache. Damn, now I'm confused.

"You can't respect somebody who kisses your arse."
Translated from the American, as stated by Broderick: "She won't respect him (Cameron)because you can't respect someone who kisses your ass. It just doesn't work."

Tell me about it.

Bad boys do pull more roots
Charlie Sheen's character in the police station is a template for every bloke you should be scared of, if he's interested in your girlfriend. These guys are like crack cocaine for women; they know he's the worst thing possible for them, but the still pick up the pipe and pucker.

"Your problem is you"
When Sheen's character goes on to tell Jeanie Bueller, "you oughta spend a little more time dealing with yourself and a little less time worrying about what your brother does," he could be speaking for the planet. Third best line in the movie.

Bonus triva: FBDO won no major awards. Matthew Broderick did receive a 1987 Golden Globe nomination for Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture (Comedy/Musical). Guess who beat him? Paul Hogan for Crocodile Dundee.

Don't be scared
When Cameron sees the mileage has been run up on his dad's car, he goes into a 'coma', which then leads to the big emotional journey of the film.

After he 'wakes', he says he'd been meditating; "I sort of watched myself from inside. I realised it was ridiculous being afraid, worrying about everything, wishing I was dead, all that shit. I'm tired of it. This is best day of my life."

You said it brother.

You can't wind a speedometer back by going in reverse
Derr.

Sometimes you gotta take a stand
Cameron gets some beautiful lines in this movie. When he realises the speedo can't be wound back, it has a huge impact and reverberates through his whole attitude.

"I gotta take a stand. I am not going to sit on my arse as the events that effect me unfold to determine the course of my life."

And then proceeds to kick the shit out of his dad's car. An incredibly violent and moving scene, even all these years later.

Women love drama
When the Ferrari goes backwards out the window of the Frye garage, Ferris looks horrified. Sloane? She smiles.

"You killed the car"
Another great line, and it leads to Ferris offering to take the heat for Cameron. I've got a few friends who'd do this for me as well. That's why they're my friends. That's why I'd do the same for them. I'm tearing-up as I type. Really.

"It's gonna be good"
"When Morris comes homes we're gonna have a little chat," says Cameron. He's passed through the fire and is going to confront his father and it's gonna be good. He's made the decision that it's going to be that way and you believe him.

"For the first time in his life he's gonna be just fine," says Ferris to Sloane. Ferris sees it. We all see it. And if you've seen this film enough times you realise this, Ferris Bueller's Day Off is actually Cameron's story. It should be called Cameron's Frye's Transformation but that wouldn't be as snappy.

Cameron is all of us who need to step up and take charge of our lives, who sit on our arses as the events that affect us unfold to determine the course of our lives.

And you thought you wouldn't read anything cool in today's blog? Shame on you.

There's always time to talk to women
Perhaps my favorite moment in the film is when Ferris is running home and takes a moment to stop and introduce himself to two girls sunning themselves in bikinis (even though it's 6pm).

This, and other timing problems are discussed more fully in the The Ferris Bueller Timeline Problem , if you have the time to read it.

"You knew what you were doing when you woke up this morning"
Says Sloane of Ferris.

Do you? Or are you just floating downstream like a dead giraffe in Rwanda?

"Can you imagine someone sick as Ferris trying to walk home from hospital?"
On ya Jeanie. She finally comes full circle as well and helps Ferris deal with Mr Rooney.

So many people spend their life feeling jealous of friends and relatives, rather than grooving on their achievements and getting in on the fun. It's fun to be interested in other people's lives. Give it try. Just don't look in their bedroom window during sex.

"How'd you get to be so sweet?"
Asks Ferris's mum.

"Years of practice", he replies.

If you haven't been practising, it's not too late to start.

"Yep, I said it before, I'll say it again...
...life moves pretty fast... you don't stop to look around once and while, you could miss it."

Interestingly, in the shooting script dated, July 24, 1985, this is the final line in the movie, spoken by Ferris: "Yeah, life is a carousel. A great big crazy ball of pure living, breathing joy and delight. You gotta get one."

But the message is the same; suck the juice from the seconds people. You only get one life.

"You're still here?"
When you watch all the way through the credits, Broderick appears in his bathrobe, incredulous the viewer is still hanging about: "It's over. Go", he says.

And so should you.

Want an iPhone? Of course you do. It looks sexy, it's innovative, and--for a while at least--it'll be the ultimate status symbol. But in the fog of iPhone hype, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that the latest Apple sensation will still have its share of disadvantages. We don't have the king of gadgets in our mitts yet, but judging from the information that has already been released, clearly some folks could have problems with the iPhone. So before you dump your current cell phone, consider these issues.

Data that crawls: When AT&T's EDGE network debuted in 2005, it seemed zippy indeed, delivering data at up to 100 kilobits per second. But that was then. Today, with true 3G technologies delivering data at up to several hundred kbps, Apple's decision not to support AT&T's UMTS-HSDPA 3G network seems short-sighted--especially given the iPhone's investment in cool new Web browsing technology that doesn't suffer from the compromises of a mobile browser. In our limited hands-on tests a few months ago, downloading the New York Times' front page via EDGE took quite a few seconds. AT&T has tacitly acknowledged this potential problem by announcing upgrades to its EDGE network in anticipation of the iPhone launch. And of course, the iPhone will support Wi-Fi, which will make Web page downloads much more feasible if you're in range of a hotspot.

Limited third-party apps: Lots of cell phone power users get more value out of the applications they've loaded on their handsets themselves than the often lame or expensive offerings from their carriers. When the iPhone was first announced, third-party apps seemed shut out entirely, a move that prompted one online petition of protest. Now Apple says that developers can create iPhone apps that run in Safari. Only two problems with that: First, those apps may be fairly poky given the iPhone's slower EDGE network connection. Second, many developers seem to hate writing for Safari. As PC World forums member dazeddan said, "As a developer, we have more problems designing around Safari than any other platform. I wish it would just go away."
Where are the keys? The iPhone's software keyboard, with its on-screen key images, may work fine with Steve Jobs's single-finger hunt-and-peck approach, but it could prove problematic for those folks who have honed their thumb-typing skills on BlackBerry units, Treos, Motorola Q handsets, or other PDA phones with physical QWERTY keyboards. Things did not go well for one PC World editor when she tried typing on a prototype iPhone in January; even the best predictive text entry software would have been stymied by the string of incorrect characters. Plus, what happens when the on-screen keyboard covers up the very e-mail text you're trying to respond to?

It costs how much?! You've probably already heard about the iPhone's astronomical price: $500 for a 4GB model and $600 for 8GB. But you may not have calculated all the other costs associated with buying one. You'll have to make a two-year commitment to AT&T at a per-month cost that starts at $60, recent reports say (though that includes unlimited data access, something AT&T often charges $40 for on smart phones). And unlike with pretty much every other phone in the world, making that commitment doesn't knock down the price, it's just a requirement. Plus, if you're in the midst of a prior two-year commitment with a competing carrier, your cost of iPhone ownership could be further inflated by the early termination penalty you'll pay your current carrier. And finally, AT&T doesn't always receive high marks for its service. You may be okay with the deal now, but how will you feel in a year if the iPhone is no longer the coolest handset on the planet?

Businesspeople need not apply: It's a safe bet that many professionals will want an iPhone. But BlackBerry, Windows Mobile, Palm, and Symbian smart phones offer a long list of business-related features that the iPhone apparently won't, at least upon release. For instance, while the iPhone apparently will connect with Exchange servers, it will require some security trade-offs that could make your IT department nervous. There's no word on connecting to Domino servers. And though you can open Word and Excel files on the iPhone, you can't edit them.

Want an iPhone? Of course you do. It looks sexy, it's innovative, and--for a while at least--it'll be the ultimate status symbol. But in the fog of iPhone hype, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that the latest Apple sensation will still have its share of disadvantages. We don't have the king of gadgets in our mitts yet, but judging from the information that has already been released, clearly some folks could have problems with the iPhone. So before you dump your current cell phone, consider these issues.

Unplugged Web plug-ins: The iPhone's Safari may turn out to be the most desktop-like browser ever to appear on a phone. But it won't offer the full complement of plug-ins, players, and other enhancements that today's sites require. And an iPhone without Java, Windows Media, Real, and Flash Video support will fall short of delivering an uncompromised Web experience. (Even its much-touted YouTube capability won't let you watch the full catalog of YouTube videos, at least initially.)

The battery life question: Apple says that the iPhone's battery will survive up to 8 hours of talk time, up to 250 hours of idle time, up to 6 hours of Internet use, up to 7 hours of video playback, and up to 24 hours of audio playback. And to explain how it came up with these numbers, the company has posted a list of footnotes and disclaimers that rivals the rules you find on a "free trip to Hawaii" sweepstakes form. We won't know the reality until we're holding the iPhone in our trembling, multitouching fingers. Apple's spec page says that the 8 hours of talk time was achieved when "the Wi-Fi feature Ask to Join Networks was turned off." So how disabled was the Wi-Fi when talk time was tested? Apple also doesn't make clear what combination of 802.11b/g Wi-Fi and EDGE was employed to achieve the 7 hours of Internet use. Macs have pretty good power management settings. What will the iPhone offer? Until more is known, be prepared to carry around the phone charger.

Off-limits battery: While we're on the subject of the battery, it's worth noting that, like the original iPod, the iPhone has its battery enclosed in a superslim case among tightly negotiated electronics and behind a top surface of glass--reducing the chances of a DIY battery replacement to next to nil. (Plus, we suspect that attempting a replacement voids the warranty.) So if your battery life dwindles to roughly 6.5 minutes per charge, or the battery malfunctions, you'll have to send your iPhone in for repair.

Finally, a few other issues that probably aren't deal-breakers but are still worth considering:

It's a thief magnet: Everybody wants an iPhone, including people who aren't above stealing yours.

Multismudge screen: You can use all five fingers on the screen at once? Better wash your hands first.

OMG no IM: Inveterate chatters won't be so :) about being limited to SMS.

Melissa Ethridge's wife wrote Larry this letter after he bumped Michael Moore off the show iin favour of Paris Hilton:

“Dear Larry,

There are not many people who are blessed to have a position such as the one in which you find yourself today. I knew your name from years ago. I knew that if someone was on Larry’s show, it was a big deal. That guest would be smart, contributive, and poignant. I would walk away from your interviews, Larry, feeling as if I’d just been let in on a secret dinner conversation. I used to find your questions imaginative, original, and somewhat interesting and clever. Your suspenders, with matching ties… really, that is such a cute idea. It spells class all the way.
Your show used to have movers and shakers on it. Your show was once significant to the American society, as your show was not only entertaining, but educational and provokative as well. What a legacy you had going, Larry! Unheard of! Unprecedented! CNN! YOU! THE FIRST! GOOO LARRY!

Is it true you bumped Michael Moore from your show to interview a celebrity famous for her porn and drunk driving? Really? Remember Michael Moore? He made Farenheit 911? Changed how we Americans viewed the war? Perhaps your manorexia has caused your brain to eat itself, and you don’t recall. Or, maybe, CNN is owned by some neo-cons, and the decision wasn’t really up to you, it was up to the people who own CNN? Either way, Larry, I am sure you are hitting yourself. I know, I can’t imagine if I had to be you and sit there across fom some poptart who’s labia has seen more sunshine than Cheney’s drunk chrome on a hunting afternoon. I can’t imagine what you will have to tell yourself as you prep for that interview in the makeup chair. Just remember, Larry, as history is written, there will be proof spilled everywhere, like ink. The truth will berry-stain: impossible to forget stain… And you know what? I am going to look back at this time, a time when real journalists could have saved us all some grief by reporting truth instead of soaps, and I will laugh and say “Remember how Larry King dumped Michael Moore for Paris Hilton?”

Or maybe I won’t. I’ll probably have forgotten about you, Larry, and your gossip show. You just became forgettable.

Have a good interview, Larry. I’m off to see SICKO, and try to see about changing this world, not my ratings.

Sincerely,
Hollywood Farmgirl”

A new study says that on average, more than half of the ink from inkjet cartridges is wasted when users toss them in the garbage. Why is that interesting? According to the study, users are tossing the cartridges when their printers are telling them they're out of ink, not when they necessarily are out of ink.
The study by TÜV Rheinland looked at inkjet efficiency across multiple brands, including Epson (who commissioned the study), Lexmark, Canon, HP, Kodak, and Brother. They studied the efficiency of both single and multi-ink cartridges. Espon's printers were among the highest rated, at more than 80 percent efficiency using single-ink cartridges. Kodak's Easyhare 5300 was panned as the worst printer tested, wasting 64 percent of its ink in tests. TÜV Rheinland measured cartridge weights before and after use, stopping use when printers reported that they were out of ink.
That's the first problem. Printers routinely report that they are low on ink even when they aren't, and in some cases there are still hundreds of pages worth of ink left.
The second issue is a familiar one: multi-ink cartridges can be rendered "empty" when only one color runs low. Multi-ink cartridges store three to five colors in a single cartridge. Printing too many photos from the air show will kill your cartridge faster than you can say "blue skies," as dominant colors (say, "blue") are used faster than the others. Therein lies the reason Epson backed the study: the company is singing the praises of its single-ink cartridge approach, an approach which is necessarily more efficient in terms of wasted ink because there's only one color per cartridge, and thus only one cartridge to replace when that color runs out.
Single ink cartridges aren't exactly perfect, however. Such cartridges still were reported as empty with an average of 20 percent of their ink left, which means that an entire cartridge worth of ink is wasted for every five which are used. Given the sky-high prices of ink, this is an alarming find. Epson's own R360 posted the best numbers, with only 9 percent wasted. Yet again, Epson commissioned the tests, so we must ask what's missing.
The study did not measure how much ink is lost due to lack of use, or through cleaning processes. Inkjet cartridges are known to suffer from quality problems if they are not used for long periods of time, sometimes "drying up." This problem has been addressed in recent years, but it has not been eliminated.
The study also did not calculate the total cost per page, which arguably is more important than efficiency. If Epson's multicartridge approach is more efficient, it could nonetheless still be more expensive per page than multi-ink cartridge systems. In its defense, Epson and TÜV Rheinland said that their study focused on the ecological impact of inkjet printing. This is a familiar argument: hybrid cars have also been criticized for their supposed efficiency, with debates raging as to whether or not your average driver will ever see cost savings from better miles-per-gallon given the relative expensive of hybrid engines.
As such, anyone in the market for an inkjet printer still needs to compare specific models to one another to get a feel for efficiency, and Epson's efficiency claims needs to be weighed next to the comparative cost of competing inkjet solutions.Still, the unintended result of this study is that regardless of the battle between single- and multi-ink cartridges, inkjet printers themselves are significantly off the mark when it comes to reporting the fullness of their cartridges. As the Eagles would say, you're best off when you "take it, to the limit." (Or with a laser printer, one can always do the toner cartridge cha-cha.)

Friday, June 8, 07

It has been seven long years since we first celebrated the wicked New Years Eve that began the coming of the new millennium. Seven years, six months, and eight to be exact. For one to say things have changed is a rather erroneous understatement.

America was a prosperous nation, for the most part at peace with the rest of the world. Sure, we had our problems, but in hindsight, those seem pretty petty to the adversities we now face. There was promise. Our future actually looked somewhat bright. It seemed as though, looking from a distance, that the world might actually turn out to be a better place after our first decade in double oughts were up. What a viscous mirage that turned out to be.

It is six years later and all that hope is gone, flushed down the toilet along with the good image that America once enjoyed like an unwanted piece of bacon fat by the wild eyed Texan and his diversified cabinet of falsified do-gooders that we elected to look after our best interests. No longer will any of us in this lifetime awaken to a calm world at peace. It seems somewhat more likely now that one day we will wake up to a nuclear winter.

Long gone are the days of Bill Clinton and his hilarious sexual escapades. They have been replaced by trigger happy vice presidents and made up weapons of mass destruction. The dreaded New Vietnam in the deserts of the Middle East has arrived with all the splendor and destruction of a sandstorm filled with rose thorns and shot nails. It all happened almost too quietly to notice.

Not to be outdone, nature has reared her powerful head over and over again. From the tsunami in Asia, the seemingly constant stream of earthquakes, and the ever popular Katrina, we have been shown time and time again that no matter how technologically advanced we may think we are, we are all still nothing more than the mere playthings of this Earths great elements.

It is time to wake up, fellow planet dwellers. It is time to realize that America, indeed, the entire world, will never be the same again. The utopia that was within our grasp those few short years ago is gone forever, lost in another timeline somewhere deep in an alternate dimension that does not include guys like George Bush and Osama Bin Laden. It was almost close enough to wave goodbye as those towers fell that ominous day in September nearly six years ago.

For some reason, it just doesnt seem right to blame ourselves. Sure, we may all have different political views, but we are not the ones who did this. It was all brought upon us by a small group of overly powerful fools. No matter which side of the conservative/liberal chalk line you may fall on, there is no denying the fact that we have somehow sailed up the proverbial shit creek. This time, instead of being without paddles, we gave them to someone else to guide us with. Now we are five minutes away from the waterfall and we can either watch the tree line complacently while we fall over the edge or we can throw the asshole with the oars out of the boat and row like hell away from the rocks.

Keep those metaphorical oars handy. One day soon we may have to brain the captain, and it will take all of us rowing at once to get ourselves out of this mess. What else is new....

Washington Post reports:
Poland's conservative government took its drive to curb what it sees as homosexual propaganda to the small screen on Monday, taking aim at Tinky Winky and the other Teletubbies. Ewa Sowinska, government-appointed children rights watchdog, told a local magazine published on Monday, May 28th 2007, she was concerned the popular BBC children's show promoted homosexuality. She said she would ask psychologists to advise if this was the case.

Poland's rightist government has upset human rights groups and drawn criticism within the European Union by apparent discrimination against homosexuals. Polish Education Minister Roman Giertych has proposed laws sacking teachers who promote "homosexual lifestyle" and banning "homo-agitation" in schools.

But in a sign that the government wants to distance itself from Sowinska's comments, Parliamentary Speaker Ludwig Dorn said he had warned her against making public comments "that may turn her department into a laughing stock."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I' heard it all. I thought. Some overpaid psychologists analysing the Teletubbies for homosexual undertones? On a hearsay of some Polish watchdogg idiot? Puppets are not male or female. They are neither. These programmes are aimed at kids aged up to 3 years old who can barely talk in constructed sentences, nevermind sitting watching Teletubbies and thinking 'Mom, I could swear Tinky Winky is a homosexual.'

Its just ludicrous. This is the nanny state gone completely out its mind.

Quick, what does the following list suggest to you:
Lamaze classes;
baby showers;
“parenting skills”;
preschool anxiety all the way up to college;
transitional phases;
timeouts;
chronic credit-card debt;
the indiscriminate wearing of athletic garb;
political correctness;
anti-political correctness;
midlife crises;
couples therapy;
divorce mediation;
Botox;
dermatological fillers;
cosmetic surgery;
the new-and-improved menopause;
wearing sunglasses in winter even though you’re not famous;
comb-overs;
an obsession with the daily lives of the celebrated and merely notorious;
real estate as a means to an end;
a debilitating reliance on takeout dinners;
a preference for esoteric coffee beans;
an aversion to butter;
an uneasy feeling of identification with Bob Dylan;
a denial of death;
cilantro, cilantro, cilantro;
framing every photograph you’ve ever taken;
the belief that your dog/cat is you;
an excessively personalized vision of retirement;
older single mothers;
grandfatherly second-time fathers;
a fear that you’ve become your mother or father;
a free-floating feeling of grievance that you’ve failed to make obscene amounts of money as a hedge-fund manager;
a gut instinct that immortality might be just around the next technological bend.

If you still haven’t figured out that I’m talking about the so-called baby-boomer generation, you might consider the possibility that the reason you are having difficulty making out the fine print of any given subtext is because you need reading glasses.

Once upon a complacent time we may have thought that we were, to quote John Lennon, clever and classless and free. Nowadays, I wager that many of us have come to realize that we are stuck in the muck and mire of habit and convention. We have become chips off the old block, carrying around our parents’ voices in our heads even as we swat away their child-rearing beliefs, conservative spending habits and stoic acceptance of mortality. Behind all this busy reinvention of the wheel of life, of course, sheer dread lies in wait: the fear that we’re fast gaining upon that demarcation line where you stop being young and you start being something else entirely, someone belonging to a different order of nomenclature. (It might well be that the Sturm und Drang of middle age comes down to nothing more significant than a problem of taxonomy.) Heck, if we knew we were going to grow older this quickly, we would have frozen our youth like a carton of ice cream to be savored at a later date.

What generations before us were spared is the relatively recent invention of middle age as a sustained mentality — one predicated on an awareness of its own growing remove from that elusive property known as hipness. Indeed, the enshrinement of hipness as a long-term attitude — the idea that first you’re cool and then you’re uncool and then you die — is probably the worst legacy of the culture of the 60s. The result, the evidence of which is all around us, is a collective failure to maintain our generational integrity. Our lives are characterized by a sophomoric vicariousness: we behave as though our children’s triumphs and disappointments were our own and, facilitated by an increasingly euphemistic attitude toward extinction (now coyly referred to as “passing”), as if our deaths belonged to someone else entirely. They are not, we hurry to reassure ourselves, “ominous and intimately” our own, as John Updike, that connoisseur of waning potential, observed in “Rabbit at Rest.”

We are a strange bunch, we who belong to the New Middle Ages, half intractably cynical and half hopelessly expectant. Many of us, that is, believed we could put in for one order of rose garden, with a schmear on the side. We came of age convinced that life — far from being the vale of tears that people who lived in the Old Middle Ages conceived it to be — was supposed to make us happy in some ineffable but all the same transporting way. I remember many years ago, when I was a very unhappy young woman and had relayed my tale of what I perceived to be overweening early damage (this was before the rise of the ubiquitous dysfunctional family) to a dispassionate and renowned family therapist, he leaned forward in his chair and asked me, “Who gave you your expectations?”

At the time I was more than a bit miffed. Where was his famous therapeutic empathy? Or ordinary human understanding, for that matter? These days, however, I tend to see things more from his viewpoint. Which is to say that while I don’t whistle as I work, I do try to lead a productive life in my own inevitably hobbled way. For one thing, reality has hit me in the eyebrows, where I first started going gray some years ago and where I keep going grayer, underneath renewed coatings of eyebrow tint. For another, both my parents are dead now, which makes me an adult orphan. (Although there must be a statute of limitations on how old you can be and still reasonably consider yourself an orphan.) If there is no way out of it, there are ploys around it. The poet Philip Larkin, for instance, deftly avoided the encroachments of middle age — “This loss of interest, hair and enterprise,” as he characterized it in “Continuing to Live” — by insisting that he had never been youthful in the first place. In the poem “On Being Twenty-Six,” Larkin was already envisioning the dismal and definitive endpoint: “Talent, felicity —/these things withdraw,/And are succeeded by a dingier crop/That come to stop.”

But even Larkin was stumped by the reality of living in time: “Where can we live but days?” Where indeed. Fueled by an increasing fear and demonization of Old Age, ours is a generation bred on the notion of doing it our way, right up to our method of retirement. Given this curious and entitled perspective, middle age becomes a life raft that we can’t afford to fall off — because once we do, we’re going down, down into those depths for which there are no transitional phases or, God knows, “feeder” schools.

Hold on, now. Being young was never as great as it’s made out to be and being middle-aged is not as bad as all that. Take a deep breath. With a modicum of luck, there’s lots up ahead to hold your interest. There’s still time enough to soften your views and limber up your affections, still time to take chances. Still time, you never know, to undo having become exactly what you did not want to be. Bruce Springsteen, one of the very few rock stars to age gracefully, sums up our plight in his anthemic “Thunder Road”: “So you’re scared and you’re thinking/That maybe we ain’t that young anymore.” And then, being Springsteen, he immediately offers us a way out. “Show a little faith, there’s magic in the night.”

The London 2012 Olympics won't use security technology unless it's being provided by a major sponsor of the event. No matter how much safety your product would contribute to Londoners, there's no chance of it being used unless your company bribes the International Olympic Committee.

Giving an otherwise rather dull and predictable keynote speech at Infosecurity Europe about the IT security demands of running the London Olympics, Derek Wyatt MP has let it slip that UK Government hands are tied when it comes to security technology. He also made it clear that he has no idea where the security threat will come from stating “who are the enemy? I wish I knew” and “don’t ever underestimate the intelligence of the opposition, whoever that is.” But the biggest concern I have over the ramblings of the Right Honourable gentleman came when he started talking about the problems faced in identity management and authentication not only during the event but in the run up to it, with the construction of the venue. Wyatt sound quite upbeat about the possibility of using the London ‘Oyster’ card, used for public transport travel, which could be upgraded fairly easily to incorporate biometric data and turned into a mini-ID card. He also sounded quite impressed with the idea of using the Nokia based authentication system for mobile phones. Upbeat and impressed, and then he dropped the bombshell, which I hope will not be a bad choice of words for the future, when he casually revealed that because neither of these companies was a ‘major sponsor’ of the Olympics their technology could not be used.

Yes, you read that right, as far as the technology behind the security of the London Olympic Games is concerned best of breed and suitability for purpose do not come into, paying a large amount of money to the International Olympic Committee does.

So who has bought their way into being the security experts of choice, and with whom our security and that of the visiting millions will rest? Visa. Oh whoopy-doo, I admit to feeling much more reassured now, after all these are the same people who do not suffer from any problems with identity and authentication and fraud and crime on a huge scale within their own business sector after all. Not.

And in case you are wondering why anyone should get wound up by the ramblings of some MP you have never heard of, the fact that he was speaking in his official capacity as Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Olympic Group might just grab your attention as it did mine.

Even when questioned by a member of the British Computer Society Security Group who was as shocked as I, and expressed total disbelief that potentially far better technologies were to be overlooked simply because a sponsor had to be used, Wyatt gave a half-hearted shrug of the shoulders response along the lines of it is out of our hands.

Personally I find it beyond contempt that security decisions that will impact upon the whole country, and the billions watching around the world, come down to a money making opportunity for a sponsor rather than being a Government controlled process. Wyatt readily admits it is nothing to do with him, his committee or indeed the Government as the deals arrangements are between the IOC and their sponsors. He also readily admits he doesn’t see why the UK should have to foot the £1billion cost of security in that case.

But again, he misses the point. Security in this case should not be about money, or who foots the bill, but about preventing lives from being lost and terror winning a gold medal on the world stage.

Visa have, as of yet, to reveal what plans it has for the games…

I know. I know. I told myself that I would not. But I didnt have a choice - I was tired, sleepy and there was nothing else around.

Is there anyone who goes into Starbucks and wants to talk to people behind the counter?

Let me explain

So I am in glasgow. I am feeling miserable, tired and sleepy. Why the hell are employees in starbucks being overly nice to everyone who walks in? Who in their right mind walks into Starbucks in the afternoon for that cheerful pick me up from behind the counter? Shut up and give me my coffee! I dont want you to make small talk with me! I just want the shot of java! Shut up! I dont want you to ask me how my day is! Would it be a good day if I am in Starbucks at 2.15 in the afternoon?

An another thing - when I ask for a grande mocha, why do I get half a cup? Did I miss a memo saying that a grande one means fill it up as you feel like? I only noticed it when I took a first sip. I got back to the counter and told them. They filled it up again, but why do I have to ask? Its not like its busy - I am the only one at the counter!

I am just bitching. Sorry.

Mooninites coming to Hub: Theaters ‘toon’ out Tom’s plea
By Tenley Woodman
Boston Herald Features Reporter
Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Score one for the Mooninites.
The “Aqua Teen Hunger Force” movie behind January’s marketing-stunt-turned-bomb-scare opens in Boston Friday (the 13th, no less) despite Mayor Thomas M. Menino’s plea to local theaters not to screen it “out of respect to the people of Boston.”
No such luck. “Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters” opens Friday on two screens: AMC Boston Common and Kendall Square Cinema in Cambridge. Elizabeth Wolfe, vice president of publicity for First Look Pictures, said the film’s distributor had no trouble getting Boston theaters to show it.

As of press time, the mayor’s office had no comment.
Boston came to a near standstill Jan. 31 when more than three dozen battery-powered light boards, some with dangling wires, were discovered around the city. Public safety officials launched an all-out terror response, only to discover the boards depicted the cartoon character Mooninite from “ATHF,” a cult-hit series on Cartoon Network.
The two men who posted the boards still face felony hoax charges; Cartoon Network’s parent company, Turner Broadcasting, and its marketing firm agreed to pay $2 million in restitution to city and state agencies that responded to the terror alert.
With the movie opening looming, the official response from those agencies - including the Massachusetts State Police, Boston Police Department and the attorney general’s office - was “no comment.”
Some pop-culture observers think that’s the most effective tactic.
“I think the worst thing the mayor can do it at this point is to give it legs that it doesn’t already have,” said Doug Quintal, undergraduate program director and executive in residence for the department of marketing communication at Emerson College. “If it was banned in Boston it would get bigger numbers nationally because it would be front-page news.”
January’s brouhaha may spark greater turnout from the film’s target audience, said Sasha Norkin, professor of broadcast journalism at Boston University’s College of Communication.
“I think too much was made of it and Turner stepped up and paid their end of it,” said “Aqua Teen Hunger Force” fan Jeff Burns, 28, of Brighton. “I’m going to go see it anyways.”

So we've all heard about the FBI's misuse of national security letters.
The Justice Department's inspector general came out with a report on
March 9 describing "serious misuse" of the letters, which are secret
subpoena-like documents that can be sent to businesses including banks,
telephone companies, and ISPs:
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0703b/final.pdf

I wrote about the inspector general's report here:
http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6166015.html

And in fact the inspector general, Glenn Fine, is going to be testifying
about them in the Senate on Wednesday at 10am ET:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2616

Fine showed up before a House committee on Tuesday and faced a hostile
audience -- not that the FBI's illegal acts are his fault, mind you, but
Bush administration officials seem oddly reluctant to testify in public
under oath nowadays:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/20/AR2007032000921.html

The odd thing is that everyone, or nearly everyone, seems to think this
is entirely unexpected. In fact, it's a natural consequence of giving
the federal government more and more power over the years (national
security letters were made much more powerful by the Patriot Act).
Incentives matter, and the FBI has plenty of incentives to expand its
power and surveillance ability and precious few incentives to preserve
Americans' constitutional liberties.

To give credit to EPIC, they realized this and sent a letter to the
Senate in June 2006 asking for more oversight:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/surveillance/sen_iob_letter.pdf

So have libertarian writers, who for years have called national security
letters "the ultimate constitutional farce," which is about right. The
letters represent FBI agents _authorizing themselves_ to seize
information without bothering to get a judge's approval, after all:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/napolitano2.html

Occasionally other evidence about illegal FBI eavesdropping comes to
light, which is what I described in an article published two days before
the DOJ's report:
http://news.com.com/2100-1039_3-6165067.html

That article outlines how FBI agent Scott Wenther submitted a 42-page
sworn affidavit that was intentionally designed to mislead the court
into approving what a judge called an "illegal" wiretap. I've put the
some of the court documents here:
http://politechbot.com/docs/fbi.agent.scott.wenther.affidavit.030607.txt
http://politechbot.com/docs/fbi.wenther.opinion.030607.pdf
http://politechbot.com/docs/fbi.wenther.defendant.brief.030607.pdf

This is of course the same federal police agency that is using our tax
dollars to lobby Congress to mandate data retention, which should make
us think twice about how _that_ nice part of the surveillance apparatus
will be used and misused:
http://www.politechbot.com/2007/01/24/not-just-isps/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2026580,00.html

My new mobile is lumbered with a bewildering array of unnecessary features aimed at idiots

Charlie Brooker
Monday March 5, 2007
The Guardian

It is astounding how quickly you get used to technological change. For instance, within the space of 18 months, I have gone from regarding wireless broadband as an outlandish novelty to considering it my God-given right. Cables appal me - they belong to the stone age - alongside electric typewriters, fax machines, video recorders, pagers and the plough. But there is one device I just can't get comfortable with - my mobile phone. I'm not some medieval yeoman, infuriated by mobiles full stop. Just this particular model.

The trouble started the afternoon someone from Orange rang me up to say, "Hey, valued customer - do you want a free phone?" At first I wasn't interested, but he went on and on about how popular and great the Samsung E900 was, then promised me free texts at weekends for life if I said yes. So I gave in.
The phone arrived the next day and immediately began elbowing me in the ribs. It seems to have been designed specifically to irritate anyone with a mind. It starts gently - a pinch of annoyance here, an inconvenience there - but before long the steady drip, drip, drip of minor frustrations begins to affect your quality of life, like a mouth ulcer, or a stone in your boot, or the lingering memory of love gone sour.

The menu system is a confusing mangle of branching dead ends. It has touch-sensitive buttons that either refuse to work, or leap into action if you breathe on them. One such button also terminates calls, so it is easy to cut people off merely by holding the phone against your ear to hear them. It has no apparent "silent" mode, and when you set it to vibrate, it buzzes like a hornet in a matchbox.

It is lumbered with a bewildering array of unnecessary "features" aimed at idiots, including a mode that scans each text message and turns some of the words into tiny ani- mations, so if someone texts to say they have just run over your child in their car, the word "car" is replaced by a wacky cartoon vehicle putt-putting onto the screen. There is also a crap built-in game in which you play a rabbit ("Step into the role of Bobby Carrot - the new star of cute, mind-cracking carrot action!").

When you dial a number, you have a choice of seeing said number in a gigantic, ghastly typeface, or watching it moronically scribbled on parchment by an animated quill. I can't find an option to see it in small, uniform numbers. The whole thing is the visual equivalent of a moronic clip-art jumble sale poster designed in the dark by a myopic divorcee experiencing a freak biorhythmic high. Worst of all, it seems to have an unmarked omnipresent shortcut to Orange's internet service, which means that whether you are confused by the menu, or the typeface, or the user- confounding buttons, you are never more than one click away from accidentally plunging into an overpriced galaxy of idiocy, which, rather than politely restricting itself to news headlines and train timetables, thunders "BUFF OR ROUGH? GET VOTING!" and starts hurling cameraphone snaps of "babes and hunks" in their underwear at you, presumably because some pin-brained coven of marketing gonks discovered the average Orange internet user was teenage and incredibly stupid, so they set about mercilessly tailoring all their "content" toward priapic halfwits, thereby assuring no one outside this slim demographic will ever use their gaudy, insulting service ever again. And then they probably reached across the table and high-fived each other for skilfully delivering "targeted content" or something, even though what they should really have done, if there was any justice in the world, is smash the desk to pieces, select the longest wooden splinters they could find, then drive them firmly into their imbecilic, atrophied, world-wrecking rodent brains.

Anyway, over the past week, I've bumped into other people scowling at the same poxy phone as me. And in each case, the story is the same: Orange rang up and offered them one for nothing. It's spreading like a sinister virus, putting me in mind of the meteor storm at the start of Day of the Triffids - a seemingly innocent event that rapidly cripples humankind. My theory: the government is offloading these twittering handheld crapstones on to as many people as possible in a bid to whip us all into a state of perpetual, simmering anger in readiness for some kind of bare-knuckle street war. Don't say I didn't warn you.

IgnopediA

Continuing our uniquely unreliable interactive knowledge resource

Bling (requested by reader B Stephenson)

The word "bling" refers to any unnecessary accumulation of metal or jewellery which impresses the simple-minded. Examples of bling-related activity include: driving a car with shiny platinum rims, arriving at a movie premiere in a hat made of glittering diamonds, or pointing at a big block of gold and cooing away for hours on end like an unforgivable moron whose mere existence ultimately cheapens us all. Bling is the single most shallow, boring and wilfully superficial cultural phenomenon ever to excite humankind, which is saying something for a species already hooked on internet poker.

In recent months, collective guilt over the planet's future and the disparity of global wealth have exerted a cooling effect on bling's popularity, although genuine justice will never be achieved until everyone responsible for promoting, propagating, passively approving of, or even being ironically amused by any and all aspects of bling culture has been hunted down and jailed for a minimum of 37 years in a maximum security prison with no carpets, hot water or bog roll.

Submit queries to ignopedia@guardian.co.uk

Steer your mice towards charlie.brooker@guardian.co.uk


And the comments are classic. To read it here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2026580,00.html

Apparently, a memo went out with Georgia state Rep. Ben Bridges's signature claiming that "Indisputable evidence — long hidden but now available to everyone — demonstrates conclusively that so-called ‘secular evolution science’ is the Big-Bang 15-billion-year alternate ‘creation scenario’ of the Pharisee Religion... This scenario is derived concept-for-concept from Rabbinic writings in the mystic ‘holy book’ Kabbala dating back at least two millennia." The Anti-Defamation League is demanding that Bridges apologize. He says that he didn't write the memo and didn't personally issue it. Rather, it was penned by his former campaign manager's husband, Marshall Hall. From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
The memo calls on lawmakers to introduce legislation that would end the teaching of evolution in public schools because it is “a deception that is causing incalculable harm to every student and every truth-loving citizen.”

It also directs readers to a Web site www.fixedearth.com, which includes model legislation that calls the Kabbala “a mystic, anti-Christ ‘holy book’ of the Pharisee Sect of Judaism.” The Web site also declares “the earth is not rotating … nor is it going around the sun...."

Bridges acknowledged that he talked to Hall about filing legislation this year that would end the teaching of evolution in Georgia’s public schools. Bridges said the views in the memo belong to Hall, though Bridges said he doesn’t necessarily disagree with them.

“I agree with it more than I would the Big Bang Theory or the Darwin Theory,” Bridges said. “I am convinced that rather than risk teaching a lie why teach anything?”

Link to Atlanta-Journal Constitution, Link to more at Talking Points Memo, Link to Scientific American's "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense"

Actually, it's an abstract post-digital conceptual art project *disguised* as a video download service (this page on the site renders like this in Firefox). After a few deep bong hits, the rich layers of overlapping text probably make sense, as would the notion of paying $20 for a 240X320 movie in a DRM-laden Windows Media file that won't play on Zune, PSP, iPod, or computers running Mac or Linux.

Viacom did a general search on YouTube for any term related to any of its shows, and then spammed YouTube with 100,000 DMCA take-down notices alleging that all of these clips infringed its copyright and demanding that they be censored off the Internet. YouTube made thousands of clips vanish, and sent warning notices to the people who'd posted them, warning them that they were now on a list of potential copyright infringers and telling them that repeat offenses could lead to having their accounts terminated.

This is shockingly bad behaviour on the part of both Viacom and Google, YouTube's owner. Viacom's indiscriminate spamigation is incredibly negligent and evil. They certainly know that a search for a term like "Redbones" will catch videos like Jim Moore's Sunday nite dinner at Redbones in Somerville, Mass (a 30 second clip of Moore and several friends "having dinner in a ribs place in Somerville"). The idea that they have members of the bar -- officers of the court! -- signing affidavits swearing that they have a good-faith belief that these clips infringe their copyrights is disgraceful. Practicing law is a privilege, not a right. The law societies should be holding these attorneys to account for this kind of behaviour.

But Google's lawyers should have known better, too. The DMCA says that if a web-hoster ignores a takedown request, it's liable for copyright damages if the material in question is found to be infringing. YouTube can't afford to just let any lunatic -- including the savage pricks at Viacom -- indiscriminately censor the content it hosts. That's not fair to its customers.

It would cost a lot in lawyer-hours to investigate takedown requests and pick out the ones worth paying attention to, but that's part of the cost of doing business as YouTube. It costs a lot to provide the bandwidth for the files, but YouTube/Google wouldn't dream of skimping on connectivity. Lawyer-letters are just another load that GooTube needs to provision for.

And Google can take steps now to reduce that load: sue the living shit out of Viacom. We've got precedent -- the Diebold debacle -- for the idea that abusing the DMCA takedown process is illegal. Courts have been willing to punish this kind of excess by awarding fees and damages.

If Google sued every company that used indiscriminate takedown notices to remove material that it hosted -- on Blogger, YouTube, and elsewhere -- they'd put the fear of god into bullies like Viacom. They'd change the landscape so that DMCA notices were only used by people who were genuinely being ripped off, and not firehosed by idiots to every site that matches a search-term.

Big companies can sometimes make the world a better place by using the courts to set clear precedents that work for all of us. Sony gave us the Betamax decision. Verizon gave us RIAA v Verizon. Google could save us from takedown spammers.

I just got off the phone with Citibank after noticing a bunch of "Foreign Transaction Fees" on my bank statement -- turns out that when you use your credit or debit card outside of the US, Visa and Mastercard charge three percent in transaction fees on the spend. It doesn't matter if you use an ATM, buy over the Internet/phone, or walk into a store -- the credit-card companies always dip their beaks. When you pay your hotel bill, when you buy a plane ticket, every time you use Amazon.uk to order a British release (Citibank told me that they even charge the fee when I withdraw from my Citibank US account while at a Citibank UK ATM, using Citibank's own network!).

What makes this such a rip-off is that the credit-card companies already charge a fee -- up to five percent! -- to the merchants for processing the transaction. So Mastercard and Visa are getting a slice from the store, and a slice from the customer. In a global marketplace, Mastercard and Visa are acting like letting you spend your own money is a special service deserving its own fee.

The Citibank rep I spoke to told me that the fee used to be one percent, and that it was hidden on the credit-card bills, but that in 2006, the fees tripled and Citi started to break them out on the bill so you could see how badly you're getting hosed.

I called up Citibank UK and asked them if I was charged any fees when I used my Citibank UK debit card outside of Britain that they told me that no, Citibank UK customers are spared this particular screw-job from the credit-card companies.

When you add it all up, the credit-card companies must be making billions off of American customers -- and all the while they're double-dipping, charging the merchants, too.

Most UK banks will tax you if you take money out of a foreign ATM or use the card abroad (Lloyds, Bank of Scotland, Barclays). Barclays does something truly bad: if you buy foreign currency or travellers cheques *in the UK* they hit you with the handling fee, even though they are not even converting the money. Take the money out of the ATM outside the post office and pay in cash, and you save. Not only is there no moral justification for this, its an odd trend. Imagine if banks started charging you more for alchol or eating out compared to supermarket purchases.

Nationwide and Citibank are the unusual banks in that they don't make up a bogus fee and stick it on your cards when you go abroad.

This shows that:
1. its a bank thing, not a Visa fee
2. its entirely optional
3. they do it, because they can get away with it.

Osama bin Laden Wins Nobel Peace Prize

Well, it makes as much sense as this prediction:



Former US vice president Al Gore is seen as a possible winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to save the planet from global warming, the head of the Oslo Peace Research Institute has said.

His efforts to save the planet include (from the same article)…

The former US vice president is currently criss-crossing the globe with his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”, a hard-hitting rallying cry against global environmental catastrophe.

Is he doing it on a bike? Hand-powered scooter? Electric glider?

Of course not, he’s “criss-crossing the globe” in “one of the most wasteful uses of fossil-based fuels imaginable,” a private jet.

Gore is the same guy that warned us that global warming was more dangerous than terrorism, while simultaneously maintaining a toxic waste dump on his own property.

At Sierra Club meetings, he advises Americans to conserve, then promptly leaves in a gas-guzzling Cadillac Escalade.

And while he “lectures Americans on excessive consumption,” he lives “in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.)… none of which use “green energy” offered by the local utility companies.

This is like saying Osama bin Laden is “saving the planet” from terrorism.

In addition to news of Gore’s lead in the polls, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded in 2002 to a man who supports Palestinian terrorists and Nazis, so bin Laden could apparently win it also, for paying lip service to the “religion of peace” while terrorizing the world.

Apparently lip service to a cause is the more important attribute.

If you have ever been turned down for admission by a college or university, it might have been because your essay was sub-par. If you feel that was the case, you might want to read this particular college application essay (of course, your parents might have been responsible). Then again, English is a crazy language.

If you already are in college, and you're having a tough time of it studying for finals, this

letter might put things in perspective (in addition, you might want to compare the typical MIT student's views to your own). Also remember that professors are often trickier than you are (and don't forget the college academic structure). Then
again, you might be going to a college with students of questionable intelligence... try reading these accounts of the history of the world, according to various student bloopers. Various other works of "irrefutable" logic have been written, like the Darksucker theory, the shit list, one definition of tape trees, a study on twinkies, and another student's view of physics, sex, and religion. Some students spend their time creating 80's tests, while others wax inventive on their thermodynamics finals.

Of course, no college humor is complete without some sort of sexual jokes (this is just a fact of college life and maturity levels... :^P). Common contributions (or detriments) include lists of sorority jokes (and just to be fair, here are some stupid men jokes), information about condoms,
comparisons between the Internet and a penis (for the computer savvy)...

Occasionally some college student will have a bright idea and decide that a person's sex life is linked to their favorite color; not that this is particularly true, but their predictions are often amusing. Some enterprising students once measured the
caloric output of sexual acts; others were content with just listing how each profession did the sex act. This is how college students view their old age, as well...

If you actually read any of the above articles, then you obviously realize the maturity level of some college students. It's not much better than what children think of love.

So I am in New York now. Still. To get all the documents to be able to enter UK, I would have to get Entry Clearance from UK embassy in New York. To get that from them, you have to have the original Work Permit (HSMP - highly skilled migrant professional. hehehehehe). Instead of getting it in my hands on the 16th of January, I got it on the 18th, because the company that JPMorgan was delegating the work to are more incompetent than the JPMorgan HR staff. They send it to my UK address. WTF! After I spoke to them a couple of times and everytime I would tell them that I am in New York and they have my parent's address on file.

So because I got that permit thing on thursday, I went to the courier service that does the same day turn around for Entry clearances. Except, because UK deported me (or if you want to call it denied entry ), there is a huge X in my passport. So now the 'same day turn around' is going to be unknown amount of time because they have to do inquiries about me. What the hell? I was hoping to get out of here on the weekend and now I am in the office waiting for that email or a phone call from the visa guy telling me that everything is ready.

So right now I am in the office on 47th and park. Working here day to day waiting for this Entry clearance bullshit. Then I am leaving the next day, hopefuly.

I feel like such an illegal immigrant, who worked on the strawberry picking farm in california, and then being sent back to mexico after INS agents raided the farm baraks.....