Quote of the Day (2007-03-31)

Where's your Christmas spirit? An eye for an eye.

Source: Seinfeld

Khufu Revealed

Architect Jean-Pierre Houdin has a new theory about how the Great Pyramid of Khufu was constructed. He presents his theory online.

Iraq the Model

I came across this in Daily Kos:

I will absolutely click on anything on the internets... I live behind a router and firewall and my antivirus is always up-to-date... I decided to check out Iraq the Model for myself... honestly, within seconds of reading a few entries, this is just like Iraq does Fox news... heh, fair and balanced; we report, you decide...

These guys are in Iraq... walking the walk, right? Why is everything there four days old? They DO have power in Baghdad, right? It IS safe for anyone to walk anywhere they want at any time, right?

What's the deal here? Some bloggers in Iraq don't write of Iraq the way the author wants, so they must be fakes? Reminds me of the movie makers who were shocked and unable to understand it when an Iraqi intern expressed support for the war. I would think bloggers, perhaps more than anyone, would understand that there are many views on things and not everyone has the same perspective. But I guess all bets are off when it comes to Iraq.

Quote of the Day (2007-03-29)

[Vizzini has just cut the rope The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing up]
Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Source: The Princess Bride

Quote of the Day (2007-03-28)

Naomi: "I thought you were happy-go-lucky."
Jerry: "No, no, no, I'm not happy, I'm not lucky, and I don't go. If anything, I'm sad-stop-unlucky."

Source: Seinfeld

Quote of the Day (2007-03-27)

Lee: Hi, can I get Holly Golightly's room please?
Danny: Who's that?
Lee: It's Gwen's code name, it's from Breakfast at Tiffany's.
Danny: Oh, what's that?
Lee: It's a movie, a great movie, Hepburn.
Danny: Right, Katherine.
Lee: Do me a favor, don't tell anyone you're in the movies.

Source: America's Sweethearts

About Quote of the Day

Last year I started collecting assorted quotes and emailing them daily to a member of my team, just to lighten the mood and start things off nicely. This weekend I was playing with the Google libraries, learning how to post to my blog from a java program. Now that it works, I'm going to try to post that daily quote to this blog as well.

Quote of the Day (2007-03-26)

Cmdr. Susan Ivanova: God, I hate this part. I'm always afraid I've broken something.
Michael Garabaldi: It'll be fine. I've done this before.
[the computer restarts]
Michael Garabaldi: Ah, Told ya. Computer
[pause]
Michael Garabaldi: Computer?
Sparky the Computer: Hey, what do you want?
Michael Garabaldi: Run diagnostics.
Sparky the Computer: What, you got a broken arm or something? I got a station to run here!
Cmdr. Susan Ivanova: Computer.
Sparky the Computer: I know, do a diagnostic. So, maybe Level 42 doesn't get its quota of oxygen today because I'm distracted, but if it makes you happy!
Michael Garabaldi: Stop!
Cmdr. Susan Ivanova: Garabaldi?
Michael Garabaldi: I just remembered, they tried to install Artificial Intelligence subroutines when the station went operational. They shut it down right away because it didn't work right. Must have come back on-line when the system re-booted.
Cmdr. Susan Ivanova: Great! How do we shut it down?
Sparky the Computer: I heard that! Are you two easily offended, or what?

Source: Babylon 5

Case Against Julie Amero

Andrew Kantor has been following the Julie Amero case and has written on it often, both on his USA Today column and his personal blog (several more postings at both sites). The case seems pretty simple. Amero was a substitute teacher in Connecticut. In her classroom she found an old PC whose anti-virus protection was long out of date and which had no pop up, spyware, or adware protection at all. While the kids were using it, they visited a site supposedly about hairstyles and got hit with endless pop ups, including porn sites.

Here's the kicker. She's been convicted of endangering the morals of children because of the porn sites and faces 40 years in jail because of the pop ups. The computer illiterate prosecutor and his computer illiterate computer experts (experts because they worked with mainframes back in the 60's, and who admit to occasionally using PCs) argue that she must have intentionally visited the sites herself while the kids were in the room. They know she did because the links in the pages show up now in an different color, which means she intentionally clicked the link.

Then, there's the side of the story where the local paper came out against Amero and is now doing its best imitation of George Bush by exaggerating or mis-stating facts, or simply coming up with new arguments when the old ones are shot down.

Pretty scary story, particularly when taken together with the so-called Duke rape case, both stories of over-zealous and not so bright prosecutors doggedly pursuing a case even when it's become painfully obvious to just about everyone that the case is junk.

Amero will be sentenced for her crime of living in a town with a moron for a prosecutor on March 29.

Now, in all fairness, while it's easy to point out the flaws (let's be generous) of the prosecution's case, I have to question the defense team as well. Did they bring any of the obvious points up during the trial? When the mainframe expert was testifying about how Internet Explorer works, why didn't the defense team bring in a PC decked out exactly like the one in the classroom and have the mainframe guy visit the site that caused all the problems to begin with? It seems like this case would be pretty easy to shoot down that I have to question the defense.

Cream

Haven't done any music videos in a while. Here's a classic by Cream from 1968



and again in 2005



Here's a few more from that 2005 reunion. Jack did not age well, certainly no where near as well as Eric, and his vocals are a bit weak. But they still do quite a jam.





And, finally, a guitar lesson from the master:

Lance Briggs, Playing for $7 Million

Chicago Bears linebacker Lance Briggs is threatening to sit out next season because the Bears have slapped the franchise tag on him, meaning he will get what is effectively a one year deal for over $7 million rather than becoming a free agent. Needless to say, a lot of fans are put off by this attitude. One of Peter King's readers writes

Lance Briggs needs to shut up and play. He is going to be paid over $7 million for one year of playing football. In my company, people who are paid over $100,000 per year are considered 'highly compensated individuals.' If I were a 'highly compensated individual' for 40 years, I would bring down $4 million. Lance is going to almost double that in one year and he is miffed. Cry me a river of crocodile tears. I know other guys are getting stupid money but I'll tell you, it is getting to be fed-up time with these guys. They need a little perspective.

I understand the vitriol against Briggs, but I actually do understand his point of view and it's something the fans are missing. Briggs has been playing at a high level for several years, with a contract that is not commensurate with his ability and value to the team. In the NFL, even a top-tier player only gets a couple of shots at the big payday, the kind of money that can set him and his family up for life. For Briggs, he has one of those shots right now. While $7 million is certainly a lot of money, it won't last a lifetime.

From the player's point of view, he could take the field on opening day and suffer a season-ending knee injury. Then what? He'll certainly become a free agent next year, and get nowhere near the money he can get right now. He may never have another shot at the big signing bonus, so the Bears are putting his long-term financial position at risk for the sake of keeping him for a year. I can certainly appreciate Briggs' point of view and his anger at the organization.

Sheiks With Their Own Security Forces

Obsidian Wings has a round-up of developments inside Iraq. One comment stood out to me:

This is an under-reported story: 26 of 31 sheiks have turned their backs on al Qaeda and are putting together their own security forces.

Andrew Sullivan calls this "good news" but I'm not so sure. To me it sounds more like a recipe for future warlords similar to those who tore Somalia apart. The post links to a New York Times article on the leader of this group of sheiks, Sheik Abdul Sattar.

While the sheik and his security forces are fighting al Qaeda, which short term is probably a good thing, what stands out is how this resistance is building up Sattar's personal power. He has helped appoint police chiefs. He has a 2500 man brigade who answer directly to him. Sattar has little love for the US, nor for the Iraqi government.

I don't find this encouraging at all. We're helping build up militant Iraqi sheiks in order to fight al Qaeda, but we are not developing leaders who will buttress the new government. These sheiks would not hesitate to turn on their US benefactors if it were to their benefit. This just smacks of the US' desperation in Iraq. What will happen when these sheiks and their personal armies defeat al Qaeda, should that ever happen? Aren't we just trading a short term gain against a common enemy for a longer term instability? Afghanistan springs to mind.

Statistics

I've already linked to the story of the so-called Jesus tomb and pointed out that names like Jesus were quite popular back then in the region, so finding a "son of Jesus" is not really a huge find. But Cameron and crew claim that the chances of finding another family with these names is 1 in 600. That is pretty dubious, at best, but for fun let's say it's meaningful.

People often cite statistics to prove some claim without understanding what they mean. The odds of getting a full house in a hand of poker are 1 in 694. That means for every 694 hands of poker I play, I can expect one full house, on average. So if I play 1400 hands, I expect 2 full houses. If I play 6,940 hands, I expect 10 full houses, on average.

Cameron's argument is akin to claiming that only 1 in 600 families would have that collection of names. Sounds pretty rare, doesn't it? How many families would have been found in Jerusalem circa 33 AD? 60 thousand? I'm not sure, but the city was certainly not some backwater town so I would expect a good number. Let's say there were 60,000 families at the time. Then we would expect no less than 100 families to have that collection of names. In that case, the odds that this one particular family is the "right" one is 1%.

So Cameron and crew are admitting it's a wild shot in the dark, but making their admission in such a way that the gullible don't realize they are admitting it.

Movie Review: The Illusionist

Neil Burger's The Illusionist is a very pleasant surprise. Hollywood often comes out with two films simultaneously that deal with same things. Deep Impact and Armageddon, and the like. This year, it's The Illusionist and The Prestige, both period pieces centered on magicians. I saw them both this week. I expected both to be decent but The Prestige to be better, given that is from Chris Nolan. Unfortunately Nolan's work just proves that he is, in fact, mortal. But The Illusionist holds up, and is a totally captivating and entertaining film.

Set in Vienna circa 1900, the film tells the story of Eisenheim the Illusionist (Edward Norton) and his romance with Sophie (Jessica Biel), a Hungarian duchess betrothed to Leopold (Rufus Sewel), crown prince of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The two were childhood friends, whose friendship and romance flew in the face of convention as she was from nobility and he was a peasant. Try as they might, they cannot buck the social pressures of the day, and Sophie is eventually taken away. That's the backstory to what happens in the film, which takes place 15 years later.

Eisenheim has become a magician with a great following. His tricks are so astounding, his mystified audiences are convinced he has supernatural powers, though he assures them (when needed) that everything is just an illusion. One night, Leopold is in the audience and volunteers his beloved to participate in a trick. Eisenheim immediately recognizes Sophie, and she eventually realizes who he is and their love is rekindled. Later, Eisenheim is brought to meet the prince, who invites him to the castle for a private performance and asks for something special. Eisenheim muses that he will make the prince disappear.

Instead, Eisenheim takes a cut at the prince by improvising a trick based on the legend of Arthur. Taking the prince's sword, he challenges members of the audience to prove their worth by lifting the sword. None can, of course. But when Leopold comes to reclaim his sword, Eisenheim doesn't end the trick right away and the prince is left struggling to lift the sword too, while members of the audience joke that he must be unworthy of the throne. Leopold immediately decides the magician must be shut down, and sends his lapdog, Chief Inspector Uhl (Paul Giamatti) to do so.

One of Leopold's failings is his habit of beating women. He is rumored to have even thrown one off a roof to cover up the bruises from a beating. When Sophie leaves Leopold, he kills her. Everyone suspects the prince, but few are willing to say so publicly. This includes Uhl, who by his own admission is not totally corrupt, and cannot help but notice a few clues to the identity of the killer.

Eisenheim takes the death of his lover hard, and eventually transforms his act into one of conjuring spirits for the audience. One of those spirits is, of course, Sophie, which infuriates Leopold even further and demands again that Eisenheim be shut down. Unfortunately, the conjurer himself appears to have become a spirit, and the police are unable to arrest him.

So, there it is. The story of the film. Or is it? I won't answer, but I will point out the name of the film is The Illusionist.

Everyone involved in the film gives a solid performance. The acting is uniformly good. That may come as a surprise in reference to Biel, but she holds her own in such highly reputable company as Norton and Giamatti. The pacing is perfect. So many films, particularly in the age of the DVD when movies can be much longer, are bloated with many scenes that should have been edited out. Not this one.

The cinematography is quite interesting. It was a little annoying at first, but then I got it. A lot of the touches convey a sense of having been filmed long ago. The opening credits are jittery. The lighting is not uniform across the frame, leaving the edges and corners in shadow. Those shadows flicker as the background is brighter in some frames than others. All this is what we see in early film-making. Of course, this is in color rather than very high contrast black and white, but even the color has a sepia tint to it, which conveys a sense of age. It's no wonder the cinematography got an Oscar nomination.

There is one element of the film about which there appears to be a lot of confusion, and I don't know the right answer. I read several reviews of the film before writing this one, and several viewers were unimpressed with the film, primarily because of low quality CGI. The irony is that, from what I have read--and I don't claim that it's true--there was no CGI! One person writes

Finally, I understand how another letter writer may have thought the illusions were mere CGI. But no. As impossible as it may seem to believe (unless the filmmakers were flat-out lying when I saw this film at Sundance), there is not one scrap of CGI at play in the film's magic. The illusions are all authentic. No digital trickery. All performed by Norton. Which is amazing in and of itself. He apparently worked his butt off to learn them all and does a breathtaking job.

Kind of funny that someone does a real illusion, and people complain that it doesn't look real enough.

Cassini-Huygens

NASA's Cassini-Huygens probe is returning dramatic images of the planet Saturn. For example:


Cool stuff.

Carbon Offsets

Questions have been raised about Al Gore's energy consumption, already very high and increasing dramatically since his movie came out. The former VP's response is that, while the VP's emissions are certainly high, he compensates by purchasing "carbon offsets", which is essentially planting trees. Captain's Quarters describes these purchases by saying, "He's using a modern form of indulgences in order to avoid doing the penance that global-warming activism demands of others."

ThinkProgress complains that the right doesn't understand the concept of carbon offsets. Maybe. But what the environmental lobby doesn't understand is the contradictory message being sent out by giving a pass on emissions so long as you plant trees. The message to the average American is, make big lifestyle changes. Give up your inefficient cars, live in a home that is colder in the winter and warmer in the summer, ride public transportation whenever possible, etc. But, to the more well-off, don't make any changes. Don't give up anything. Just buy offsets. From a strict statistical point of view, the net results on carbon emissions are, presumably, the same. But it's still a pass given to the wealthy.

The Right is often portrayed as wanting tax cuts for the wealthy. That's a constant theme whenever tax code changes are brought up. But isn't the environment lobby doing the same thing, in giving a lifestyle change pass to the wealthy? What's worse, the wealthy who are getting the pass are, per capita, probably far worse emission offenders than the middle class. They live in bigger houses, drive more emission-hostile cars and SUV's, jet around more often in private planes than we do, etc. So the worst offenders also get the pass on actually having to actually make changes.

Politically, this is just not a good strategy. The environment lobby has tunnel vision about global warming, so they want net carbon emissions down. What they don't seem to grasp is that doing so would have a big impact on things like the economy and people's lifestyle. That's the primary reason so many people are resistant to the global warming message. If they want to be taken more seriously, stop giving passes to the wealthy. People would probably be much more receptive to Gore if he implemented the same lifestyle changes he demands others make.