On SpotDoes this really work? They are chains that kind of auto-deploy for cars on snowy roads. I can't believe this works, but it is neat. Watch the video.
There's a very popular opinion out there that real leaders make a decision and run with it, despite the calls from the penny-stinkers.A couple of sites popped up recently that have personal (and professional) interest for me:Longhorn ScreenshotsIE7 ScreenshotsOk, lots of people have weighed in... some hate, some like, some really hate, etc. Now, my question is, if you're a "leader" what do you do with that information? Do you take it all in and change your product as a response to the community? Do you get the product out, knowing that you've done research on your own that says x, y or z? It's a fine line between ignoring public opinion and executing based on a vision.
On the media on WikipediaWikipedia's London Bombings EntryI have been really impressed with Wikipedia. There have been a lot of very spotting stories, especially as it relates to non-technical, non-recent events, but it is a great resource for the items which have a lot of coverage. Really astounding. The nice part about this interview is that it answers a lot of questions that people have generally such as:Why don't you get biased reporting?
What happens with vandals?
Etc.I'll update this and post those questions when the transcript gets posted (tomorrow).
What happens with vandals?
Etc.I'll update this and post those questions when the transcript gets posted (tomorrow).
I almost finished watching I, Robot last night. Movie? Not so good. But I'll tell you, it really made me want to read the books. Anyone have any recommendations for the first book to start with in the series?One thing that I realized about the formulaic Hollywood action movie is there are basically three characters. There's the street-smart/common sense always do the right thing guy. There's the brainy, local source of wisdom and absolutely no sense of humor who probably starts out somewhere in between good and evil and ends up being good (and developing a sense of humor). And then there's the evil incarnate thatalways does evil. I remember people talking about Ocean's 11 as having very quick dialog reminiscent of 50's movies where there were great back and forth conversations. It almost reminded one of a sword duel. Today, we have dialog that resembles a shotgun blast where there is a clear winner, and the contest is over in about 2 seconds.Example good dialog:
Danny: Tess, you're doing a great job curating the museum, the Vermeer is quite good, simple, vibrant, but his work definitely fell off as he got older.
Tess: Remind you of anyone?
Danny: And I always confuse Monet and Manet. Now which one married his mistress?
Tess: Monet.
Danny: Right, and then Manet had syphilis.
Tess: They also painted occasionally. Nice. Good back and forth. Nobody's a moron.Example bad dialog:
Detective Del Spooner: How long is this going to take?
Susan Calvin: Six minutes.
Detective Del Spooner: What if we didn't have six minutes?
Susan Calvin: Then we'd have to find a way to climb down thirty stories and inject the nannites into VIKI. Why?
Detective Del Spooner: Because I seriously doubt we have six minutes. A little bit of context. Susan Calvin is working very hard staring at a computer... Spooner is looking up at the atrium seeing thousands of robots scaling the walls. No sense of humor, no quick back and forth. It's like playing tennis against a solid wall... sure the ball comes back, but it doesn't really do anything interesting.I think a lot of this derives from having a powerful actor playing opposite a weak actor. The powerful actor wants all the zingers and totally tilts the script out of control. It's very depressing.Oh, I saw the Station Agent over the weekend as well. I can see why everyone liked it. The character of Fin is especially good. I'm constantly amazed at how actors (and people for that matter) do not realize the value of not talking. It adds so much to the perceived complexity of a character (or person). This comes, of course, from the guy who can't go two minutes without spilling his entire stream of consciousness into a monologue with strangers.
Danny: Tess, you're doing a great job curating the museum, the Vermeer is quite good, simple, vibrant, but his work definitely fell off as he got older.
Tess: Remind you of anyone?
Danny: And I always confuse Monet and Manet. Now which one married his mistress?
Tess: Monet.
Danny: Right, and then Manet had syphilis.
Tess: They also painted occasionally. Nice. Good back and forth. Nobody's a moron.Example bad dialog:
Detective Del Spooner: How long is this going to take?
Susan Calvin: Six minutes.
Detective Del Spooner: What if we didn't have six minutes?
Susan Calvin: Then we'd have to find a way to climb down thirty stories and inject the nannites into VIKI. Why?
Detective Del Spooner: Because I seriously doubt we have six minutes. A little bit of context. Susan Calvin is working very hard staring at a computer... Spooner is looking up at the atrium seeing thousands of robots scaling the walls. No sense of humor, no quick back and forth. It's like playing tennis against a solid wall... sure the ball comes back, but it doesn't really do anything interesting.I think a lot of this derives from having a powerful actor playing opposite a weak actor. The powerful actor wants all the zingers and totally tilts the script out of control. It's very depressing.Oh, I saw the Station Agent over the weekend as well. I can see why everyone liked it. The character of Fin is especially good. I'm constantly amazed at how actors (and people for that matter) do not realize the value of not talking. It adds so much to the perceived complexity of a character (or person). This comes, of course, from the guy who can't go two minutes without spilling his entire stream of consciousness into a monologue with strangers.
Channel 9 Video with Steve BallmerSteve Ballmer is not only the head of a $300 billion organization, but is personally worth >$10 billion. Yet he really looks very passionate about what he's doing and the company. Maybe it's just his personality, but I'm astounded. He sits down and talks to the video camera just like any other guy. This is what transparency looks like, and is enabled by the Internet and, to a lesser extent, blogging more than ever before.
Sometimes I just want a blog with all the info in one spot. Here's my contribution to that:Map According to the Subways (via Gizmodo):
BBC Map with times of attacks (via the BBC):
Time of attacks in the London: 8:51 -> 9:47 AM
Times of attacks on East Coast (US): 3:51 AM -> 4:47 AM
Times of attacks on West Coast (US): 12:51 AM -> 1:47 AMBBC page on attacksTranslation for the web page of those claiming attacksBoing Boing's on-going coverage
Times of attacks on East Coast (US): 3:51 AM -> 4:47 AM
Times of attacks on West Coast (US): 12:51 AM -> 1:47 AMBBC page on attacksTranslation for the web page of those claiming attacksBoing Boing's on-going coverage
Today's schpiel comes on the news of the horrible bombings in London. The most frustrating thing is because all these things happen anonymously;you really have no idea what they people want, or what you COULD do to lower the risk (other than locking down everything). You, of course, should never DO anything because you cannot negotiate with terrorists. Ever. You find them and you kill them. Period. But to the extent you can attempt to reduce the next terrorist attack by working to solve the social ills that convert of a perfectly normal individual into a terrorist... I'm all for that. The thing that I find the most disgusting is that these individuals who engage in this stuff do it out of a sense of entitlement. "My belief system is being infringed upon by this outside source and no one is paying attention to me, I think I'm going to gokill hundreds of innocent people to bring some attention to my cause." You know what? Fuck you. So what, you aren't getting what you want... do you think that any of those people on the subway or bus are getting what they want by being blown to pieces? The world does not revolve around you; so, either get your issues known through perfectly normal, non-violent means, or I will hunt you down and kill you. The worst out of all of this is the total feeling of helplessness... I stupidly write this out on a blog because I have no idea to whom to direct my anger. Sometimes I wish they had a PO Box or something so that I could at least get the sense that my words weren't just falling deaf into the ether.Suffice it to say that I encourage any one reading this to look around your lives for where you expect anything. From the government? From your partners? From your siblings? From society? You know what? Other than being generally free to do what you want, you dont deserve it. Its great if you get it, but expecting something from someone is a recipe for disaster, both for you and for them.
Well, I've spent the past few days on a search for new blog tools, and I think I've found them. Blogger's UI has just really gotten on my nerves. It's tough to post anything, change formats, post pictures etc. It's just not the right interface for posting a lot. w.bloggar is a great little tool for doing the editing on your desktop. Let's face it, a rich client is really the way to go on this stuff... it just allows so much more for dragging and dropping and editing on the fly. Huge fan of w.bloggar and it ties really well into Blogger's APIs, which means I don't have to do anything new to get it right.On the aggregator front, I'm still stumped. Basically my blockers right now are:
- I want to read everything on a single page, so that page down is all I have to do to move to the next story.
- I want new stories to stream down to my desktop. I had too many problems with Bloglines, either not detected I had already read a story, or taking absolutely forever to open up a new page.
- I want some way to keep what I've read in synch with multiple computers.
- I want a way to read in the order and grouping that makes sense to me. Humor, tech, finance, etc... i want to read things as groups.