Contact your representative and demand that they oppose the Internet Blacklist Bills (PROTECT IP Act in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House).

Of all the issues this country is facing at the moment, Congress feels that the most important thing to do is reaffirm “In God We Trust” as the official motto of the United States. Yep, glad the House took time out to work on this utter waste of time:

From Concurrent Resolution 13:

Reaffirming ‘‘In God We Trust’’ as the official motto of the United States and supporting and encouraging the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions.

In their dissenting view Reps. John Conyers (D-MI), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Robert Scott (D-VA), Melvin Watt (D-NC), Judy Chu (D-CA) said it best:

Today we face the highest budget deficit in our Nation’s history, a national unemployment rate of nearly 9%, and an ongoing mortgage foreclosure crisis. American forces are deployed in combat on several fronts, while our children who—by the very circumstances of their birth—are placed into a cradle-to-prison pipeline. We are also in the midst of reacting to a natural disaster of unimaginable proportions that recently occurred in Japan and the resulting nuclear disaster, which may have worldwide import. Yet, instead of addressing any of these critical issues, and instead of working to help American families keep a roof over their heads and food on their tables, we are debating whether or not to affirm and proliferate a motto that was adopted in 1956 and that is not imperiled in any respect.

I’ve really never been bothered by “In God We Trust”. Though I’ve recently considered starting to black out “In God We Trust” on my money in subtle protest; it’s just not an issue that keeps me awake at night. Don’t get me wrong, it should not be printed on our money, nor should “Under God” be in the pledge (one reason I don’t recite the pledge anymore) but it is what it is. Besides, I don’t think that we are in a position to get it changed and in the scheme of things it can seem like a rather petty issue.

What irritates me about Concurrent Resolution 13 (which passed with disgustingly overwhelming support) is that it was a complete waste of time. It doesn’t do anything, as a House Concurrent Resolution it doesn’t have force of law. It’s just posturing by a Republican-majority House. It’s a waste of time and money (more than $215,000 in Members’ salaries and floor operation costs) when we can’t afford to waste either.

Ok, maybe there is more that irritates me about this. On top of being an utter waste of time and money the language of the bill makes it clear that its authors wish to promote force a single monotheistic god on the American People. Concurrent Resolution 13 shows a complete and utter lack of respect for the Constitution, the drafters and everyone who voted “Yea” (complete list here) violated their oath to uphold the Constitution.

From Concurrent Resolution 13 [emphasis mine]:

and encouraging the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions.

I get the sense, from reading the dissenting view, that there is a concern that not only is Concurrent Resolution 13 plainly unconstitutional but that if it passed (which it did) it could cause issues for the “In God We Trust” institution.

From the dissenting view:

We are concerned that H. Con. Res. 13, its apparent purpose, and the manner in which it has been put forward, raises serious constitutional issues. The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment exist to protect religious liberty. They are not in conflict with each other, but rather reinforce religious liberty in different ways.

The Establishment Clause not only prohibits the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion. The Establishment Clause protects the private rights of conscience of all Americans from governmental interference or involvement in religious affairs.

“In God We Trust” has survived largely because of its ambiguity. The Supreme Court noted in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), that the motto has “lost through rote repetition any significant religious content”. Concurrent Resolution 13 seems to take any ambiguity out of the motto and solidify it is a religious motto, meant to endorse a single god.

From Concurrent Resolution 13 [emphasis mine]:

Whereas in times of national challenge or tragedy, the people of the United States have turned to God as their source for sustenance, protection, wisdom, strength, and direction;

Whereas the Declaration of Independence recognizes God, our Creator, as the source of our rights, ‘‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’’;

Concurrent Resolution 13 was clearly a waste of time and money. This is not something the legislature should be worried about now, or ever. It’s also clearly a means to subtly subvert the First Amendment. No doubt, there are some in the House who are having a circle jerk celebrating its passing.

I wonder though, if its passing could have a negative (or positive, depending on your view) affect on the “In God We Trust” institution. The words survived thus far because the Supreme Court felt that they had lost their religious meaning. Not only did Concurrent Resolution 13 reaffirm “In God We Trust” as out national motto, it also clearly restored religious meaning to the words.

Besides being a colossal waste of time and money, it seems to me that the zealots who insist on pushing their religious ideology on everyone may have shot themselves in the foot with Concurrent Resolution 13.

One can hope anyway. I’m probably just trying, desperately, to find a silver lining in this sheer act of stupidity.

Image source: Wikipedia (Public Domain)

Point of clarification, when I say “physical media” I’m referring to both CDs, and digital copies (MP3s). Also, I’m not a subscriber to Spotify or Rhapsody. I do use Pandora often though. I’d also like to mention that I’m a fan of Scalzi’s work and recommend you check out any of his books.

A couple of weeks ago John Scalzi made a post on his blog titled “How I Buy Music, 2011 (Featuring John Wesley Harding)” where he described how he bought a John Wesley album from Amazon MP3 but didn’t download it. Instead, after buying the album from Amazon MP3 he went and streamed it via Spotify.

Scalzi explained his reasoning in the post but I was still confused so I asked him to explain further. You can read our dialogue in the comments section; I posted as Rocketboy001. In our dialogue Scalzi makes it quite clear that he thinks it’s the consumer’s responsibility to make sure that an artist is adequately compensated for their work and he throws on a heavy dose of guilt to drive his point home.

Let me first make one contention: Scalzi didn’t implicate guilt in his post; not directly anyway. But in our dialogue he did imply that consumers should feel bad if they get their music solely through streaming services because what an artist makes via streaming is “appallingly miniscule.” It’s disingenuous of Scalzi to deny (as he did) that he was trying to place guilt on the consumer in his dialogue with me. Scalzi says that if you care you’ll buy the artist’s album, and if you don’t then you don’t care about the artist.

That’s a guilt trip if I’ve ever seen one.

I Disagree

There was one question that Scalzi didn’t answer (despite me asking it more than once): isn’t the artist responsible for what they make via a given distribution method?.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Scalzi didn’t answer this question. If Scalzi had answered the question honestly it would have invalidated his whole argument, the responsibility and guilt he was placing on the consumer, and it would have made his public display of altruism look like a simple act of grandstanding (not that it didn’t already).

Whatever Scalzi’s reason for not answering the question, I’ll answer it here:

The consumer’s responsibility is to make sure the content they consume is legal. That’s it. The consumer is no more responsible for what an artist makes then they are for what their plumber makes.

In our dialogue, Scalzi asserted that it’s the consumer’s responsibility to make sure an artist makes enough money, that they can eat. I don’t think it is.

Frankly, I think it’s a bit naive to assume that the average consumer cares, or even considers what an artist makes. How many people ask their waiter if they are making enough money to eat? Does Scalzi? Probably not. How many people ask their UPS person if they are making enough money? Does Scalzi tip his UPS man? Probably not. Why should artists be treated different from any other person who is providing a product or service?

Like I said, a consumer’s responsibility goes no further than making sure that the content their consuming is legal. Streaming services, like Spotify or Rhapsody, are perfectly legal. Artists get paid when their music is played on these services. There should be no guilt felt by consumers for using these services.

But They Don’t Make Enough

Scalzi thinks that what an artist makes via streaming is “appallingly miniscule.” But, that’s a subjective opinion, not a cold hard fact. Ask ten people what an artist should make from the sale of an album or song and I bet you’d get ten different answers. Sure most people would agree that an artist should make something but what that something is and how much of it they should get is completely subjective.

It varies but generally an artist gets paid fractions of a cent per stream. There is this chart that compares what an artist makes for a given distribution method. If the data used to make the chart is correct, then it’s clear that artists don’t make a lot from streaming when compared to other distribution methods; but so what? Artists do make money via streaming.

Not Meant to Be

Scalzi says that streaming services are not meant to act as a replacement for consumers buying physical media and that the amount artists make from streaming reflects that.

Scalzi acts like an artist’s music is put on streaming services against their will. I think that it’s safe to assume that if an artist’s music is available on a streaming service then the artist is ok with it being there, and they’re satisfied what they get paid for making it available there. Mind you, a lot of artists might only be ok with it so far as their contract obliges them to be ok with it.

If an artist isn’t satisfied with what they make via streaming, it’s not the consumer’s problem, it’s the artist’s.

There is noting that says an artist has to make their music available to streaming services. No one is forcing artists to put their music on Spotify or Rhapsody. If an artist does not feel like it’s a good financial move to make their music via streaming, then they don’t have to make it available via streaming.

An artist makes a conscious decision to make their music available via streaming. At the very least they make a conscious decision to sign a contract that gives other people the power to decide for them. It’s the artist’s responsibly to make sure what they get paid is enough.

It’s also worth noting that both Spotify and Rhapsody don’t market themselves as supplemental services. A few seconds browsing their respective site’s makes it clear that their goal is to replace the traditional methods of music consumption with streaming.

Based on what I’m seeing, streaming is the future of mass market music consumption. Let me qualify that, Spotify has over a million paying subscribers, Rhapsody has over 750,000 paying subscribers. People want this type of service and they are willing to pay for it. When Apple gets into the streaming game (I believe it will) it’ll be game over for mass market sales of physical media.

Mind you, there will always be a need for physical media, it’s nearly 2012 and people still buy LPs. There will always be the need, or desire, for a copy of a song or album. It would be difficult to use a streamed song in your home movie, for example. But the majority of music consumption will take place via streaming. The shift is already starting with movies and TV and it will happen to music too.

If an artist is too naive to understand that streaming companies are marketing themselves as a replacement for physical media and that consumers are going to use them as such… well that’s the artist’s problem.

Artists should be aware of the shift towards streaming. If the pricing scheme of streaming does not allow them to make enough to survive, then they either need to force a change in the scheme, or find new ways to support their work.

One thing is for sure, it’s not the consumer’s responsibility.

Image source: craigCloutier (Creative Commons)

In the past couple of weeks I have watched red light cameras go up in two intersections that I pass through on my way to and from work. It struck me that as law enforcement agencies and governments become more and more reliant on technology, the right of the people to use similar technology is increasingly being attacked.

This isn’t a gripe over red light cameras. No, it’s just me pointing out that since I can remember law enforcement agencies have been using audio and video recordings to protect themselves but arrest people on bogus charges for doing the same. It’s a gripe that as the government is constantly hiding its actions behind a veil of secrecy it seeks a backdoor into the private communications of the people.

Law enforcement agencies and the government do not care for the democratization of photography and video recording technology. They hate that just about every cellphone sold today has the ability to record audio and video. Why do they hate it? Because they can’t control it, they can’t delete the footage captured, they can’t make it go “missing”. They hate it because their veil of secrecy has formed a hole and they must now be held accountable for their actions.

So what do law enforcement agencies and the government do about this? Do they hold themselves accountable? Do they operate within the scope of their authority, and the law? No, that would be too difficult. It’s far easier just to make everyone with a camera a terrorist.

Is there a legitimate reason why label makers leave such a huge margin between the text and the ends of the label; no matter how much text is printed? I’ve seen this on every label maker I’ve used. The one used to make the labels pictured is a Brother PT-1000. You can configure the PT-1000 to use a smaller margin but it still prints the same 1″ tail on either one side of the label. The only thing setting a smaller margin (either 1/2″ or 1/6″) does is print dots as a guide to cut the excess label off.

Seems like an awful waste and a good way to keep label refill sales going strong.

Update: July 27, 2010 – I added an image showing how a label comes out of the PT-1000 with the smallest (1/6″) margin set and corrected an error in the above text.

Most of your so called “psychics” use a technique called cold reading to dupe people into believing they can talk to the dead or see your future. Most of our exposure to these “psychics” is via the media where segments are edited down to portray the “psychic” in the best possible light. So what does an unedited cold reading look like?

It’s pretty comical actually:

I almost feel some sympathy for James Van Praagh – his “readings” don’t seem to be going very well and he’s visibly distressed about it.

I said almost because James Van Praagh and others like him (yes I’m pointing at you Sylvia Brown and John Edward) dupe millions of often grieve-stricken, hurting people into believing their complete and utter bull-shit for one single reason: profit. It’s despicable.

Companies like Monster Cable were walking a fine line with their high priced analog cables because most people can’t tell the difference between gold plated, gas injected cable and coat hanger. But when the switch to digital started Monster was quick to cross way, way over that line by duping people into thinking they needed an overpriced cable to connect their HD devices. The problems is, HDMI is a digital signal and unlike analog signals (like composite video), it’s either there or it’s not. So, whether you have a $250 cable or a $6 cable your TV is going to look the same.

This is something that geeks have known all along but Monster, along with retailers like Best Buy, prey on the ignorance of consumers convincing them that they need grotesquely overhyped and overpriced cables.

You do not need a $250 HDMI cable, you don’t need a $50 HDMI cable: check out firefold.com or monoprice.com. I’ve personally bought from both and my TV has not blown up from the use of $6 cables.

And if your friends start harassing you for not buying into Monster’s bullshit show them this info graphic [via MintLife Blog]:

I keep getting reminded that I need to print, and keep copies of The Photographer’s Right in my camera bag; so I can give them to ignorant buffoons who seem to think taking pictures in public is a crime.

So, just before Halloween Sandi and I took our boys to a local pumpkin patch where they had a pumpkin cannon. While Sandi and I waited for our boy’s turn at the Pumpkin Popper I started to take a bunch of pictures of the cannon, in an attempt to try to get the timing right to catch a pumpkin leaving the barrel.

The picture above was the first one I took, just a quick shot to check settings, and even though it goes against my SOP I thought the little boy trying to get his pumpkin in the cannon was cute. It isn’t a very good picture, at least not of the boy in particular, his face is blown out and it’s a wide shot… it’s the only picture I took of any kid besides our boys.

As a rule I avoid taking pictures of kids I don’t know unless asked to. I understand having a stranger taking pictures of one’s children can make one uncomfortable. Even though, in public it’s perfectly legal to take pictures of anyone, even kids.

We had to wait about 15-20 minutes before our boys were up, and while we waited I continued to take pictures of the pumpkin popper in action. Kids (and adults) would go up, load their pumpkin, and walk back to launch it. When I was taking pictures there was no one, kid or adult, near the Pumpkin Popper.

To anyone not stifled by utter stupidity it was clear that I was taking pictures of the cannon and nothing else.

As we were waiting for another pumpkin to be loaded I called out to Jay, our son, who was waiting in line to launch his pumpkin and snapped this pic:

The other two kids visible in the picture are Zane and Gavin, who along with Jay make up the lot of our kids. What’s important here is that I called out to a child by name, several times, and so did Sandi (kids and their selective hearing) who was standing next to me. Clearly, I knew at least one of the kids present, and clearly the women standing next to me (Sandi) knew the same kid and even helped me get his attention for a picture.

Camera Owner/Photographer = Criminal

About 5 minutes after taking that picture of Jay, I was back to trying to get my timing right to capture a pumpkin leaving the barrel of the cannon, when a lady walked up to me and asked: “What are you taking pictures of?!”

It wasn’t her question that jostled me, it was her inflection, her tone and mannerisms. She was up in my face, staring me down (well staring me up… as she was shorter than me), clearly something was wrong. I was worried that I missed a sign somewhere stating that photography of the Pumpkin Popper was prohibited. I certainly didn’t want to get into a confrontation, or get us kicked out, at least not before our boys got the chance to launch their pumpkins.

I stammered out something like “I’m just taking pictures of the cannon…” Unless I’m prepared for it, or have time to warm-up, I just don’t do well when suddenly confronted like that. Thankfully, Sandi, who does much better in public than me, was near enough to hear what was going on and came over.

The lady started in on how she wanted to make sure I wasn’t taking pictures of any kids because they had some “creepy” guy in her neighborhood last Halloween taking pictures of kids. She explained that her and her neighbors “had to call the police on him.” She went on about how she was “on high alert” this time of year.

Despite the fact that, at this point, this lady had it coming to her, Sandi was very nice and explained to her that I was not a creep; that she was my wife, I was taking pictures of the cannon, and our kids were waiting in line.

She muttered an “I’m sorry” and happily walked away, apparently feeling pretty good about herself. I guess it was no big deal to her that she walked up to a complete stranger, and accused him of being the worst kind of criminal, based solely off the fact that he had a camera.

Not The First Time

This has happened to me before – at a soccer game where a man douche bag thought I was taking his picture and didn’t like it. I was actually taking a picture of Sandi and I told him that. I also explained to him that, as were in a public place, I could take his picture if I wanted to (I was feeling a bit more snarky that day).

It’s absolutely ridiculous. I have every right to take pictures at a pumpkin patch, soccer filed, or any public place without having someone get in my face and accuse me of being a criminal.

Despite the assumption of idiots like the lady from the pumpkin patch, if your in a public place (including private property open to the public) where you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, anyone who wants to can take your picture, your kids picture, and even your dog’s picture.

I generally try to avoid being a jerk, and don’t like confrontation, and I don’t set out to make people uncomfortable. So, it’s my general rule not to take pictures of people (especially kids) unless I get an ok, they ask me, or the situation warrants it. I think it’s a good rule to go by. But while I’m making it a point to not make people uncomfortable, this dipwad decided it was ok to accuse me of being a criminal simply because I have a camera. Ridiculous.

So, it’s time to print off copies of The Photographer’s Right and put them in my camera bag so if something like this happens again, I can simply pull out a copy and give it to the uneducated twat. While I’m at it I’ll probably print off some I’m a Photographer, Not a Terrorist Bust Cards.

Oh, and I did finally get the picture I wanted:

I was sitting in a waiting room with a TV tuned to the “History Channel” (which I happen to like). Since I was not there to watch TV, and the audio was down to a waiting room volume (i.e. you could barely hear it) I was only half watching. I did decipher that the program had something to do with UFO conspiracy theorists, trying to get presidents to admit that the US Government has evidence that we have been, or are being visited by aliens. I guess in UFO conspiracy circles there is a belief that the president is briefed on all the UFO happenings that our government knows about.

Now, I’m not going to get into the fact that there is zero scientific evidence that Earth has been visited by aliens, other than to say that while it’s cool to think about, entertaining and makes for good TV and movies – UFOs are bunk.

But it got me thinking…

So, what if the president admitted to UFO conspiracy theorists that the US Government is engaging in an active cover-up to hide evidence that we have been visited by aliens? Would they believe him? Could they? After all, they believe that the president is a part of the conspiracy to begin with. So, even if the president did admit something, even showed them evidence how could they believe him? He’s a part of the conspiracy after all.

The people that believe this sort of thing, UFO conspiracy theories, will never be able to accept truth; even if it’s the truth they wanted to hear. So, even if the president did confirm a UFO conspiracy theory, UFO conspiracy theorists would just turn around and claim that his admission is a part of a larger, more elaborate conspiracy to cover up another even more elaborate conspiracy, so on and so on.

Seems as though FedEx got there hands on a Blendtec Blender and decided to do their own “Will It Blend?” test on my order from Adafruit Industries.

Fortunately, Adafruit is sending out a replacement overnight (at no cost to me), which is really above and beyond considering that this was a FedEx FAIL and I was a bit of an ass to Adafruit about the issue initially blaming them rather than FedEx.

It's obvious that FedEx put the package in a plastic bag to hide the damage.

What FedEx didn't want me to see (the reason it was wrapped it in a plastic bag).

Both of you – get your damn act together. Stop fighting like a couple of prepubescent twats, and put the programing people pay for back on the air. I really don’t care whose “fault” it is; the fact that it came down to an entire local channel being pulled off the air is ridiculous and both parities should be ashamed of themselves.

Fisher Communications, inc. forces DISH Network to Remove its ABC lineup

KATU no longer available to DISH Network Subscribers

OK, plagiarism is wrong, copying content without attribution is wrong. Individuals and companies should make it clear what can and can’t be done with the content they publish on line. A Creative Commons license is a good way to do just that. However the content is licensed, it’s best to notify people of your restrictions without sounding to bitchy.

Case in point:

All that “This site is monitored daily” business makes me want to copy something off their site just to see what happens. And I love the “Share on Facebook” link right under the ominous do not copy anything off this site warning. Also, I’m lost on how monitoring their own site is going to protect their content; seems to me they’d want to monitor the internet for copies of their content and not their own site.

Again, it’s important to let visitors to your site know what is and isn’t OK when it comes to the use of your content. But a simple copyright notice or link to your usage terms is all that is necessary. Warnings and threats like this only serve to make you look like an ass; not something you want if you’re trying to run a business. Save the bitchiness for the person that missuses your content, not the innocent visitor to your site.

Bitchy copyright notice – merrickmgt.com

Original post removed on 7/5 due to threat of legal action by the owner of the Curves franchise but I don’t like being bullied and censored so I have decided to put the original post back and reopen comments.

After speaking with the owner I believe that the Curves in question takes this matter (data security) very seriously and that a similar situation will likely not take place. I believe that this was an isolated oversight and that the owners have learned a valuable lesson (i.e. they were scared shit-less and will probably be more careful).

I should clear some things up:

• Beyond the phone numbers and addresses contained in the letters (WordPerfect docs) there was no other data found on the system.
• The Curves database was encrypted and NO EFFORT was made to circumvent this encryption; no billing information (if any existed) was exposed.
• I was slightly misquoted on The Consumerist – no credit card information was found. My original post pointed out the potential for billing information to be found based off information I read on the iGo software.
• The hard drive was wiped (by me) using DBAN and no copies of the original data exist.
• Upon request demand of the owner the computer (and hard drive) were returned to them.

For future reference appropriate means of contacting me regarding posts on this blog are:

• Via the comments form that is shown below every post.
• Via my e-mail address adam [at] awaitinginspiration.com which is posted on the CONTACT page.

Inappropriate means of contacting me regarding posts on this blog:

• Coming to my house.

update: someone (TroyM27) calming to represent the owner of the Curves in question posted a comment on The Consumerist.

update: mranderson2008 makes some very good points.

update: Tyler Reguly posted about this on his blog.

Original post:

About two weeks ago now a relative found a Dell Inspiron 4500 sitting in the trash at the complex where he works. As the computer looked perfectly fine and it was obviously thrown out, he grabbed it to take a look at it. When he got it home and booted the system he found that the hard drive was still intact and other than running very slow the system seemed fine. He chalked it up to possibly having an infection, spyware or virus and determined that the folks who threw it out didn’t know any better than to just throw it away. It was later determined that the problem was a misconfiguration in the BIOS, the CPU was set to “compatibility mode” rather than “normal mode.” Once the BIOS was configured correctly the system ran perfect. Additionally, it was determined that the computer came from the Curves that resides in the complex.

Now I can cut Curves a small break for being idiots and throwing away a perfectly good computer, I mean the whole “compatibility mode” thing almost got me. However, what is completely inexcusable is the fact that they left the data on the hard drive intact; both customer and employee data.

I was able to find several documents (Word Perfect) that contained mostly trivial data, while still others contained phone numbers and addresses of both employees and clients. Even more disturbing the system still contained the Curves database “iGo Figure” which is really just an Access database. By looking at the features of the “iGo Figure” software you can see that the database potentially contains extremely personal information (i.e. credit card information). The database is password protected and while I didn’t; extracting the information from the database would likely be trivial.

I contacted Curves corporate office and was told by Pete that (I’m paraphrasing): Each Curves is responsible for their own systems, maintenance, etc. but he felt that this was inexcusable and he would contact the manager of the offending Curves to discuss the matter with them. He also asked me to wipe the hard drive.

No matter who you are or what your knowledge is if you run a business it is your responsibility to educate yourself (or pay someone) on how to handle technological issues like proper data disposal. There is simply no excuse for a scenario like this to occur.

The Access database:

Notice the ironic warning about giving out phone numbers to clients:

There were a few letters to clients, some contained full addresses:

After taking these screen shots the hard drive was wiped using DBAN. After editing all original versions of the images (to hide full names, addresses and phone numbers) the originals were securely deleted off my system.

I was going to post a rant about TBS interrupting my “Family Guy” reruns in a pathetic attempt to advertise the “Bill Engvall Show” but Jason Kottke did a fine job of it:

They paused the TV show, ran a little mini-commercial for some show that no one cares about, and then returned to the last two seconds of the segment before going to commercial.

Not only did they do this just a few seconds before going to an actual commercial, they did this in the middle of the show as well.

Not normally a movie critic, I don’t listen to movie critics… I prefer to see the movie and make my own conclusion and let others make theirs. Movies are art and therefore subject to one’s individual interpretation… I determined a long time ago that it’s pointless to try to convince someone a movie is good or a movie is bad, doesn’t mean I don’t try though…

My family and I saw “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” this past Friday. I was excited about seeing it because I loved watching the original “Indiana Jones” movies as a kid. Let me point out that the silliness and corny nature of “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” is not what I have a problem with, it goes in line with the previous films and is part of the “Indiana Jones” signature. I loved it when Mutt flew through the air swinging on vines like a monkey, I can even go with Indy surviving a nuclear explosion in a fridge. Harrison Ford still has what it takes and plays Indiana Jones beautifully; Shia LaBoef manages to not be annoying and pulls his character Mutt off well. The acting, cinematography, visual effects are all great! The problem is the story – I can do aliens, or interdimensional beings, I will even give you crystal skeletons that are alive. However, the movie had no point. They discovered apparently super intelligent beings who in the process of trying to impart their “superior” knowledge killed Irina Spalko and then split town destroying any evidence that they ever existed… I mean really. I sat in the theater waiting till the end hoping that there would be a line, a scene, something that would bring it all together that would make it all make sense… didn’t happen.

Mr. Spielberg, Mr. Lucas – I want my money back.

[photo credit]

Watched National Geographic’s “Six Degrees Could Change the World” last night (actual air date was Sunday) which was all well and good, really nothing new. If you’ve seen “An Inconvenient Truth” or have not been in a hole for the past few years it goes over the same climate changes and doomsday scenarios we could face if global warming is not curtailed. Of course there was an emphasis on breaking our dependence on fossil fuels, clean energy and conservation. The irony of the program was the commercials – I didn’t count, but I’m pretty sure just about every single commercial break had a Hummer ad. So on one side we have National Geographic telling us if we don’t do something about global warming the world is going to change for the bad and on the other National Geographic is allowing the peddling one of the most obnoxious, fossil fuel dependent cars on the road.

This seems like a bad move on Hummer’s part more than anything, did they seriously expect people to go out and buy a Hummer after watching a program like “Six Degrees Could Change the World”? Were they not clear on the premise of the show?

In his Wired article “Steal This Wi-Fi” Bruce Schneier gives some good reasons to leave your wireless network open, being neighborly for starters. While being neighborly is nice, advising people to open their wireless network without providing some advice on how to do it securely is irresponsible and one would have expected more from a renowned security expert…

My blanket advice – close your wireless network. If you don’t know how, find someone who can help you.

On the other hand – if you know how to run an open wireless network securely then do it! It may be a geek thing, but I find it cool (and neighborly) to be able to run an open wireless network and provide passersby with free internet access.

Here is how I do it:

I have a system running SmoothWall Express that I use as a firewall/router, the system has 3 network cards (interfaces) –

RED: Connects to my cable modem (internet)

GREEN: Connects to my private (read: secure) LAN

PURPLE: Connects to the public network

Let’s bust out the Visio:

It’s pretty simple, the SmoothWall won’t let any traffic pass from the Purple (public) network to the Green (private) network. This effectively creates two LANs, one public and one private. Clients on the Purple network cannot see clients on the Green network, the SmoothWall won’t allow it. With this setup I can place an access point on the Purple network and leave it open (no encryption) for the public to use without worry of exposing my systems to that public.

Consequently, you can still access the SmoothWall web interface (used to configure/administer SmoothWall) from the Purple network, while using a strong password would likely be sufficient to secure the web interface from rogue access I’d prefer to completely deny access to any clients on the Purple network.

To do this you edit /etc/rc.d/rc.firewall.up and add the following above the line # IPSEC:

if [ "$PURPLE_DEV" != "" ]; then
/sbin/iptables -I INPUT -p tcp -i $PURPLE_DEV -s 0/0 --dport 441 -j DROP
/sbin/iptables -I INPUT -p tcp -i $PURPLE_DEV -s 0/0 --dport 81 -j DROP
fi

If any attempts are made to access the web interface form the Purple network they will be dropped and the user will get a timeout error as if there was nothing to connect to in the first place.

The gist of it – I have two wireless APs – one on the Green network, secured using WPA that I use for private wireless internet and LAN access. The other on the Purple network, left open for public use. The SmoothWall provides DHCP on both the Purple and Green networks so clients are automatically configured.

I keep an eye on traffic because after all I pay for the connection and even though I leave a wireless connection open; like a guest overstaying their welcome if someone starts sucking my bandwidth by downloading torrents – they are going to get cut off. I haven’t had any issues thus far but if I notice a slowdown in my connection speed, it’s the first thing I check.

This is only one method, there are several ways to accomplish the same effect but SmoothWall Express is free (except the computer to run it on, which does not have to be anything special) and it’s relatively simple to setup. A more novice friendly solution (Mr. Schneier also mentioned) might be the FON AP which uses 2 wireless signals, one secured and one open. But FON requires people to register before using the connection which is a bit… annoying. It would be nice to see more manufactures add dual network capability their wireless APs, to make it easier for people to share their internet connection securely should they want to.

Security flows the other direction too – when using any public Wi-Fi play it safe make sure that any sites you enter passwords on are using a secure (SSL) connection. If it does not say https in the address bar and your browser does not show its respective “lock” icon then don’t enter personal information on it. It’s best to keep it to general browsing when using public wireless because since they are open, it makes it easy to sniff any traffic that flows across them. The person sitting across from you in Starbucks could be reading the same e-mail you are. The person that owns the open signal could also be watching you – be safe.

If your in Vancouver, WA and come across a wireless SSID of “steal this wi-fi” feel free to use the connection, but mind your manners.

My SSID “steal this wi-fi” was in use long before Bruce Schneier’s article was published, thankyouverymuch.

UPDATE: Don’t live in Vancouver anymore, but if you are in Oregon and see a wireless SSID mothership.public, that’s me. Feel free to use the connection, but mind your manners.

In the interest of full disclosure – I am a huge fan of “Mythbusters”, have been since day 1.

Last week the Discovery Channel ran sneak peeks of upcoming series, one such series is “Smash Lab.”

Insulting – That’s the word you could use to accurately describe “Smash Lab,” it’s an insult to the audience’s intelligence. The whole sneak peek episode was a 1 hour commercial for Rhino Lining, where they “tested” to see if the truck bed liner could be used to bomb proof a building. I don’t have a problem with the shows creed to “take on everyday technology and apply it in revolutionary new ways.” Sounds good, if you actually test that technology in an unbiased way. It was clear from the start of the show that the result was predetermined; scripted even.

The Crew – According the Discovery Channel site “The Crew”, as their referred to on the show, may actually be as qualified as the show’s narrator leads you to believe. Unfortunately, “The Crew” looses any credibility their credentials might afford them once you realize their tests are either blatantly rigged or simply irrelevant.

Blowing trucks up – In the first test, two identical trucks were blown up, one with its bed sprayed with Rhino Lining and the other without. You’re told that the explosive was placed on the rear axle, directly under the truck bed on both trucks. The first truck (unprotected) was blow to pieces, including the bed. The second truck (protected) was blow to pieces as well but the bed survived largely intact, apparently thanks to the Rhino Lining. In fact the protected bed didn’t even look as if it had been on a truck that was blow to pieces. However, it became clear when they showed the high speed footage of the protected truck’s explosion that the explosive was not under the rear axle but closer to the cab of the truck. “The Crew” was all too happy to point out that the Rhino Liner “deflected” the explosive blast away from the bed and towards the cab, saving the truck bed. The audience was left to ponder how PLASTIC could be so awesome.

Shrapnel – “The Crew” pointed out (rightly) that in an explosion it’s not only the shock wave you have to worry about, there is also shrapnel. So they proceeded to test Rhino Lining’s ability to stop shrapnel using bird shot from a shotgun. They hung a piece of lining up and fired one round and it went straight through the Rhino Lining. “The Crew” reasoned that when the Rhino Lining is used on a truck the bed acts as a backing giving the lining more strength, so they tried the shotgun test again, this time with the Rhino Lining applied to a 1/4″ piece of plywood. Problem is, they faced the plywood backing towards the oncoming shot, so the plywood absorbed most of the impact of the shot, not the Rhino Lining. “The Crew” was all giddy when they looked and found that the Rhino Lining stopped the shot, but it didn’t, the plywood did. Not to mention that explosive shrapnel can travel much, much faster than the speed of bird shot, I guess using an EXPLOSION to test the liner’s ability to stop shrapnel would have made to much sense?

Protect the Windows – Again, “The Crew” managed to point out the obvious, that buildings have windows and in an explosion they could get blown out. So they had to find a way to use the Rhino Lining to protect windows from an explosion. They constructed some shutters that were supposed to be forced shut by the blast’s shock wave. The shutters that they used for their final test (on the building) were made of steal with Rhino Lining sprayed on the side that would face the blast. Ok, Captain Obvious has a question – if you make the blast shutters out of steal, why would you spray them with PLASTIC? It’s a moot question, as the shutters didn’t work anyway, every window was blown out.

I could go on, but if I do I will have to Rhino Line my head because it will EXPLODE.

It was no surprise that at the end of the show the “Smash Lab” “Crew” found that Rhino Lining can be used to bomb proof a building, at least a sudo, one story (no load on the walls), masonry building-looking-structure. It was obvious within the first 5 minutes of the show that they were going to come to that conclusion.

What “Smash Lab” comes across as is a cheap knock-off of “Mythbusters”. Someone at The Discovery Channel looked at “Mythbuster’s” success and thought it was all about the destruction and explosions, missing key ingredients: science and integrity. It’s also apparent that the whole point (at least of this episode) was to make Rhino Lining look good in front of the camera, the show seems to be a sham. Whether or not this trend will continue as the series progresses waits to be seen, but it’s certainly not off to a good start.

Is that the people and places you’ve tried to put behind you are sitting in front of your face, just a click away. Like driving past the scene of an accident, you just can’t help looking. You’re a rubbernecker of your own past, a past that you’d rather just forget.

I had assumed that we lived in a day and age where companies realized that Internet Explorer isn’t the only browser people are using. Apparently, I was wrong. Every single time I tried a search or clicked on any link on the Barnes & Noble site I was greeted with a blank page (except for the header) in Firefox, preforming the same search in Internet Explorer worked without a hitch. It’s a sad day when I have to go to Internet Explorer to access a site…

Dear Barnes & Noble,

I have browsed your site using Firefox in the past without issue, but today when trying to preform a search on your site for a book (or clicking on any link) all I received was a blank page (minus the header graphic). I tried clearing the cache in Firefox and refreshing the page, but your site continued to pee on my book browsing fun fire. I opened Internet Explorer (7) and your site worked without incident. I understand that this is likely due to some recent update to your site (I see you already have the Christmas decorations out) but you should realize that there are a lot of us out here (36.0%) that use Firefox which isn’t some willy-nilly, fly by night browser but rather a well established (36.0%) alternative to Internet Explorer. You should be testing your site to insure that it works with Firefox as well as Internet Explorer (testing compatibility in other browsers is a good idea as well).

The Borders website works just fine in Firefox – they got my money.

Sincerely,
Adam