Need a cool way to generate random passwords for people that are easy to remember and dict-crack proof? Try the Automatic Password Generator. Nifty.
O'Reilly has an interview with the developers of NeL, an open source MMORPG engine. On page 2 of the interview, about half way down, there is a good plug for Python:
When you wrap your low-level and "fast" C++ code into Python classes, you're encouraged to make the simplest interface for both the C++ wrapper's and Python coder's sakes. The other point is that it's easier to convert existing Python code into C++ native implementation than the other way around. And a Python development cycle is many orders faster than C++'s; compile times just get insane at 500,000 lines, even with high-end hardware.
The same reasoning above works with other high-level, interpreted languages. Python has a wide audience, is free, small, fast, well-designed, and ultra portable.
A little preachy but nice otherwise. The Meatrix, a parody/lecture about industrialized agriculture. I guess it makes sense that Trinity is a chick(en).
One reason UNIX will always be superior to Windows: fortune. Here's a gem I got today:
Lobster:
Everyone loves these delectable crustaceans, but many cooks are squeamish about placing them into boiling water alive, which is the only proper method of preparing them. Frankly, the easiest way to eliminate your guilt is to establish theirs by putting them on trial before they're cooked. The fact is, lobsters are among the most ferocious predators on the sea floor, and you're helping reduce crime in the reefs. Grasp the lobster behind the head, look it right in its unmistakably guilty eyestalks and say, "Where were you on the night of the 21st?", then flourish a picture of a scallop or a sole and shout, "Perhaps this will refresh that crude neural apparatus you call a memory!" The lobster will squirm noticeably. It may even take a swipe at you with one of its claws. Incorrigible. Pop it into the pot. Justice has been served, and shortly you and your friends will be, too.
-- "Cooking: The Art of Using Appliances and Utensils into Excuses and Apologies"
"A Woman's Guide on How to Pee Standing"
Quote:
Janice writes... Well I’m in college and you’d be surprised to see how many college girls use men’s urinals. I personally find it boring to pee in regular stalls. Its much more exciting and daring to pee standing up at urinals. Any woman can pee standing up, facing a urinal, looking at the wall or whatever men look at. Down here in Texas at one of our stadiums, they are installing urinals for women in addition to the stalls. Usually there are long lines for the women’s bathroom. My friends Judy and Karen will sometimes stand at the urinal and see who can get the furthest arc. It works best when we are all drunk!
Any ladies needing a "finger-assist" should drop me a line...
I just watched the movie "Waking Life", a marvelous and thought-provoking film. A real gem. Some parts are a little fluff but it manages to present an unprecendented amount of depth in the film medium, using an artistic style that is absolutely unique.
My friend Brad tried to stop some meathead bouncers at Vertigo from beating up his friend, and he ended up with a bloody nose and swollen lips. Read about his encounter with bouncer brutality at Vertigo and why he won't ever return to Vertigo in Boston. He also has some tips when bouncers attack.
The Telegraph UK has a fascinating story about a woman who is actually two non-identical twins that merged in her mother's womb into a single individual human being. Some of the cells in her body are of one genetic type, some are of another type. Her unusual constitution was discovered when two of her three sons were found to be biologically unrelated to her. Amazing!
Apparently PETA is outraged about Alaskan Girl Scouts trapping beavers, even though the girls are taught about why it's important for flood and tree control to stop beavers from having their way. PETA doesn't seem to understand that animals do stupid things to themselves, and that some animals are actually detrimental to the entire ecology around them.
This reminds me of that time the eco-warriors at Cornell "freed" a cow in a research lab that had open access to staircases, etc. down which the cow would almost certainly have fallen and killed itself. Stupid people acting brashly for blind causes - hilarity ensues.
I found a good negative review of Matrix Revolutions and why it ruined the whole series. The author has some excellent points (including a nice rant about the stupid, irritating gimmick of make characters not communicate with each other to further build suspense), but the thesis of his (long) review is thus:
The first Matrix walked a fine line between deepthink and pure entertainment. But the second one, with all of its pretentiousness, did not. The second one cemented the promise of the first one, which was "Look, I know there's tons of philosophical dialog and repetitiveness, but it's all for good reason. Just hold on there." And so the washed-up explanations of the third, basically in line with the first, don't add up. Why? Because all the repetitiveness is to explain something simple, not something complex, and that amounts to telling the viewers: "See, you are too stupid to understand this. So we'll say it over and over again. We will put Neo in the guise of a martyr, bandages and all, so you can see how much he suffers and don't miss the Jesus analogy. We will make you questions words like "Love" by making machines say "they're just words". We will make obvious references to everything under the sun until you can't ignore them."
But I think that people would rather see something that is a) either simple and to the point, or b) something non-obvious that can not be fully expressed, but hinted at.
The Matrix, as it stands, is just a bunch of obvious points driven into our heads with a sledge hammer. And that's not what the "contract" specified. Furthermore, all the ideas have been used before. Nothing new here. It's all one big cop-out. Entertaining? Yes. A Masterpiece? Most definitely not. Treating your audience like idiots is not a very good idea.
I seldom post Fark links because I assume everyone reads Fark, but this one is a real gem: it's a Roger Ebert review of Gus Van Sant's movie "Elephant", which is about school shootings and won the Golden Palm at Cannes. Ebert praises the insight of the movie and recounts an event that happened to him after the Columbine shootings. This is worth a read, and I think I'll have to rent Elephant. (Gus made Good Will Hunting.)
This just adds to my respect for Roger Ebert as a public figure. A while back, I emailed a bunch of people a link to an interview with Ebert in The Progressive. That interview is worth reading in its entirety, but here is a very cool excerpt:
Ebert: There's an interesting pattern going on. When I write a political column for the Chicago Sun-Times, when liberals disagree with me, they send in long, logical e-mails explaining all my errors. I hardly ever get well-reasoned articles from the right. People just tell me to shut up. That's the message: "Shut up. Don't write anymore about this. Who do you think you are?"
Q: It's the Dixie Chicks impulse. One of the members of the group said she was ashamed to be from Texas where the President is from. And so, in what I consider a brownshirt tactic, some rightwing DJs organized gatherings where people literally stomped on Dixie Chick albums.
Ebert: It wasn't just some rightwing DJs. The New York Times reported that it was also organized by a radio conglomerate that had received a lot of favors from the Bush Administration in deregulation. So that was not a spontaneous outpouring. It's a shame. It's a shame. The right really wants to punish you for having an opinion. And I think both the left and the right should celebrate people who have different opinions, and disagree with them, and argue with them, and differ with them, but don't just try to shut them up. The right really dominates radio, and it's amazing how much energy the right spends telling us that the press is slanted to the left when it really isn't. They want to shut other people up. They really don't understand the First Amendment.
In this article about President Bush's approval of the anti-abortion bill, he is quoted as saying:
"This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government -- it comes from the creator of life," the president said, receiving another lengthy standing ovation.
I couldn't agree with him more - the creators of life, namely the mother and father, are naturally blessed the choice of whether or not to bring that life into the world. Oh, wait... he's not talking about some monotheistic creation myth here, is he?