Archive for May 2008
Overheard the other day at the on-campus coffee shop: “Jessica Alba is hotter than the Planck temperature!” Ah, working on a campus full of nerds is fun sometimes.
What’s the Planck temperature? Well, it might be the opposite of absolute zero – absolute hot! Then again, it might not, physicists don’t really know. In numerical terms, it’s about 100 million million million million million degrees, or 1032 Kelvin.
The Nova article puts it in perspective thusly: “In short, saying 1032 K is hot is like saying the universe occupies some space.”
Kitty’s cousin David Hahn has summited Everest again (and, just as importantly, made it back to Advance Base). This gives David 10 summits, making him the only non-Sherpa in double digits.
Dave is a very cool guy, and uniquely accomplished as a guide. 25 ascents of Antarctica’s Vinson Massif, 17 ascents of Denali, and 245 ascents of Mount Rainier. He’s not what you might expect from an “extreme” sport athlete. He’s got a million stories that are just fascinating to hear, and the guy knows how to write. If you’ve got some time to burn and you want to read some engaging stories, I recommend his stuff.
He’s certainly less boring than my usual topics 🙂
Coworker Dave and I started talking about classic scenes from movies, and I started musing about classic “Angry Man Monologue” scenes. These, opposed to the “Crazy Man Monologue” scenes. Scenes from movies that involve a truly epic rant by a righteous (or self-righteous) character.
This wasn’t meant to be restricted to men; it just so happens that it’s pretty rare that a classic angry rant comes from an actress. I’ve come up with a least one actress rant to include on the list, additional entries welcome.
We’ll start with the obvious.
Samuel L. Jackson, as Jules Winnfield, in “Pulp Fiction” (1994) – the hit scene. Launched a career of angry man rants.
Jack Nicholson, as Daryl Van Horne, in “The Witches of Eastwick” (1987). The ranting about the perfidiousness of women to a thunderstruck church-going audience is I think my second favorite Jack Nicholson performance of any sort, and beats out Jack as Col. Nathan R. Jessup, in “A Few Good Men” (1992).
Lee Cobb, as Juror #3, in “12 Angry Men” (1957). The furious breakdown of an sad man buried under a lifetime of bitterness.
Also from 12 Angry Men, Ed Begley, as Juror #10. The racist rant.
Clint Eastwood, as William Munny, in “Unforgiven” (1992). “That’s right. I’ve killed women and children. I’ve killed just about everything that walks or crawled at one time or another. And I’m here to kill you, Little Bill, for what you did to Ned.” The scene that displays the cold fury that Eastwood reached for in most of the characters his entire career, and finally seized and embraced to full effectiveness. This scene itself is fascinating as an interplay of monologues; Gene Hackman’s Little Bill and Eastwood’s Munny trade lines, but neither is really addressing the other. They’re either talking to everyone else in the room, or to themselves. All the communication between the two men is in the eyes.
Gregory Peck, as Keith Mallory, in “The Guns of Navarone” (1961). A inherently fairly decent man, driven by the pressures of war to set up his friend in an impossible situation, confronted by another decent man (David Niven). Worthy not only for Peck’s rant (as excellent a performance as any other in his career), but for Niven’s response, communicated almost entirely by expression.
Uma Thurman, as Maid Marian, in “Robin Hood” (1991). Losing out to Kevin Costner’s version in the marketing war shunted this (much better) incarnation to the small screen. As a result, Uma’s lambasting of her paramour Sir Miles Folcanet (Jurgen Prochnow) simply didn’t get the exposure to the cinema world it deserved. “Conquer your ignorance, Miles. Fight your stupid greed.”
Humphrey Bogart, as Sam Spade, in “The Maltese Falcon” (1941). Spade’s breakdown of his negotiation with Gutman ends with a seemingly furious tirade, only for the audience to realize as he storms out of the room that the character has been acting. The slight twist at the end of the scene as Sam boards the elevator shows that Mr. Spade isn’t *quite* the cool character we’ve all been thinking he is (unfortunately not included in the below clip).
Ricardo Montalban, as Khan, in “Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan” (1982). “For hate’s sake… I spit my last breath at thee.” Yep, it’s a performance that would probably be regarded as “over the top” if it didn’t come in the same movie as the King of the OverToppers (Shatner). Which, in and of itself, is the reason why it belongs on the list… nobody could have played Khan’s rage at Kirk better than Ricardo did… without either making his own performance look ridiculous, or Shatner’s.
Honorable mention goes to Jimmy Stewart’s Jefferson Smith from “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington“, but the ending scene is less about anger than it is disillusionment.
People are going to ask, where’s Pacino’s “Say hello to my leetle friend!” or Finch’s “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not gonna take it anymore!”… those are the Crazy Man Rants, and I’ll get to those later.
Reading a Bad Astronomer post and the associated comment thread, I started to get really grumpy. Then I got more grumpy. Then I got mad. So I commented there, but I’m going to reproduce my comment here at home for any passerby to see, slightly edited.
People, if you are going to debate science, you must remember the absolutely cardinal rule of science, so basic that it’s turned into a joke in the movie “Real Genius”
“Never… no… Always… remember to cite your references”
Please do not tell me that there are peer-reviewed journal articles supporting your position. This is meaningless, it’s the same horrible behavior I see on other “hot button” science issues on various other sites. Someone may have told you this. You might have read it somewhere. Maybe you actually believe it is true.
I believe it not. I believe your organization’s claim that these papers exist also not in the slightest. Unless I *know* that your organization has a well-established history of only referencing peer-reviewed science (and there are a very, very limited number of organizations that fall under this umbrella). Best to cite those too, just to be safe. Although, to be honest, this should be a fantastically easy task as any credible organization that has a real science position on a public policy issue *will provide those references* anyway. Cut n’ paste, people, it’s not so hard.
It’s like failing to put your ingredients list on your pre-packaged food -> you don’t get to sell it to me, I’m not buying it. In fact, from a scientific standpoint, your pre-packaged food gets halted at the distribution center and doesn’t make it into the marketplace, it fails the basic rules.
And in all honesty, the internet would be a better place if people were forced to do basic goddamn research before pretending they had.
Sorry, I’ve seen too much of this lately and it’s making me grumpy. There is a simple method of providing a reference. There are several different style manuals available. MLA is acceptable. If you cannot provide a reference, please do not include the nebulous possible existence of one as a part of your *scientific argument*.
Homie don’t play that.
Hewlett Packard is buying EDS. From NPR’s News In Brief:
Hewlett-Packard, EDS Agree To Merge
The nation’s largest personal computer-maker, Hewlett-Packard Co., has agreed to purchase Electronic Data Systems Corp for $12.6 billion, the empire founded by H. Ross Perot, as part of an effort to position the company to take on rival IBM.
The companies said the deal values EDS at $25.00 per share, a 33 percent premium to its closing price on Friday, before reports of merger talks sent the shares soaring on Monday.
EDS would bring its expertise in running computer systems and providing other high-tech help to Palo Alto-based HP. That field is currently dominated by IBM Corp., which generated $54 billion in revenue from technology services last year.
HP indicated it will make significant layoffs as it eliminates overlapping jobs and other expenses.
Now, HP hasn’t really been involved in high-tech outsourcing management. Why would they pick up EDS, at a 33% premium? The only thing I can think of is that the folks over at HP on the board think that IBM’s weak enough in this arena (see many of Cringely’s recent articles about IBM) that merging up with EDS gives them a chance to jump into that market with a big gun… and that the near-sourcing market is going to pick up. That and they realize that the hardware market is high cost low margin, so their core business model needs a little tweaking.
Dave recently wrote a piece about the current odd state of affairs in personal computing.
I don’t know that I like his whole piece, but he has a couple of very good points:
- Most people don’t personally compute, so they don’t need a “personal computer”, they need a “utility box”.
- It is sort of nonsensical to have “ordinary” people in charge of taking care of a piece of technology that is several orders of magnitude more complicated than their car, when they pay mechanics to take care of their car.
- Until the cost of bad systems administration is borne by somebody (in a fiscal sense), there will never be a sufficient motivation to make anything better.
I don’t like the insurance idea. Although it would assist, it would be extremely difficult to migrate to such a system without a period of distinct hosing of the general population -> suddenly all of the cost of bad system security falls upon the user. Since no insurance company could really do a good job of quantifying the risk at the beginning, the insurance would be really high. This would be bad for the overall information economy.
On the other hand, it *is* a problem. When millions of compromised hosts are parts of various botnets, you can’t keep ignoring the fact that nobody is paying the cost for really bad security, or nothing is ever going to get fixed. This is where I think Dave is onto something.
Most people *don’t* use their computer for more than a dozen tasks. They watch video, listen to music, write email, send messages, browse the web, archive their photos and documents, do some wordprocessing or spreadsheet work, balance their checkbooks, and play games. These are utility users. They shouldn’t be systems administrators; they shouldn’t *have* to be systems administrators. The two biggest barriers to fixing this problem are the OS and media content providers. The OS problem is sort of solving itself (albeit slowly and horribly); XP’s “default administrator” has been replaced with Vista’s UAC (which unfortunately everyone is turning off, but at least we’re getting somewhere) and Macs don’t make users root.
Unfortunately, people have to become administrators anyway, because they want to be able to see videos or play games or download music, and there are no ubiquitous file formats for any of those. Not to mention the fact that content providers keep shoveling DRM down users’ throats, and in order for DRM to work, the underpinnings need to hook into the operating system, which means the user needs to be an administrator to futz with it. This is stupid -> it’s like demanding that people know how to fix their plumbing (and therefore drywall, plaster, paint, whatever) in order to watch the TV.
Not an easy problem. I suspect a distributed solution is what is needed here. OS vendors need to be held accountable for some things. ISPs need to be held accountable for some things. Users need to be held accountable for some things. Content creators need to be held accountable for some things.
And of course they’re all going to complain that regulation is stifling their business.