The Blog of Frank W. Zammetti - The demented ravings of a software developer

This was originally posted on 10/5/2007 on my old blog and is reposted now because… well, because I’m too lazy to write a new entry today!

———-

WARNING!!  This is one of my patented “not suitable for all audiences” posts… profanity, depraved thoughts, insanity, all are on display here.  If you are easily offended by what is meant to be humorous, go away now!!

You know, this is going to sound horrible, but… I find myself laughing at people’s deaths sometimes. Not because they died, I feel as much sympathy for people and their families as anyone. It’s just that sometimes the manner of peoples’ demises is just funny as hell.

Come on, you know I’m right, especially when outright stupidity is involved. Of course there is the Darwin Awards for things like this, but when someone finds out I find them amusing I frequently get asked “how would you feel if it was YOU? Wouldn’t you be upset looking down, or up as the case may be, at people laughing at your death?”

The short and simple answer is it depends on how I die! Here’s my feeling… if I die in some incredibly stupid or bizarre way that tickles your funny bone, laugh your ass off! It’s if I get killed by a drunk driver or am in the mall when Al Qaeda decides to bomb it, then I would hope you’d keep it in check (at least in public). Deaths like that deserve your sympathy, regardless of who the unfortunate victim was.

But, those guidelines are likely not solid enough for some people, so, I’ll make it simple for you… Below is a list of ways that, if I meet my end in them, you are hereby free from sin is you bust a gut at my expense… Also note that in at least some of these cases, such a high degree of stupidity would have to be involved that you might be LEGAL OBLIGATED to laugh at my death!

• If I am working at a zoo and feed 14 animal laxatives and 200 tons of grain to an elephant and then suffocate under a mound its dung while trying to administer a enema to said constipated elephant, you are free to laugh at my death.

• If I stick my tongue on a telephone pole in the dead of winter and either die of starvation five days later, or of blood loss when I try to cut my tongue off to escape, you are free to laugh at my death.

• If a fireball engulfs me while lighting a cigarette on my way to Taco Bell for the nights’ second round of beef and bean Burritos, you are free to laugh at my death (think about it…)

• If I carve a nice pattern into my face because I wore a tie while working near a spinning lathe, you are free to laugh at my death.

• If we discover that our parents were telling the truth and all that gum I swallowed (and continue to swallow) did in fact built up as a giant ball in my lower intestine and blocked my digestive system, eventually exploding in a mess of fecal matter inside me, you are free to laugh at my death.

• If I develop a sever case of lactose intolerance, cease eating and drinking all milk products, and then die of a nutritional imbalance caused by the lack of milk in my diet, you are free to laugh at my death.

• If I am electrocuted as a result of a short circuit in the automatic electric toilet flusher I install and the electricity travels up through my stream of pee and stops my heart, you are free to laugh at my death.

• If my doctor tells me I have to lose weight and I proceed to eat nothing but salads for a month and then wind up choking on a dry piece of lettuce, you are free to laugh at my death.

• If I decide I want to cheat on my wife because I have a sick need to know what sex feels like with a 500-pound woman and I am subsequently suffocated while performing the deed with said monstrous heffer, you are free to laugh at my death.

• If, in an attempt to jump over a puddle on the sidewalk I slip on a patch of ice and bash my skull wide open on a hot dog stand in New York City, you are free to laugh at my death.

• If I stroke out while squeezing out a particularly solid pound of fecal matter after a trip to Old Country Buffet, you are free to laugh at my death.

• Anything involving a door mouse, a barrel of fish, a rainy day in Jacksonville, Florida and at least 20 jars of peanut butter (creamy, it won’t be funny if it’s chunky!), you are free to laugh at my death.

• If I eat a package of popcorn kernels, because I like to do that sometimes, and then die from hundreds of small holes in my gut because I went into a tanning bed shortly thereafter, you are free to laugh at my death.

• If I try to duplicate that A-Team episode where they attach a bunch of garbage bags to a lawn chair and then use hair dryers to inflate them and fall to my death from 200 feet up because the extension chord wasn’t long enough, you are free to laugh at my death.

• If my skull is crushed by the frozen waste dumped from an airplane lavatory, you are free to laugh at my death.

• If I light my arm on fire lighting the BBQ, which I could have survived except that the can in the shed that I thought had water in it actually had gasoline in it, you are free to laugh at my death.

• If while playing on my trampoline I get a bit overzealous in my attempts to pull off a triple back tuck and fly off and impale myself on the picket fence surrounding my flower bed, you are free to laugh at my death.

• If my wife puts an entire box of baking soda in the toilet in an attempt to get the remnants of the last beef and bean barrio Taco Bell run cleaned up, but neglects to tell me, and I then proceed to load’er up with pee, you are free to laugh at my death (Get it? Baking Soda and urine, which is acidic, chemical reaction, explosion, ‘nough said).

• If on a very hot day while mowing the lawn I decide to try and drink from my power washer and blow the back of my head off, you are free to laugh at my death.

• If after getting sprayed by a skunk I decide to take a bath in gasoline, because of course gasoline can be an excellent cleaning agent, but then decide to try and cover up the smell with candles and incense, you are free to laugh at my death.

• If I blow myself up by leaving the top down on my BBQ grill for five minutes while the propane builds up and then quickly open in and toss a match in, you are free to laugh at my death. (Incidentally, this is the one item on this page that I’ve actually come close to doing once or twice… I’m kinda dangerous when it comes to grilling!)

• If I’m ever in a buffet and the place goes up in flames but I stay behind to fill my plate one last time to eat outside while everyone else escapes and I wind up a roast ON the buffet table, you are free to laugh at my death.

• If I dehydrate in a hot tub, lose consciousness and then drown, you are free to laugh at my death.

• If I am eaten alive by sharks because I forgot to take the package of Slim Jims out of my swimming trunks before going into the water, you are free to laugh at my death.

• If I drop dead of a heart attack while riding a stationary bike because my doctor told me I have to get in shape, you are free to laugh at my death.

And there you have it. My wife says it’s morbid, but shouldn’t we laugh at something that is as absolutely inevitable as death is? What the hell else can you do in the face of the Reaper? Besides, as the Darwin Awards prove, when stupidity is involved or just incredibly bizarre bad luck, don’t we almost have an obligation to laugh?!?

Futurama fans will undoubtedly be laughing right now based on the title alone!

Beware of possible spoilers below!  If you haven’t see The Day the Earth Stood Still and don’t want to know any specifics of the story, turn away now!

I took my son to see The Day the Earth Stood Still (heretofore referred to as TDtESS because I’m lazy!) last night.  I had read a ton of reviews leading up to it and there seemed to be a mostly negative opinion of it out there.  Being a huge fan of the original I didn’t have much hope for it… I figured the FX would be cool, and maybe there’s be some decent action scenes, but beyond that I didn’t expect much more.  I took my son precisely because I’m trying to get him more into sci-fi so that I have someone to watch movies with (my wife is decidedly NOT a sci-fi afficienato!)  and I figured maybe the action and intrigue here would work on him.

So, did it work?  And what did I think of the movie you ask?

Ok, you couldn’t care less about either because who the hell am I and why does my opinion matter anyway (hint: it doesn’t any more than yours!), but since you’re here you might as well get the answers anyway!

My son generally was interested the whole way through, which in and of itself is a win.  I wouldn’t say he loved it, and I wouldn’t say it sold him on sci-fi in general, but I think he liked it enough that I could get him to watch some other movies down the road.  So that’s good.  For me I mean!

But what did I think of the movie?  In a nutshell, I found it to be quite a bit better than I expected.

It wasn’t a great movie by any stretch, but I thought it was a good movie, and went JUST SLIGHTLY beyond a decent piece of entertainment.

I think comparing it to the original is probably unfair.  I’m not a fan of remakes/reimaginings under most circumstances, but sometimes you can get away with it.  This requires (a) that you respect the original source material and (b) do a good job so as to not insult the original.  I think TDtESS does pay respect to the original, and I think it generally does it proud.

What I’d like to do is address a few specific issues I saw people call out, because while this isn’t a perfect movie I do think that some of the criticisms I’ve seen didn’t ring true for me.

• Keanu Reeves’ acting sucks.  In general I wouldn’t disagree much, but I think in THIS movie he did a pretty good job.  No, I’d go further than that: I think he pretty much nailed it.  Now, to be clear, he was wooden, he was emotionless, true, but I think that’s precisely what the role called for.  And I’ll say this: you’ve probably seen the scene in the interrogation where he says “You should let me go”.  That’s a fantastic scene, and I think he did a tremendous job in it, and that line in particular.  If this movie does nothing else I think it truly gave as an iconic moment right there, an iconic line.
• GORT.  I’ve seen some people complain that the “robot” wasn’t named GORT by Klaatu but is an acronym made up by own military to describe the thing.  I’m not sure why anyone would have a problem with this.  Do we go around naming our computers?  (some do of course, but most of us don’t).  Most of us don’t even name our cars.  GORT is a tool of Klaatu, why would he name it?  It’d be like naming your hammer!  Also, the acronym didn’t seem forced to me, as is frequently the case in fiction where acronyms are involved.  I think it made sense based on what GORT was.
• “Klaatu Barada Nikto”.  Some people have claimed that the iconic line that disabled GORT was not in this movie.  First of all, it was: when Klaatu is shot early on, you can hear him utter the words, that’s why GORT ceases his attack at that point.  Granted, the mix wasn’t so hot in that part so it was easy to miss, but it’s there.
• “Klaatu Barada Nikto” redux.  Some people have complained about the fact that Klaatu couldn’t hault GORT’s cleansing of the Earth by simply uttering the words again.  I think those people missed something: GORT the “robot” was constructed from millions (more likely billions) of nanotech insects (more on this in a bit).  When they were together in “robot” form, they essentially functioned as one entity.  As such, it’s not far-fetched to believe there is a kill-switch command Klaatu can use to disable it.  But, when it breaks down into its nano form and begins scouring the planet, there’s no longer a centeral control mechanism to disable.  They are at that point billions and billions of autonomous devices with a pre-programmed purpose, and they cannot be disabled except by extreme measures.  I don’t at all see this as a plot hole as some do, I in fact see it as a clever construct in the story that makes a lot of sense.
• Some have said there was too much action in this version.  I disagree.  First of all, MOST of the movie is NOT action-based.  The action is interspersed, and doesn’t generally last for more than 30 seconds or so at a time.  I think this worked out pretty well actually, and as evidence I go back to the fact that my son was fairly well engaged in it the whole time, and he’s got a notoriously short attention span!
• Some people have complained about an advanced alien species wiping out the human race to save the Earth.  I think those people missed a very important plot point: as Klaatu clearly states, there is a very limited number of planets in the cosmos that can support complex life.  That being the case, an advanced species being willing to wipe out a less advanced race to save a natural resource is completely reasonable (in terms of story, not in terms of morals)… in fact, you could make a good argument that it’s MORALLY reasonable too on the ground that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.  If nothing else, it’s a point that’s debatable.
• Some people have complained about Klaatu’s super-powers.  I admit I think I would have preferred him being more human in this regard, but I can live with it based on one thing: Klaatu’s true form is never revealed, and I suspect it was some sort of energy being in nature.  If this is the case then being able to control electrical fields and transfer consciousness and that sort of thing isn’t entirely crazy.
• The Earth “standing still”.  Some people have complained about how in the original Klaatu disables technology as a demonstration of his capabilities while in the original its a consequence of his actions to save us.  I think some people just don’t like the reimagining of the “Earth standing still” idea, but I for one liked it.  I think it was a natural outcome of what happened at the end of the movie, and it actually was a fairly profound moment (my son, on his own, commented on how this essentially throws the human race back into the stone age and how that might really effect how we do things, given the new knowledge of what’s out there we have at that point).
• Some have complained that “a few boo-hoo moments from a mom and her child” changed Klaatu’s mind.  That’s just wrong.  Two things changed his mind.  First was the absolutely irrefutable logic that Dr. Barnhardt laid on him about a species only changing when their existence is threatened and comparing us to Klaatu’s own experience.  I think this probably got Klaatu 99% of the way convinced.  What pushed him over the edge is seeing the change in the kid.  At first, he just wanted to kill the alien, but by the end he changed and was now essentially Klaatu’s friend.  This proved to him that our species had the capacity for change.  And in the end, what’s going to convince a representative of an advanced species more: a bunch of politicians telling him what he wants to hear, which is what he would have gotten at the U.N. as he requested speaking to, or a mother and child showing on a personal level what we might really be made of?  I suspect any sopisticated species, as Klaatu’s clearly must be, wouldn’t be fooled by politicians but would instead put more weight on their own personal interactions with a limited sampling of humans.

So ok, I’ve defended the movie a fair bit here, but I also said it’s not perfect.  Here’s a few negatives:

• The only truly glaring plot hole I noticed is the fact that GORT’s nanites can destroy an entire sports stadium in a few seconds but seem to take their sweet-ass time getting through some plain old glass!  Now, I understand this is a pacing issue the director had to do to generate the right sense of dread and tension in certain scenes, so I can suspend disbelief enough to not have it ruin things for me, but I definitely noticed it.
• The nanoites being bug-like.  I can’t think of a single good reason they would take the form of metallic grasshoppers other than someone in the FX department, or the director more likely, thought it was a good idea.  It wasn’t.  First of all, the FX weren’t all that great on them so they just looked fake and stupid.  Second, showing them as more miniature robot forms of some sort would have made more sense.  The only way I can see that being a good decision is if there’s an argument that they are actually biological in nature, but then I wouldn’t expect an EMP at the end to wipe them out (and we know it was an EMP because of what it did to all our technology).
• The whole “undercover agent” side of things.  I mean, I can understand how it makes some sense… if this group of civilizations is out there are wants to learn about us and decide if we can change, living among us for a while is probably a good way to do that.  Still though, it really felt kind of silly to me.  I really would have preferred Klaatu coming down and simply saying “hey, we’ve been watching you, and we’ve made our decision”.
• Klaatu getting shot.  Arguably this was a flaw in the original too, but it seems even more of a flaw here given how sensitive the new GORT seemed to be to violent intentions.  Even putting that aside, Klaatu was coming down to destroy us, and in his mind we are a violent, primitive race, so why even come out and put yourself in a situation to be shot in the first place?  Again, I can suspend disbelief here because it serves the story, but it’s a hole in my mind still.
• The FX were average in this movie.  There were some good scenes (the various objects melting from the nanobug cloud) and some weren’t so good (the close-ups of the nanobugs).  I also thought Gort was a mixed bag… a bit too CG for my tastes.  Also, the scenes were they try to incinerate it had some of the worst fire effects I’ve ever seen.  We’re so spoiled with great FX these days that you really notice the flaws now.  They weren’t distractingly bad (except maybe the nanobug close-ups), but they weren’t terribly memorable overall.
• Jaden Smith.  I put him as a negative because he was annoying, but I think it’s important to point out that he wasn’t anywhere near as annoying as most child actors tend to be.  I think I’m more ambivalent about his performance than really thinking of it as a negative.  But, I’m pushed to call him a negative because the rumor is he’s going to be in the remake of The Karate Kid, which is a remake that DOES NOT need to be made, but even if it’s got to happen, he is SO not the right kid to play the part, so I’m pre-emptively deducting some points from him and counting that future work against him in this movie!

So, on balance, I actually liked this reimagining (which is what it is, NOT a remake).  The underlying premise of saving the planet from us I thought worked, I think Keanu Reeves worked, I think the additional action worked, and I don’t think there were any major plot holes (save maybe the magical power of simple glass to resist otherwise unstoppable nanotechnology!).  I think it did the original proud, I think it updated a classic in a way that made sense and that didn’t trample all over what came before.  This is one of the few times I think a remake, more precisely, a reimagining, was warranted, and one of the even fewer times where it actually worked.

That is, of course, just one man’s opinion

Today a saw a post on Digg:

http://digg.com/apple/iPhone_Developer_Writes_Personal_Letter_to_Steve_Jobs

This discusses a letter sent by an iPhone developer named Craig Hockenberry to Apple CEO Steve Jobs.  You can check out the letter here:

http://www.macblogz.com/2008/12/09/iphone-developer-writes-personal-letter-to-steve-jobs/

This post got me thinking… I don’t own an iPhone myself.  I refuse to consider it until they are on a half-way decent cell network (and I’m personally a fan of Sprint specifically).  Besides, I’ll make the unpopular admission here: I actually like Windows Mobile!  Putting aside the fact that I’ve developed and sold a few products for that platform, I just prefer it.  My HTC Mogul has served me very well, thank you very much!

So I don’t really have a vested interest (right now anyway) with what’s going on with the iPhone and the App Store.  However, Craig’s post struck a nerve with me as a developer that has sold some products in the mobile space.

Part of Craig’s argument is that the abundance of .99 apps make it hard for him to compete.  He says in the letter, and I quote:

…The problem now is funding those products.  We have a lot of great ideas for iPhone applications.

Unfortunately, we’re not working on the cooler (and more complex) ideas. Instead, we’re working on 99¢ titles that have a limited lifespan and broad appeal. Market conditions make ringtone apps most appealing.

Before commencing any new iPhone development, we look at the numbers and evaluate the risk of recouping our investment on a new project. Both developers and designers cost somewhere between $150-200 per hour. For a three man month project, let’s say that’s about $80K in development costs. To break even, we have to sell over 115K units. Not impossible with a good concept and few of weeks of prominent placement in iTunes…

Here’s the thought that jumped into my head as I read that: maybe you shouldn’t be in business if you don’t want to take the risk of developing the “cooler” products that in all probability would sell extremely well if they are truly that cool.

You see, good products, truly GOOD products, of any kind, tend to sell pretty well regardless of price.  Oh sure, the price point has to be reasonable, and there will always be people who just want the cheapest alternative available, but most people are perfectly willing to pay a premium for a perceived better product.

However, the manufacturer has to be willing to take the risk.  I realize it’s not easy when you’re a “little guy” (and what that term means is up for debate these days), but that fact doesn’t change.

Speaking from my own experience… I spent nearly a year developing a Windows Mobile game called K&G Arcade.  The “budget” for the project was miniscule, under $1,000.  I’m damned proud of that product, I think it came out really well.  However, the world at large didn’t agree: we sold less than 200 copies all totaled.  Clearly, the ROI on that project didn’t work in our favor.  Would I have not done that project if it had cost me more up-front to do it?  No, I still would have done it, and now I’d be up shit’s creek, to put it bluntly.  I believed in the project, thought it was really cool, and I would have taken the larger risk without hesitation.  Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

And sometimes when you lose, you go out of business, and that gets back to my main thought.  Business is all about risk.  If you aren’t willing to take that risk, you shouldn’t be in business.  It’s about the willingness to spend money to make money.  Hell, look at the big three auto makers and the problems they (and by extension, all of us!) are having: if they had decided some years ago to start pushing new technologies and innovative products and just plain taking some risks, instead of playing it safe and putting out all the tanks (SUVs, minivans, etc) that everyone wanted at the time, maybe they’d be diversified enough now to survive without having to beg for money in the United States Congress.

The tanks are the .99 apps in the App Store, and the new technologies and innovative products are, to hear Craig tell it, the “cool” apps he’s not developing because he still feels he needs to develop the tanks instead.

Current market conditions are only current market conditions until they aren’t.  Sometimes what the consumer wants changed the conditions, but often times a great product will tend to lead the consumer.  Think of this: how many people knew they JUST HAD TO HAVE a portable MP3 player before Apple came out with the iPod?  Not too many, that product lead consumers, no everyone (err, except me!) has one.  The iPhone is a very similar product, everyone (except me again!) wants it, but they probably didn’t know they wanted it before Apple put it out there. Any one of the “cool” ideas Craig isn’t pursuing because he feels market conditions don’t warrant it could be the next product that leads consumers and changes the very conditions he’s worried about.

Craig, if your ideas really are that “cool”, and you really believe they are, then take the chance regardless of what the numbers say and you just might change the equation.  Yes, it’s a risk, but that’s what business is all about.  If you’re not willing to face that risk, you probably should get out, or at least, stop sending bitch letters (albeit thoughtful and eloquent bitch letters!) to Steve Jobs.  You might as well spend that time developing!

I’m a parent of two, and I do what most parents do: lie to their kids.

I participate in perpetuating the myth of a jolly fat man in a red suit that has in his possession flying reindeer, who uses magic dust to shrink himself down to fit down the chimney so he can leave gifts for all the worlds’ children.

(kinda sounds like a guy on a bad acid trip, but I digress)

A while back I was asking myself why parents do this.  Why did my parents lie to me?  Why do I lie to my kids?  Sure, it’s tradition, and that’s what keeps us doing it until we stop and think about it.  At that point some parents decide that dishonesty isn’t the way to go and they break the news to their kids.

So, why do we follow this tradition in the first place when the very next day we’ll go back to telling our kids that honesty is the best policy?  The answer is actually very simple, but I have to admit I never really stopped to think about it until fairly recently.

You see, the world is a cruel place.  You can die at any moment in more ways than you can count, and that’s not even including the things you might deserve based on your stupidity!  I mean just the universe as a whole randomly deciding that your time is up and that’s that.  Some say this is God and his/her Plan in action.  Maybe that’s true, but ultimately if I as a simple human being can never understand God’s plan, as I’m told by my religious friends is the case, then for all intents and purposes it’s just random acts of terrible things.  And it doesn’t stop with death either: there’s all sorts of misery that can be visited upon you that don’t lead to your demise… a stroke, heart attack, losing all your money, your house catching fire, your wife cheating on you, losing your job, your child getting hit by a car, and so on.  All of these are terrible things (some more than others obviously).

The universe is a randomly cruel thing.  That’s a sad fact that we’ll teach our kids indirectly by exposing them to the world.  But, wouldn’t it be nice if in the same breath we could also tell them that the universe can also randomly be kind?  Wouldn’t it be great if for no apparent reason the universe just did good things for you?

That’s where Santa Claus comes in!  Now, sure, it’s not quite so random: it’s every December 25th like clockwork, and sure, we tell them it’ll only happen if they are nice rather than naughty all year… but essentially, Santa Claus represents anonymous kindness provided by someone we’ll never actually see or meet, a force we’ll not know personally (dismissing the mall Santas of course!)… in other words, as far as a child knows, the universe is being kind to them once a year for no apparent reason.

Sure, Santa Claus is a lie.  Us adults know that.  But we tell our kids the lie anyway because it gives them hope.  It gives them a reason to believe that the universe isn’t just cruel, that all the terrible things they’ll experience in their lifetimes, all the horrible things they’ll learn about, aren’t all there is.  In many ways, the hope represented by Santa Claus is in fact the greatest gift we give our children, at least until the blissful ignorance of childhood fades into a hazy memory and adult cynicism takes hold.

So yes, keep telling the lie of Santa Claus to your children!  Don’t for a second think you are doing anything wrong!  One day they’ll learn the truth, and they may even be annoyed for a while… but then some day, probably when they have their own kids, they’ll come to the same realization I have and they’ll thank you retroactively for what may well be the ultimate white lie!

Today saw the destruction of my previous blog for unknown reasons… I’m not sure if it was hacked (nothing obvious to make me think that) or just a server blow-up (also not really any evidence of that).  All I know is that all of a sudden, my blog didn’t work, and I couldn’t manage to resurrect it.

It’s not really the end of the world though… I’ve been meaning to do some cleanup, so this is an opportunity to do so.  I also changed software to WordPress.  I had no problems with b2evolution, in fact we’re playing with it at work now, but WordPress seems to be one of, if not THE most popular blog software out there, so I figured what the hell.

I really do intend to start posting regularly, but I’ve said that before too… we’ll see!  I’ll also at some point try and get the old posts back up there (I did manage to export the data from the old blog, so nothing is actually lost thankfully).