The views and opinions expressed in this blog by Kyle Brady are solely his own, and do not necessarily reflect those of Intuitive Industries LLC, their clients, the sponsors or advertisers of this blog, or other employers Kyle may have.
You might be interested to know that there's two different kind of posts on this blog: "Thought of the Day" and "Normal". The "Thought of the Day" category is a once-a-day random tidbit, usually a funny video or picture, and the "Normal" is just what you'd expect from a blog like this:
Unicorn-Butterfly Soup.
--Kyle
p.s. the subscription options to the left (psst! <---- that way) reflect the same content options
Here’s the first videos I’ve seen related to the upcoming (hopefully soon) Harry Potter movie…
I really only have to things to say, in addition to sharing this link:
This movie has the potential to be really great, or really terrible, moreso than any of the other ones. This is the darkest story yet, but has alot of side-action going on (I won’t ruin it if you haven’t read the books). Let’s just say that if it’s done right, people who love the books and hated the movies so far will probably change their mind.
“Hermione” had better keep being herself, completely opposite of those edited movie posters… if you know what I mean. *wink*wink*
posted on November 15th, 2007 at 9:02 pm by Kyle - Comments
This is definitely filed under “Coolest News This Week”: it is apparently now theoretically possible to create ‘wormholes’ (ala Star Trek or Stargate) on Earth, and use them as point-to-point relays.
Oh Yeah!
Not Exactly…
If you read into the article, you may get highly disappointed. Let me save you from the trouble: we’re not talking about the ability for people to “teleport” or anything. It was made clear that the most practical application would be in the medical world, moving or inserting very small objects into certain places, or for computers’ calculation processes.
Yeah, But
Who cares, right? The fact that you could do something like this would, itself, be awesome, regardless of whether people could go through it or not. Let’s pretend that, as the article mentions, computer components could be “sent” through such a wormhole…
Instant Delivery
If every household had a small portal, or wormhole device, it would have endless uses. The most obvious? The destruction of traditional mail services! No longer would you have to wait 5-7 days for a letter to come from your grandma! No longer would you have to wait for “somewhere around the 15th of the month” for that electricity bill to show up! It would be instantaneous. Maybe even package delivery too, so you could get your shipment of steroids from Mexico faster…
Other Applications
Here’s some other applications I see coming from this:
Really creepy things like spy on people, easier than it is now
“Losing” something now becomes a reality if you don’t exactly know where your wormhole goes
What if you set up two wormholes in series? Throw a ball through it… would it fall? Or go infinitely throughout the loop?
Not The Space-Time Kind, But The EMF Kind
A Long Ways Away
Anything like this is a long ways away, much like quantum computing or that invisibility cloak, but it’s cool to think about anyways. But it’d be even better if it had uses like human transportation, or interstellar space travel…
posted on November 15th, 2007 at 2:47 pm by Kyle - Comments
Heroes: the show that came out of nowhere has gained huge popularity on NBC based on a comic book-style narration… even with non-geeks. It’s better than any other action/drama TV series (past and present), and is better than any movie series (even those based on comic books) will be.
Length/Continuity
Movies typically adhere to the standard format: intro, body, and conclusion. Even if room is left for a sequel, almost all of the storylines are completed and tied together by the end of the 2-3 hour saga. Heroes doesn’t do that.
Season 1 was considerably longer than a movie, and even if Season 2 is cut short due to the awesome strike, it will be as well. Why is this important? Having a huge amount of time to tell your story, as long as it’s a good one, benefits everyone. Plus, when you don’t have to fit an entire story (including a “happy ending”) into a specific amount of time… that leaves many options open.
It’s the reason some people get up in the morning.
Characters
Heroes, as I mentioned before, is in the style of a comic book. For the uninitiated, this means that there are many characters being dealt with throughout the long and twisted plot, any of which may become the focus for any amount of time… or the writers may decide to bounce back-and-forth in tandem between a handful.
Movies don’t do this. There’s really no reason I can think of as to why, other than it’s the way things have always been done, and it’s a proven format. God forbid you do something new. Even the Spiderman movies predominantly follow one character (Peter Parker/Spiderman).
Reading… But Better
What it comes down to is that Heroes is like reading your favorite SciFi books or comic books, but with much more action and realism than you could ever make up in your head. George Lucas understood this when he made the Star Wars movies: a continuing story without a specific end is very attractive. It leaves the viewer wanting more.
All your base are belong to us.
Heroes will eventually have to end, since NBC cancels all the good shows anyways (The Black Donnelly’s anyone?), but all signs point to this lasting at least a few more seasons.
Character Types
All the other factors aside, there is one overwhelmingly important piece that makes the show so successful: the characters themselves. Whether or not the viewer likes certain characters, each one is realistic and true-to-life (as much as such themes of superpowers allow). The world is believable, as it is, for all intents and purposes, our world.
Every small boy (and maybe some girls?) wishes at one point that they have superpowers… there’s some people who don’t grow out of this. The idea that “average people” wake up one day and have powers, and apply them to a good vs. evil battle in a world much like ours, speaks to that same part of us.
Don’t Be Like Lost
For all it’s strengths, many viewers think the first half of this season was fumbled: tangential stories about Claire’s love-life, a multi-episode journey into ancient Japan… it wasn’t what was expected. But the writers apparently knew what they were doing, because with that slow setup, the series stands to have some of the greatest episodes yet.
It’s just not the same…
I hope that Heroes doesn’t turn into Lost…. I was a big fan until I got tired of all the boring drama/inaction and random nonsense. So far, we’ve seen a good tie-in of all the characters and plots, even if they don’t have definitive beginnings and ends.
Let’s keep it that way, and without any mechanical-but-alien-and-smoke monsters.
posted on November 14th, 2007 at 4:49 pm by Kyle - Comments
Have you heard of ‘Mahalo’? No? Well, here’s an excerpt from their FAQs:
Mahalo is a human-powered search engine that creates organized, comprehensive, and spam free search results for the most popular search terms.
Hm. Ironically enough, uncov has writtenabout Mahalo many times, each time speaking to what degree of “fail” it is. That’s really no surprise…
Are You Stupid?
Read this. It’s from Jason Calacanis’ blog. Does it make you laugh so hard you wet yourself? It should. Why? I think it’s pretty obvious… it takes at least 24 hours for a page to be created on a topic, and only if they get enough requests for it. The example shown is “grey wolf”, which you would think is common enough to warrant a page.
Thank you, Stewie. You said it so perfectly.
I’m Sorry…
I’m sorry, but I thought Google already did this. Maybe I’m wrong, but when you search for something in Google, you always get results. And, chances are that you get exactly what you were looking for within the first result or two. It’s like magic, except that it’s created by a computer. Which means that there is no delay time, no time wasted on “people search” or other such craptastic nonsense.
Kompubers R Kool
In this age of “Web 2.0″, you’d think that people would understand how the Internet works. Or at least that you can use a “search engine” to “find” certain “things” on “teh Intorwebz”. Without the “help” of “human beings”.
Were there enough ironic quotes there for you to get my meaning?
Stop It.
Let’s be serious for a second. Google became popular because it returned results on exactly what you were looking for, all the time. And it was simple and uncluttered. So that begs the question: why, in God’s bloody name, do you think you can compete with Google? More importantly, how can a relatively small group of underpaid and probably not-very-educated people do better than a computer?
Keep it up, Mahalo Guides!
Here’s some simple facts (you = Mahalo):
You will never be able to produce results for every topic people want to know about.
Your results will never be as relevant or up-to-date as real search engines.
You are not a search engine. “Engine” implies algorithms. Which are not made of people.
You are a “glorified” wiki. And I mean that in the sense that you over-value yourself, because you are worthless, and are actually of less value than a wiki devoted entirely to kiwi fruit.
I Think…
I think you should quit. I would say “while you’re ahead”, but you’re clearly not ahead. You’re living somewhere around 1992, dial-up and everything.
Stop wasting VC money. Stop wasting people’s time. And, most importantly, stop making real engineers and programmers look bad by pretending you know what you’re doing.
Jason Calacanis, you are a stupid stupid bastard with a self-inflated ego of worthlessness.
posted on November 12th, 2007 at 8:45 am by Kyle - Comments
Property of whoever that site took it from. Larger version over there.
Now, look at the life-form from the first ‘Alien’ movie:
From IMDB.
Similar?
I don’t know about you, but these two seem very very similar to me. I know, one has “legs” and the other doesn’t, but I’m talking about the overall appearance. The overall structure. The Russian-found “fish” looks a little bit like one of those horseshoe-crabs, but I think it’s pretty obvious the writers of Alien had prescience and knew what this thing would look like.
Eat My Face, Please
What would have happened if the Russian workers hadn’t killed it? Would it have jumped on one of their faces? Probably, since they mentioned that story about throwing it food, and it trying to attack them. Would it have embedded itself in your stomach, waiting for the right time to explode out of your chest in a fit of unmitigated fury? Probably, since they look similar.
And, most importantly, would it eventually also live inside of something like a cow, resulting in an alien-human-cow crossbreed that creates an immensely strong and intelligent creature that wants to destroy/eat every human it comes in contact with? Definitely.
I bet it would even fight a different alien race for ownership/supremacy over the puny humans.
posted on November 12th, 2007 at 7:28 am by Kyle - Comments
Recently, I came across a release from Harvard University that’s titled “Engineered weathering process could mitigate global warming”. I was pretty interested, so I read on.
The Basics
I won’t get into all the details, since you can read for yourself, but it’s “simple” to understand, at least in a broad concept (I have no idea how it’s actually done). Long story short, the title is a little misleading, because this is not a way to control weather, but rather to manipulate our environment to slow/reverse global warming. How?
Burn, baby, burn.
It involves a topic that has been discusses many times: the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In this case, they claim to be able to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and permanently transfer it to the ocean (a pool of water in a lab?), by some complicated process. Apparently, this happens naturally, and they are only replicating this process on a faster time-table.
The Benefits
The benefits of such a process, were it to be implemented, should be pretty obvious. A slowdown of global warming (”if it exists!”), or even a reversal, would be highly lauded around the world… especially by greedy corporations, and China, who have a large footprint, yet don’t care to do anything about it unless forced.
Hello, Exxon.
The Negatives
In other research projects / thought-experiments on such processes, there have been a few “problems” with such a process [Note: I won't link to any specific one, but if you Google it, you'll find many valid results]. The biggest one? It should be the most obvious… the effect on oceanic life.
It’s common knowledge that fish take oxygen out of the water to breathe, right? What happens when you add an over-abundance of CO2 to the same water? Many scientists claim you’ll end up hurting, if not killing, many fish and other ocean-based creatures, as well as making shrimp questionable to eat (because of poisoning).
The Answer?
I’m not sure there really is an answer to this, as to whether or not humanity should inflict it’s problems on other life-forms of the same planet, but I do know this: out of global warming “control” / “reversal”, it’s quite possible that we will see complete weather control, ala “Weather” in Frank Herbert’s Dune books.
Not really what I had in mind…
Why? If you can control the amount of CO2 in the air, it then follows that you can directly control the temperature. (If you didn’t follow that: global warming is occurring because we are trapping excess heat within our atmosphere due to gases. If you remove those gases, less heat is trapped.) This, at least to me, would seem to be the first step in weather control.
Now if only we could figure out how to make hurricanes disappear…
posted on November 12th, 2007 at 6:44 am by Kyle - Comments
Again, this is a topic I’ve avoided recently, not to better understand it, but because I thought it was stupid and would never happen. Oh how I was wrong.
Unless you live in a deep dark hole full of demons, you know there’s a Writers’ Guild strike going on. And that it’s deeply affecting shows that some people probably are more addicted to than a backwater hic to meth.
Why?
From what I understand, and I’m not claiming to either, there are two issues:
Money
Distribution
Each is actually dependent on the other, so let’s take a look…
Just as stupid.
Money
I read somewhere (not cited) that the average TV writer makes $200k/yr. Oh wow, that’s completely surprising! I thought everyone in Hollywood / LA was poor, and just pretended to be rich and successful, when in reality they are more poor than the average American and totally without any fame. I guess I was mistaken.
Seriously? $200k/yr for writing a season’s worth of TV shows, that ranges from 12-24 episodes, with maybe another show or two? And you’re COMPLAINING? [Edit/Note: my reference of "$200k/yr" was based upon something I read, and meant to link to. I've since lost that link, but I mention it because the number is being questioned by a few people.]
If you’re a writer (also called “authors” in the real world of books), you don’t expect to make alot of money, or be immensely successful. Yes, there is one author out of many who becomes wildly successful (and occasionally very rich) like J.K. Rowlings or Michael Crighton, but you don’t get into “the business” because you want to be rich. The fact that these writers make an absurd amount of money for what equates to a small portion of a book, and is often times just juvenile humor or slightly complex drama, is amazing.
But even more amazing that they feel underpaid.
Hey, guys, guess what? This is J.K Rowling.
You are not her, and never will be.
Distribution
The guys who write NBC’s “The Office” have a video floating around the Internet (Google it) of them complaining about not receiving money for distribution of their media. They mention “webisodes” and “online viewing of episodes”, and not being properly compensated for them.
This is hilarious to me.
Let me get this straight: you’re complaining that not only are you not getting enough money for doing very little amounts of work, but you’re also complaining that you aren’t getting paid for your content being shown in what is a largely ad-free environment?
If you view an episode of “The Office” online (legally), you are shown maybe three 30-second advertisements during the showing, and it’s usually for the same company/product/service. If you view one of their “webisodes” for the show, you get even less advertisement. So, you want to be paid for everytime someone views your work, especially online? How does that even make any sense?
You People Are Stupid
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you (writers) don’t get paid per viewer of your TV show through the normal delivery method (aka TV), do you? I’m pretty sure you don’t because the number of viewers for any given show is one of the most highly argued issues in modern media. So that means you get a lump sum for a certain productivity level.
I will then assume that that amount of money scales based upon both your work output and the overall popularity of the show (from season to season). By the same logic, one would assume that if you write a “series of 10 webisodes” (as the same video references), you get paid more than you would for just a normal season.
Right? That’s what I thought. You guys just can’t accept that, God forbid, your show is viewed any other way than on TV or DVD. May Zeus strike me down if I were to miss an episode, and want to watch it on the network’s website, so I can continue watching your show that I may or may not love so dearly.
Yep, guys, this is you!
Guilds? Is This 1943?
Not only does this whole strike situation piss me off, but it also brings to light one of the worst permutations of a great idea in the history of mankind: a guild/union. A long long time ago, in an America perhaps 60 years ago, they were a great idea. They helped to standardize wages, work conditions, and other critical elements of any job.
But today, they are nothing but a sorry excuse for a group of money-grubbing attention whores. The only time I can remember a strike actually having purpose and legitimacy, during my time of sentience, is the UPS strike (Google it). This writers’ strike is not an example of good intentions or purpose, just like when labor unions band together to increase how much the standard plumber charges you to show off his ass.
New Media
The world of “new media” is here, so get over it. Blogs, videoblogs, webcams, webisodes, TV on the Internet, and others are not going anywhere, no matter how much you want them to “go gently into this good night”. The “old media” companies are having a hard enough time adjusting as it is (online episodes, Internet-distribution of media, etc.), without you causing them any more problems.
If you like making everyone’s future absolute Hell, keep it up. Maybe we can make a revision to the DMCA where no-one is allowed to distribute anything on the Internet, ever, without paying someone royalties.
Yeah, because that has worked out so freaking well to the music industry, hasn’t it?
I’ve been purposely avoiding writing anything about Google’s new OpenSocial project. Why? Because it had the potential to go in a few different directions and be used different ways, and I wanted the hype to die down before seeing what it’s actually worth. (If you’re totally in the dark, read this and this, and about how it was hacked.)
The Hype
If you believe all the hype, this new initiative may be the end of “walled” social networks, meaning that users would put their data in a centralized location, and then distribute it as they wish to other networks and services.
Hello, Michael Arrington.
As I’ve mentioned before, this is a good idea in principle. Places like Ning, 37Signals, and LinkedIn (despite the fact that I hate Ning) are among the first major supporters of this, and are lauding it’s praises as if it’s the best thing since sliced bread. And the blog network (aka TechCrunch, Mashable, RW/W, etc.) is falling over themselves with self-promotional joy, except for the always-straight-shooting O’Reilly.
The Problem
Here’s the central problem: the hype is about “open data”, and yet OpenSocial is being used to create “applications” that can exist on any social network platform, not de-privatizing data. Who really cares if you can SuperCrotchPunch all your friends across 131 different social networks? No-one (except preteens and frat boys).
Also, these applications have apparently been hacked. It’s unclear as to whether this was Google’s fault or the individual network’s, but it is a problem nonetheless. I know I don’t want my data screwed with by some guy who figured out how the system works… do you?
How about “I VampireStabbed Your Mom”?
The Future
If you poke around the Google Code pages for OpenSocial, you’ll find something called “Data API”, which is labeled as “not released” and only provides documentation. But it gives insight into the true intentions of Google…
It appears that sometime in the near future, this “set of APIs” will be used for what everyone thinks it will (cross-network data), or at least be available for use. The companies/services that had access to these APIs before the general public may already be integrating the next release, but nothing’s been said.
The Final Countdown
Here’s how it breaks down: as it stands, OpenSocial is pretty worthless. Most of the “applications” on these social networks are stupid, childish, and totally worthless, so there’s no need to port them to other systems. In the event that Google does what it claims to be doing, aka “tear down [these] wall[s]“, then chances are it will be successful…
Um, yes?
But the question is will this be done with the lack of enthusiasm as other Google releases, or with the fervor of a true PR engine? The fate of the Internet’s data and Google’s dominance over search may depend on their next few dance steps.
Oh, and Facebook needs to be involved for this to be 100% successful. Which remains doubtful.
posted on November 7th, 2007 at 12:07 pm by Kyle - Comments
