Almost certainly not Johnny Depp.|
Below are 50 journal entries, after skipping by the 50 most recent ones recorded in
The Weasel King's LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 50 -- Next 50 >> ]
[ << Previous 50 -- Next 50 >> ]
|Tuesday, August 9th, 2016|
|Saturday, August 6th, 2016|
|A slice of life with TV:
(In a serious scene about the lifethreatening side effects of misusing a brain stimulator)
TV character #1: "I must also point out, that device is not intended to be used in that manner."
TV character #2: "That's what she said."
torrain: [spews her drink]
|Tuesday, August 2nd, 2016|
|Monday, August 1st, 2016|
|John watches movies!
So I got two sets of free tickets to see movies recently, and so I saw Star Trek: Beyond and Ghostbusters, in the theatre, for free.
And I have opinions!
Beyond: Holy shit! I wasn't going to go see this movie, even free. I only wound up attending because 1) free and 2) someone else wanted to go who couldn't use my free tickets unless I went too. And: I did not immediately want to demand my money back. (no really, for a Star Trek movie that's HUGE). As it turns out: removing JJ Abrams and installing Justin Lin and Simon Pegg is not only a many-thousand-times improvement across the board, but results in a movie that's ACTUALLY WORTH SEEING.
But yeah. ST: Beyond is the fourth Star Trek movie *ever* worth seeing a second time. It avoids 99% of the Abrams innumeracy (a clear sign that Abrams was prohibited from touching the script), has actual character elements, has a reasonable conflict between the heroes and the villains, and is a perfectly Justin Lin movie: Lots of moderately-sensible action sequences, lots of FUN action sequences, moments of character interspersed in the action sequences, and builds to a decent finale. My main complaints are THAT IS NOT A FUCKING NEBULA and there wasn't quite enough clarity on the nature of the enemy. Still, given that it's a sequel to a movie where a CRITICAL PLOT POINT is that HUMANS ON EARTH CANNOT SEE THE MOON, those are miniscule.
Ghostbusters: Uh. I think this needed one more script pass. I hate dumping on it because of the hypermisogynist babymen screaming about it, but: I thought it was good, but needed work. First: There's a whole lot of "jokes" that aren't jokes, they're just the punchlines to jokes from the original movie. As in, multiple times where there was a funny sequence in the original? Instead of duplicating or or riffing off it, this movie just gives the punchline without the setup. That's a REFERENCE, not a joke, people, and references aren't inherently funny. Second, the film appeared to have no coherent idea of how ghosts work. Okay, the proton packs control ghosts and let you move them around, good. Then they discover they need a trap, okay, good. Now it's time for the big problem, aaaaaaaaand... now proton packs and all the rest *kill* ghosts outright instead of holding them. Why? Nobody knows. The dude causing all the problems has Phenomenal Cosmic Powers to control the bodies and minds of anyone in line of sight.... and then he doesn't. No explanation, nothing. All the ghosts are people until suddenly they're... the ghosts of a Macy's Parade that wasn't murdered all at once because whatever. All the ghosts are ghosts of normal people who died except for the three-story-tall ghost of a giant man?
And, I mean, they built up Kevin's eye/ear confusion MULTIPLE TIMES. He rubs his eyes when he can't hear you. There's a loud gong and he grabs his eyes going "OMG that's LOUD!". And then he shows the team his audition photos, saying "what makes me look more like a doctor? Shirtless Chris Hemsworth PLAYING the saxophone or Shirtless Chris Hemsworth LISTENING TO the Saxophone".... and he's holding the sax to his ear, not his eyes. That's *the payoff* to the joke you've been building for three scenes, and you flubbed it?
And let's not forget that at the climax of the film, the ultimate fix to the entire ghost problem happens BECAUSE THE GHOSTS DROVE ECTO-1 TO THE PLOT POINT AT THE RIGHT TIME. They didn't think of that! They didn't work for that! That was a win because of a pure accident! That's just bad writing.
The pacing was weird, there were a bunch of references where there should have been jokes, there were a number of missed opportunities for jokes that had clearly been set up and then abandoned, and the solution to the main problem was presented WAY too much as pure coincidence, not something the characters did or earned. Dammit, these are competent Esoteric Scientists(tm), they should not be reliant on stupid luck causing THE VILLAINS to bring the solution to the problem to them. This was a chance for them to do things, to come up with a solution and work to bring it about! Having the villains just solve the problem for them felt cheap.
Anyway. I want to see the director's cut of this movie, where the credits "villain makes cops and military dance" sequence is restored , and the Ghostbusters find a solution to protect themselves from it. I'm interested in the director's cut where they do something to ATTRACT the ghosts and retrieve ECTO-1 at the critical moment. I'm interested in the sequel, where they presumably won't make all these mistakes a second time. But for the movie itself, I have to say "I got in for free and I got my money's worth, no more."
Also, the product placement was obvious and gross: Stopping mid-scene, staring at the camera, and extolling the virtues of Pringles? People living in downtown New York ordering *PAPA JOHN'S*? Ugh. People, you do not need their money that much.
: Argument that "JJ Abrams is a zero" and thus multiplying him also results in a zero are accepted and then discarded, because Abrams doesn't just make awful movies. Abrams takes films that COULD be good, and ruins them. He is not a zero, he is a 0.001. You can, with enough effort, fix Abramsisms and make an Abrams film "less awful than most Abrams products" (Spielberg and Super 8) or "reasonably good as long as you ignore Abrams' desperate attempts to ruin it" (Lawrence Kasdan, Disney, and Star Wars: The Force Awakens)
: Wrath Of Khan, Undiscovered Country, and Galaxy Quest.
: Galaxy Quest not only IS TOO a Star Trek movie, it is the best Star Trek movie ever AND the best Star Trek movie POSSIBLE.
|Friday, July 29th, 2016|
|A brief PSA
Today is the last day to get Windows 10 for free.
If you don't want Windows 10, those annoying "hey you can upgrade now!" popups will finally vanish. If you do want Windows 10 (and I prefer it to 7 and consider it a complete no-brainer to upgrade from 8) you have another 15 hours or so.
|Monday, July 25th, 2016|
10 years ago today, I started my own business.
That client is no longer in business, and it would still be another month and a half before I would pick up a second client (still going!) and quit my OTHER job at My Beloved Corporate Masters to do this full time, but 10 years ago today was day 1 with client 1.
Not too shabby.
|Wednesday, July 20th, 2016|
For the second year in a row, neo-Nazis have abused a loophole to put garbage onto the Hugo ballot, displacing nominees that were actually voted for by people who genuinely thought they were good. This year, though, instead of JUST a stream of bigoted effluvia, they've also included a handful of nominees that were good and had buzz as maybe getting onto the ballot legitimately on their own.
So I'm doing something slightly different than my rules for last year - instead of No Awarding all the neo-Nazi picks, I'm comparing them to the worst of my own picks. If something dropped onto the ballot by the white supremacist vandals is good enough that I would have considered nominating it myself had I seen it during the nomination period, it goes above No Award.
Same as last year, I'm doing breakdowns with my thoughts.
( this is pretty longCollapse )
( EDIT: Oh yeah, there"s the retro-Hugos too.Collapse )
If you've made it all the way to here, have The Hugo Post Kitty.
|Saturday, July 16th, 2016|
| Just saw someone complaining that Hillary Clinton is "too liberal". And that drives me crazy because, uh, Americans? Hillary Clinton is *not liberal, in any way, at all*. Hillary Clinton is a hard-right extremist, of the sort that would be considered either "the far right of the rightmost Major Party" or "unelectably far right, relegated to an insignificant joke party" EVERYWHERE IN THE CIVILISED WORLD. Fucking hell, Bernie Sanders is center-right when you look at actual positions and not just "where you are relative to the bigoted extremists".
Clinton could MAYBE get elected in Canada or England, but she's significantly to the right of Theresa May or Stephen Harper or Boris Johnson - she might be an MP, elected by a yokel constituency of a few thousand xenophobic hicks in the middle of nowhere, like Nigel Farage or Jason Kenney, but she'd never be Prime Minister.
The USA is a captured two-party system with a hard-right extreme-conservative corporatist party - the Democrats - and also a second ultra-bigoted theocratic party, of the sort that polls 1-2% in civilised places, the Republicans. There's no such thing as an American politician who's "too liberal" because there's no such thing as a liberal American politician, all liberals are excluded before the process starts. Anyone who says an American politician is "too liberal" just means "insufficiently extremist right-wing for my personal ultra-extremist bigotry"
At the same time, the person ignorantly calling Clinton "too liberal" was doing so in the context of "She's too liberal but Trump is a disaster, so I will vote for the liberal evil" and, uh, okay. Sure. Whatever. Clinton's a right-wing extremist who will be significantly worse than any liberal candidate would be, but you're correct, Trump would be WAY worse. So you do you and hold your nose and vote Clinton, even though she's "too liberal" by being an ultra-right-wing lunatic who is not liberal in any way.
|Thursday, July 14th, 2016|
|Friday, July 8th, 2016|
|Thursday, July 7th, 2016|
|Monday, June 27th, 2016|
|Sunday, June 26th, 2016|
|Friday, June 24th, 2016|
|Wednesday, June 22nd, 2016|
| Hey, remember the user responsible for this incident, and this one?
I've got another one. We've got a bunch of a certain kind of desktop case, where the sides go on vertically without screws, then the top of the case slides in horizontally to lock them in place and you close *that* with screws. I'm looking at an unrelated computer and I notice the top piece, which is a rectangular piece of reasonably sturdy flat metal, is missing. So I ask the user where it is, and he said "Oh, $Engineer borrowed it a few months back. It's just part of the case so I figured I didn't really need it."
($Engineer being, of course, the user responsible for the two incidents up top.)
I go and ask him why he borrowed A PIECE OF A COMPUTER CASE and where it is, and can I please get it back.
His answer: "Oh, yeah, that's in my car. I can bring it in any time."
Okay, but WHY does he have it in his car? To my eternal regret, I asked him.
"Well, you remember all that snow we had? I needed a shovel."
|Tuesday, June 21st, 2016|
|Monday, June 20th, 2016|
| People are being SO MEAN to Anton Yelchin now that he's dead.
|Friday, June 17th, 2016|
|Thursday, June 16th, 2016|
|Wednesday, June 15th, 2016|
|Gotta love American politics.
The USA, where a "moderate" Republican can speak at an extremist hate group's rally and call for Obama's death, and claim he was "just joking"
Bonus points: His official spokesperson clarified that OF COURSE when Senator Perdue says
"Let his days be few; and let another take his office.that NATURALLY isn't praying for death and destruction, no, no, not at all. She then added "we should add the media to our prayer list".
Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.
Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour.
Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children.
Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out.
Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.
Let them be before the LORD continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth."
The threats are barely even dogwhistling, at the moment.
|There's a thing I'm seeing.
(cw: domestic abuse and the Orlando masssacre)
I keep seeing people calling for the ex-wife of the Orlando shooter to be charged as an accessory because she knew he'd talked about killing all those people and tried to convince him not to do it, but didn't call the cops.
That's..... so not good. Not good at all. Should she have done something different? MAYBE - but there's a critical point here I want to address.
You're asking the abused ex-wife, of a violent, armed man, who has committed no crime yet, to call the cops on him?
You know what's going to happen, right? They're going to show up and talk to him, maybe bring him into the station, maybe hold him for a few hours, and then they're going to release him. Because he's committed no crime, yet, and he's got a job in law enforcement, and he's presumably smart enough to deny or downplay her claims. And then, this armed, violent man, with a history of violence against his ex-wife, where she's his ex because he abused her? He's going to go over to her house to "address" why it was she called the cops on him.
And then she's going to die.
And she's going to die without knowing if he was ever REALLY serious about his ranting murder plans.
Other possibilities: The FLORIDA police show up and, having been informed that a non-white man is armed and dangerous, kill him in front of her, because these are AMERICAN POLICE. And she's not white, either - they'll likely kill her, too. Again, without her knowing if he's actually making plans or just making disturbing threats.
The only way "she calls the cops" works out is if he repeats his threats to the police, while in custody. And that's the LEAST likely result, damn near impossible, requires that he basically *try* to go to jail. The most likely result is "he's released, and she's dead", the next is "both he and she die", possible is "the police ignore it and do nothing". To actually stop the massacre by calling the cops on him requires pigs to fly.
Should she have done it anyway, given hindsight? Well, sure, I think had she known then what she knows now, she probably should have, and then fled for her life to avoid him when the police released him, secure in the knowledge that he's going to be arrested or dead in days. But that's hindsight. I *understand* why she didn't, and I'm deeply fucking uncomfortable with the idea of charging one of this man's victims with his crimes, because as a WoC she didn't trust American cops and didn't want his abuse to escalate against her.
EDIT: I'm leaving the original as-written, but it's been pointed out to me that I misunderstood. The abused ex-wife is NOT the woman being questioned and possibly charged, that's his current wife. Still, take what I wrote above and substitute "a woman who knows he's armed, making homicidal statements, and that his previous wife divorced him because he abused her" for "a direct victim of abuse, that we know of" and my larger point still stands.
|Tuesday, June 14th, 2016|
|Monday, June 13th, 2016|
|Thursday, June 9th, 2016|
|Wednesday, June 8th, 2016|
Firefox 47 change log:
"The browser.sessionstore.restore_on_demand preference has been reset to its default value (true) to avoid e10s performance problems. Because faster is better!"
No, you stupid-ass motherfuckers, this is SLOWER, not faster, because when I want a tab, I want it *now*, and I wanted it loaded because, get this, it was IN AN OPEN FUCKING TAB. Having to wait for a page to load after I click on it WASTES MY FUCKING TIME. If I didn't want that page loaded already when I look at it, it wouldn't be in a tab.
And if you were changing the default behaviour, sure, okay, but you're not. You're RESETTING MY CUSTOM FUCKING SETTING THAT I SPECIFICALLY MADE NOT-DEFAULT, because, like Yahoo search and supporting anti-gay hate groups and endorsing misogynist harassment campaigns, MOZILLA'S DEFAULTS ARE OFFENSIVELY GODDAMN STUPID.
"Firefox: The browser I only keep using because Chrome's extension support is lousy and their UI is unfixably broken"
|Monday, June 6th, 2016|
|Wednesday, June 1st, 2016|
|Tuesday, May 31st, 2016|
|Monday, May 30th, 2016|
| Hey, remember that time Google dropped an anvil on Symantec for playing stupid dangerous games with their root CA?
Symantec has now issued a CA to spyware/malware vendor Bluecoat. Meaning Bluecoat can now issue properly-signed certificates for any domain they want. Your browser will see a fake certificate for, say, Google, and will trust it without warning you that it's fake because the certitificate is trusted by Bluecoat who in turn are trusted by Symantec, and your browser trusts Symantec.
Here's how to fix that in Windows. And in OSX.
(Unfortunately, untrusting Symantec's root is not a viable option, yet. I suspect there's going to be a lot of people looking into how to make that viable, though, soon.)
|Friday, May 27th, 2016|
|Thursday, May 26th, 2016|
|Jonathan Weisman misses the point.
stories of Muslims assaulted by Trump supporters are piling up. Hispanic immigrants are lining up for citizenship, eager to vote. Groups that have been maligned over centuries at different times in different regions now share a common tormentor, the alt-right, a militant agglomeration of white nationalists, racists, anti-Semites and America Firsters that have been waging war on the Republican establishment for some timeThe error: This isn't the "alt-right", it's just the right. It's what to be an American Christian and a Republican *means*. And they haven't been waging war on the "Republican establishment", they've been enthusiastically embraced by the established Republicans, for half a fucking century.
To be a Republican or Christian in the USA, for the last decade, is to enthusiastically embrace white supremacy, antisemitism, misogyny, bigoted nationalism, and violence.
: At least. Arguments that it has gone farther back than that are taken as given, I'm assuming the most generous possible interpretation of the most generous possible level of complete obliviousness to the toxic effects of the position.
|Wednesday, May 25th, 2016|
|Tuesday, May 24th, 2016|