People Taking Themselves Way Too Seriously

PJ Media has an old piece on Twilight called "Porn for women" which does some analysis of the movie(s) but in a rather lighthearted and non-judgemental tone.

No, the article does not take itself too seriously, but the commenters do. 294 comments in a couple of weeks, and with statements such as:

Feminists have convinced a lot of women that the “natural” order of things is for a woman to have an “Alpha” lover, and a “beta” male to support her, tend to the house, kids (whoever may sire them), and so on, all out in the open, without having to hide anything, or risk any losses of their chosen lifestyle. The “beta” males are simply supposed to accept this state of existence without complaining. My guess is that your wife has bought into that idea, and either has her Alpha lover all picked out (or possibly, already in bed).

And

You know, all this psycho-babble about why “men love porn” is a bit disturbing. Porn may be the most disturbing, base thing going on in society today. The disturbed people who participate in creating porn (actors, directors, producers) are the bottom of the barrel; they’re no better than farm animals who get in on out in the pasture. There are so many other disturbing things that are behind any man’s attraction to porn. The few men I know who love the stuff are selfish jackasses who have no respect for women and society at large. It’s evil stuff. Let’s not water it down with talk about how it allows a man to connect with his base desires without all the “baggage” (what, like relationships? What baggage!).

These are advanced stages of politics/ideology/religion intoxication, not being able to appreciate (or detest) a work of fiction without digging for improbable deeper meanings - and making a big fuss of that.

And those who take themselves too seriously can be killed laughing at them.

Muka Poker

Which means "poker face" in Indonesian... seems fitting to these news:

The US pop diva Lady Gaga’s scheduled concert fiasco proves that certain hard-line groups have been successfully pushing local authorities to meet their demands, indirectly controlling the nation, a Muslim scholar says.


Rector of the Syarif Hidayatullah Islamic State University Komaruddin Hidayat told The Jakarta Post that certain groups within society had successfully influenced the government to intervene against Indonesian’s freedom of expression, adding that authorities should have protected it.

“This is a setback and a pathetic situation in which we find the public sphere where Indonesians should be able to express themselves without restraint in fact faces intervention from one community that has become a powerful force in this nation,” he said Wednesday morning.

He added that while hard-liner groups had pressured the authorities, several members of the government apparently had relented to their demands, saying that it was a “politically correct” move to do.

“This situation proves that there are fraudulent officials that have been using the hard-liner groups to further their own political interests,” he said.

The reaction of many common people to this story is "Why such a big deal of Lady Gaga while there's also Indonesian singers doing indecent things on stage?".
And if you want to see what I'm talking about, do a Youtube search with the words "dangdut panas".

Not that the Islamic ballbusters have nothing to say about this erotic dangdut stuff, but the antagonism to Lady Gaga reached paroxystic levels. Some time ago the FPI staged a demonstration - honestly pathetic, but it seems effective - where they called her an "illuminati robot". David Icke must be proud.

Hipocrisy, stupidity, lack of logic, the usal shit.

Update 21/05: However, if you think that the Muslims are the only ones detesting Lady Gaga, you are wrong. In South Korea and the Philippines the Catholics made a big fuss about this singer's concerts.

Spontaneous Eat Lead Motherfucker Syndrome

I was wondering when something like this would start to happen: 

Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) -- An American soldier left his base in Afghanistan and went from house to house in two villages, killing 16 people in their homes, a provincial official told CNN Sunday.

Of course it's always a one-way street for the usual suspects:

Regardless of the number of victims, the incident looks likely to inflame tensions still further between foreign troops and Afghan civilians, many of whom were enraged by the burning of Qurans by American troops last month.

Bombings, killings, burnt churches and assorted violence committed by Islamic extremists instead must never ever "inflame tensions" with the rest of the world, eh?

Tales of Debt

If Greece and other European countries are crying over their public debt, well, the USA aren't laughing either:

On May 16, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner formally told Congress that the government would have reached its $14.294 trillion debt limit that day, but for what he called “extraordinary measures” to manage the nation’s money and to buy time for lawmakers to increase the limit on borrowing.

In a letter to leaders of both parties, Mr. Geithner said that the Treasury Department was suspending investments in two funds for the retirement and disability benefits of federal civilian employees. As he pointed out, such suspensions have been used by past administrations when Congress failed to increase the debt limit on time, and they will not affect payments to current beneficiaries or to future ones since the funds will be made whole as soon as the ceiling is raised.

Republicans in Congress, joined by a few Democrats, have said they will not vote for an increase unless Congress and the White House agree to cut about $2 trillion in projected spending for the next decade and to impose budget controls that will force additional trillions of dollars in savings. While the White House has criticized such threats to hold the debt limit hostage, given the global financial stakes, the administration is in negotiations with Congressional leaders to reach a bipartisan budget deal.

To simplify: the US government is not able to pay back a certain amountof debt, and it has suspended some payments. Which is something like what Greece is doing, or asked to do in order to bring its debt under control.

Yes, the scale is different but the kind is the same. Unable to pay back.

So now the last thing I want to hear is Americans ranting about the PIGS and how better they are than the big-government European countries & people, okay?

They Do Not Believe It

Remember the Bush Doctrine?

The much-reviled doctrine postulating that in order to reduce the problem of islamic extremism the people of the Middle East should be given another choice instead of their two typical options: islamic theocracy or strong-man dictatorship.

The third option was intended to be, for lack of better terms, liberal democracy.

The experiment was tried in Iraq with mixed results, but the hoped-for domino effect, the extension of requests for change and revolts in other middle-East countries did not occur.

However, now middle-class revolts and protests are rocking the middle-East and Maghreb: the dictators of Tunisia and Egypt have stepped down* and the unrest may be spreading. These revolts have many agreeable characteristics: they come mostly from the middle-class, the class that historically can provide guidance for a better future; the role of islamic extremists in those is secondary at best; once ousted the dictator those countries became relatively calm. At least I have heard nothing of persecutions of the losers.

I do not think this is a consequence of the American intervention in Iraq; I think that the causes of these rebellions are much closer in time and space: But it is possible that the seeds spread back then have germinated just now.

In any case, for those who professed support for the Bush Doctrine, the actual situation in North Africa and the Middle East should be welcome. To be watched carefully, of course, but as a possibility for positive developments.

Not like Obama is doing, but that's a different story.

Instead, the most common reactions in the American right-wing blogosphere seems to be "Oh, Muslims. We'll see more theocracies in the Middle-east." That is, complete lack of trust. Or worse, considering Muslims as incapable of civilized behaviour.

So why did they support the Bush Doctrine in the first place? Maybe because saying that they just like to see dead Muslims seemed too much?

*The military cabinet ruling Egypt now is made up of Mubarak's men, so the change there may be very superficial after all.

Everybody Can Have One

What, a Nobel Prize - for peace, specifically, because the ones for chemistry and hard sciences are still meaningful.

Barack Obama won one.

What the hell did he do to deserve it, I cannot figure out.

Arafat's prixe was breathtaking in the degree of contradictions and stupidity it manifested. But this one is just surreal, I cannot find other words.

In other more interesting news, last night I watched Inglorious Basterds. Some recent movies have agonized over collateral damage, but this one revels in it. Tarantino must have never heard that in fiction killing Hitler is regarded as impolite.

And So It Came

What, Charles Johnson's ban hammer...

I'm so crushed, really, about being banned by a whiny, petulant, passive-aggressive and intellectually dishonest little blog tyrant.

More later, if I feel like it. Now I'll get ready to cure my sorrows at a babrbecue with my family.

Boeing Fanboys

Those guys are out there. Whenever an Airbush crashes with or without loss of life, they loudly scream their "I told you so!"

They seem to revel in fear and death and destruction, when it confirms their prejudices - chief among those, that anything European is stupid and evil.

Yes, you don't hear them railing against some dubious choices by Boeing (like the infamous 747 cargo door, that initially was prone to opening in flight), because Boeing is American and anything american is clever and good.

The most hated target of the Boein Fanboys is the fly-by-wire system used on Airbus planes. A semplistic description of the system is a series of computers (not exactly like desktop PCs, tho) actin as filter between pilot inputs and control surfaces. A better description of the Airbus flight control laws can be found here, tho.

And I doubt that the fanboys have ever bothered to read that, because their objections go from semi-coherent to rabid ideological rants. No trace of an analysis of what fly-by-wire system are and do, there.

I have often heard that Boeing leaves final authority to pilots, while Airbus does not, but so far I couldn't find any source describing that in detail.

The reality is, human blunders and errors have killed far more people than computer malfunctions. The history of flight is fully of pilots and ground personnel screwing up until planes smash into the ground, break up or even burn without being evacuated.ù

By contrast, so far the Airbus fly-by-wire system is the direct cause of one, maybe two accidents and one of them occurred during a demonstration flight.

In the specific case of the Air France hull loss, the mostl ikely cause seems to be icing of the airspeed sensors, which occurred during severe turbulence and in conditions of near-zero visibility. It is possible to test in a flight simulator how well a Boeing would perform.
Wanna bet?

A Quickie

Work is keeping me very busy, at least until I will learn to manage properly my workload.

I want to write something about a particularly annoying category of people: the Boeing Fanboys - those who see any accident involving Airbus planes as the proof of the manifest superiority of America.

And my piece won't be nice.

But now, goodnight world.

Only The Stupid

Really, at least some Nigerian scammers tried hard, were creative and sometimes almost convincing.

But this piece of crap I found in my spam folder?

Federal regulations require all financial institutions to obtain, verify, and record identification‏

Da:	Pishing.PayPal® Billing Department (Pishing.PayPal@PayPal.com)
	Questo messaggio potrebbe essere un tentativo di phishing.
Inviato:	sabato 21 marzo 2009 23.58.37
A:

Look at the sender's mail... Pishing.PayPal... they're not even trying anymore. Thanks Microsoft for telling me it can be a phising attempt, but I kinda realized that myself.

Anyway, in the mail message there is a link to a website with IP 62.38.141.166 - where you can type your credit card details - for security purposes, of course. Firefox itself tells me it is marked as a fake website and a WHOIS reveals that the IP range from 62.38.140.0 to 62.38.159.255 belongs to the Greek ISP Hellas On Line S.A.

When I Grow Up...

I want to be like this.

Before I forget, the picture comes from ThoseShirts.com

Cinematic Climatic Battles

During my long flights I have made intensive use of the onboard entertainment systems. I have listened to music, watched documentaries and movies.

And the movies in particular have left me quite disappointed, when they reach the point of the climatic battle even more so.

There is a terrible unifortmity, first of all. The Transformers, Hulk, Hancock, Iron Man, Hellboy... all off them fly or jump around cities and battle their enemies smashing buildings and vehicles. After a little while, you realize there's only so many ways you can rip a CGI car apart, or punch a hole through a skyscraper. Variety and inventivness apparently went lost somewhere along the route.

Battles between superheroes and superbaddies go rapidly over the top trying to outdo each other, or battles in the previous instalment of the franchise. But audiences become rapidly used to CGI marvels, more and more is needed and soon preposterous levels are reached. You almost never see one of the fighter doing what is the logical thing in a one-on-one fight: try to outwit the enemy, pretend to flee only to lay in ambush for example. No, they always charge straight at each other; at best the bad guy uses some dirty trick. It seems that every time some intelligence could be injected in the battle script, the writers instead go for the dumbest way.

Is it a crowd pleaser? Up to a point; only excitable teenagers can get endless enjoyment for dumb displays of brute force. Adults, or even youngsters with a bit more refined taste, want at least something more engaging along the smash & crush.

A more political observation is that - except Iron Man at the very start, possibly - these superheroes never go to Iraq or Afghanistan or Darfur. Yes, they have superbaddies to fight and other errands to run, but they could take a tour there from time to time. I mean, when you can fly at hypersonic speed, it's not such a hassle, is it?
I don't even ask they personally kick Bin Laden's butt, but I'd love to see Superman saving a patrol from an ambush or IED attack. If not that, at least protecting a bunch of children from suicide bombers.

Is that too difficult, or controversial to put into a movie?

Man, I'm tired of largely mindless Hollywood blockbusters and wannabes. Rather, give me a honestly campy and unpretentious zombie flick such as Planet Terror.

Blowing Up a DIME

A few years ago it was white phosphorus that caused a kerfuffle, now it seems to be the turn of the novel DIME ordnance to be labelled as the Nastiest Weapon Ever.

DIME stands for Dense Inert Metal Explosive and this kind of ordnance is being developed in the USA (and possibly already being used by Israel) in order to reduce collateral damage.

Yes, that's true. DIME is not meant to be a weapon of mass extermination in the most painful ways. Can you believe that?

The inert metal used in these devices is usually tungsten or a tungsten alloy as a fine powder, mixed thoroughly with the explosive. There are a few reasons to do that, as I will illustrate.

One is to reduce production of shrapnel. The casing of the DIME bombs is made of a lightweight composite which produce little or no shrapnel; the metal powder instead produces micro-shrapnel which is highly destructive at short range but loses its energy within a few meters. By contrast, the steel shrapnel from a standard HE artiller shell or aerial bomb can be lethal up to 200 meters or even more.

The presence of the metal powder displaces some of the explosive reducing the overall power of the warhead and the maximum overpressure - again, reducing collateral damage.

The dense explosive has higher penetration capabilities without the need for a strong metal casing: the US Air Force objectives are to obtain a warhead able to penetrate one foot (something less than 30 cm) of reinforced concrete and detonate behind the obstacle - this feature can be used to take out fighters in one room leaving the rest of the building relatively undisturbed (while the current method to deal with this problem is to flatten the whole building with air or artillery strike, or to fire a 120 mm HEAT round from a tank into the room).

All sounds good, at least for the brutal and bloody standards of war so far, but there is a problem: fragments of tungsten alloys with nickel and cobalt are known to cause an aggressive form of cancer when they become embedded in living tissue. These metal powders are also suspected of being environmental pollutants*.

The actual effects of DIME explosives on survivors are unclear due in part to the fact that the battlefield use of that ordnance is not yet confirmed, and in part to the fact that many middle-eastern sources are notorious for the exaggerations, distortions, and outright fabrications in their reports of casualties and damage.

If the toxic effects of the metal powder in DIME will be confirmed, as it is likely in my opinion, they could be legitimately seen as weapons producing unnecessary sufference.

However, that would also result in an intractable problem, because standard ordnance causes more collateral damage, at least at the moment of the blast.
Other dense metals perhaps suitable for replacement of tungsten alloys are prohibitively expensive (osmium, iridium) while depleted uranium is already disgraced; lead is already regarded by many as a serious pollutant and copper or iron may lack the required properties.

President Rockstar

So also this side of the Pond we are bombarded with the fawning reports of Obama's inauguration ceremony and pre-inauguration party.

Which was a concert of a number of music stars, including the usual progressive suspects such as Bono of U2. It is just fitting, in a way: the cult of personality surrounding Obama is the same of pop stars.

The best thing about the election of Obama is that from now on not only blacks but all non-whites will legitimately think that they, or their children can one day be President of the USA. And this is not bad.

I wish Obama to be a great president, but I think that on domestic matters he'll be as bad as his (sane) detractors fear. On the other hand, it is possible he'll be better than expected on international issues.

Another curious thing I noticed is that many here (including the ex-prime minister Walter Veltroni, a pathetic Obama wannabe) are already saying that Obama will have to face a difficult situation and considerable opposition, so there will be no miracles. Hope dashed and change postponed then? It sounds a lot like long-range ass-covering to me: he promised the moon, but if he cannot deliver it's Not His Fault.

But first of all, please, stop with this Obama everywhere, all the time thing. Jesus Christ, isn't there any other story worth reporting here in Italy?

For Whom The Kassam Falls

There's a number of people (or they are a few very noisy cockmongers) who appear to think that Israel should not respond* to Palestinian attacks with Kassam rockets because they are little more than big firecrakers and have caused only... well, a variable number of deaths in a variable timeframe as a function of how dramatic the statement is intended to be.

I have some thoughts about these asshats.

1 - If they were the target of Kassam attacks, I suppose they would rapidly change their opinion about the inoffensivness of said rockets.

2 - The change of opinion would of course occur at a stupendous speed if similar weapons were fired by Israel into Gaza. Oversized firecrackers are are bound to turn into instruments of criminal genocide in no time.

3 - They are too deprived of logic an rationality to realize that casualties are low because Israel has an effective early warning system and a diffuse shelter network where citizens can take refuge. Curiously enough, not even in Naples - where the most insane big ass firecrakers are common fare - people run to shelters on New Year's Eve night.

4 - Even so, the damage of the rocket attacks is not limited to deaths, but it also includes lighter casualties and psychological trauma, property damage and the near impossibility of carrying out normal everyday activities under the barrage.

5 - Proportion in war is not the ratio between damage taken and damage that can be done to the other side (this is in fact a tribalistic and primitive view of warfare), but rather refers to the force that can be used to achieve a certain objective.

6 - Most of those holding that asinine position are too ignorant and ideologically blinded to even consider all the above. Some are too stupid as well.

*In fact their position is rarely expresses in such a coherent and clear fashion. Often it is a mess of poor logic and poorer expression that in theory grants Israel a right to self-defense but in practice denies any effective action. Much like British laws on individual self-defense.

Scam Irony

Ok, who'd ever have thought that e-mail scammers have the gift of irony. Although it is not known whether the irony is intentional or accidental - I lean towards the second option.

In any case, this is what the e-mail fairy brought me a couple of days ago - and had sufficient discernment to deposit in the spam folder:

THE UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION
In Conjunction with the International Monetary Fund
WORLD BANK FACT-FINDING & SPECIAL DUTIES OFFICE
LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM.



Dear Sir/Madam

The United Nations Security Council, hereby receives your payment with
reference number #.MAV/UNO/WBO/LM-05-371 amounting to US$10,625,000.00 (Ten
Million Six Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand United States Dollars) This
council was set up to fight against scam and fraudulent activities worldwide,
responsible for investigating the legitimacy of unpaid contract, inheritance
and lotto winning claims by companies and individuals and directs the paying
authorities worldwide to make immediate payment of verified claims to the
beneficiaries without further delay, your said payment is being arranged in a
Security-proof box weighing 75kg padded with synthetic nylon. According to
information gathered from the bank's security computer we were notified
that you have waited for so long to receive this payment without success, we also
confirmed that you have met all statutory requirements in respect of your
pending payment.

This important notice is to let you know that your payment is ready to be moved
by Swift Bank Transfer (Five working days) to your account or via diplomatic
means of cash delivery (Two days) to your door step. Please note that your
payment will be processed and released to you as soon as you respond to this
confidential letter by reconfirming to us the following details:

(1) Your Full Name:
(2) Home Address:
(3) Phone, Fax and Mobile Number:
(4) Company Name/Occupation:
(5) Home Address:
(6) Payment option (Bank Transfer/Cash delivery):

Immediately the above details are received and validated, your payment  will be
processed within 48hours.

Yours Faithfully,


REV. FATHER PETER SMITH
Director, Special Duties

Yeah, sure... Not sure what is more guffaw-inducing, the "This council was set up to fight against scam and fraudolent activities worldwide" part, or "synthetic nylon" - like there was a lot of natural nylon to be found on this old planet.

Tendentious Tripe

While the tripes I cooked the other day was good, albeit quite a lot of work for my stomach, this other kind of tripe is no good:

Scientific experts agree that the Earth’s climate is changing. Climate change, more commonly known as global warming, is caused by the emission of heat trapping gases produced by vehicles, power plants, industrial processes and deforestation.

I already discussed the difference between the different terms that this paragraph treats as synonyms, but I'm still amazed at the amount of dishonesty and tendentiousness that can be packed in a couple of sentences.

My First Legal Entanglement

As you, my readers, should know, in March and April of this year I did some work as freelance IT technician for a computer firm. I worked for a total of more than 20 days, accumulating a credit slightly above €1700.

As it turns out, the owners of the firms have the positively annoying habit of not paying their collaborators. I think that some of you already know the drill: "Our clients are bahind with their payments, but it will soon be alright" - "We'll pay you next week" - "Really, we had a bit of a problem but by the end of the month you'll have all your money" - "I am sorry, Mr. Scrooge is unvailable to discuss your payment issues".

After a rather long while, I had enough of this crap. I first tried to rally my colleagues in order to launch a collective legal action, but it didn't work out - because I was by no mean the only one the bastards tried to screw over.

They can consider themselves blessed that I'm a civilized person, otherwise they'd be mourning the loss of their kneecaps or worse.

So, all by myself, I contacted a lawyer and we submitted a pleading requesting the firm to pay compensatory damages - the credit I accrued, plus interest plus legal expenses.

The request has been approved and a court order issued. My lawyer has provided to notify it to the firm but she has not received confirmation yet.

Developing...

Yet Another Minor Irritant

IMDB now features parental guides for movies (here's the rather long one for Sin City), where all the questionable scenes and situations are listed for the parents.

But something that bugs me is the category "Alcohol/Drugs/Smoking". See, I grew up in those blessed time before alcohol turned back into al-ghul (the demon) and before we realized that tobacco industry CEOs signed a deal with the Devil in order to get little kids hooked on nicotine.

In other words, I grew up with the idea that smoking was quite a normal thing to do - and not just because movies: I could see people smoking in the streets and many other places.
Same goes for drinking: people were shown drinking in movies because people drink in real life. People are also shown getting drunk, and most often doing stupid things while intoxicated (which I think is a good lesson as long as it doesn't become preaching).

And look at me, I don't smoke and... well, at weekends my alcohol level tends to be a bit higher than suggested, but I am no alcoholic at all.

Semantic Clarity

Looking for something else on the Internet I unhearted a wikipedia page with the sinister title Climate change denial - now, Aug 29 2008, the article is being considered for deletion, so the link may be dead when you read this.

As one can easily imagine, the article makes the point that anyone denying that human activities are causing a catastrophic rise of global temperature must be a corporate stooge or some other sort of evil man.

But what strikes me is the huge semantic confusion, not only in this paper but in many more - especially on the alarmist side. Semantic is important because, to make a condensed Jeff Goldstein, those who control the narrative control the facts. If we let the alarmist side set not only the term of debate, but the very meaning of words, the debate is lost no matter what (the facts are).

So let's give a few definitions for a meaningful debate.

Climate Change - By all resonable standards of English language, this is the most neutral statement. It simply means that the quantities describing Earth's climate (average temperature in particular) are not constant with time; it says nothing about the sign, magnitude and rate of the change, neither about its causes or consequences. The statement is true, but it is also so vague to be of nearly no use: climate has always been changing since an atmosphere appeared around our planet, and there is nothing unusual about the change occurring also in this age. The use of this expression to imply a decisive role of human activities in climatic changes is linguistically incorrect and intellectually dishonest.

Global Warming - This expression is much more specific: it says that average global temperature (at the surface) is rising, leading to a warmer world. Also in this case, the expression itself contains no indication about the magnitude and rate of warming, and neither about causes and effects of the phenomenon. Again, this expression does not imply a human impact on climate; however, it somewhat implies a recent and/or unusual phenomenon.

Temperature Anomaly - The deviation of temperature, for the region of interest, from the average temperature calculated in a chosen reference timeframe (baseline). Often, anomaly values are normalized - divided again by the baseline value. The choice of reference timeframe alters significatively the baseline position and thus the anomaly values.

Anthropogenic Global Warming - Global warming, but with the cause specified: generated by humans (in layterms, man-made). This is the correct expression to indicate an increase of global average temperature produced entirely or at least for a significant fraction by human activities (in particular, emission of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere).