Easy fix now for RSS hijacking - comments(0)
Friday December 9, 2005 - 1:36PM EDT
There is this new thing called podjacking to "hijack" RSS feeds. Nothing in your actuall content gets hijacked just how people get there. The technical fix to this is so freaking easy. Agregation or search engine programs are the ones at fault here for not verifying data. Before a link to a RSS feed is added you need to cross reference the link URL with the source tag in one of the RSS channels. That will tell you if the link is the real link to the data. Easy, but I don't think any program out there does that. They can nip this in the bud right now. Actually right now I don't think there is a source tag. Its XML, they can add it and end this problem quickly. There is a tag for a link to the HTML website, they need to make another for the actual RSS feed link. iTUnes could probably literally add this fix in a day but I say a month or so is a decent amount of time. The RSS spec needs to be updated slightly to add something like "linkrss" tag to the required channel tags to elminate this problem completely. I don't know.
Friday December 9, 2005 - 10:44AM EDT
A few good movies come out today. Narnia, Brokeback and Syriana. I want to see all of them.
Thursday December 8, 2005 - 3:30PM EDT
I'm liking what I am hearing about this movie Syriana. After watching Clooney on Charlie Rose a few weeks ago and hearing more about it I am more excited. It is a thinker's movie like Lord of War but I think it will be much more expansive. I am kind of afraid though that the movie will take the formulaic stance of issue division and try to make everything black and white while ignoring the uncertainity and far reaching interconnections and complexities of reality.
So I hear that they are "defending" the shooting in the Miami airport of a crazy man who didn't have a bomb. I don't get this. They fucked up. And are using their own paranoia as reason enough to take extreme action. Why can't they just say, we fucked up, the system for stopping bombers is piss poor and we know this, we are trying to figure out something better. No they won't do that. They will just point to their own jumpiness as reason for shooting a crazy man. Problem is that if he did have a bomb he already got on the plane and into the airport and had a bag with a bomb in it. I'm not confident in my safety when the bomb is already in the airport and my last line of protection is two guys with glocs trying to take that one hit kill shot before some psycho pushes a button. I just can't defend that as trade off for blowing away a crazy man. The Air Marshalls were no protection and what they did wouldn't have been any help if he had a bomb. All they did was kill a crazy man. If he had a bomb they probably would have failed miserably and we would be talking about 10 people killed in a bomb blast. Instead we are talking about defending air marshalls' shooting. It makes no sense.
You have to admit here that you fucked up and that there has to be a better way. That is the least you could do. You can't possibly defend a crappy system, I don't get that. Defending a crappy system simply to appease the psyche of the people is doing more damage than good. I know I'll hear some clowns say something like, well these marshalls did their job and stopped a possible terrorist attempt. No they didn't, they just killed a crazy man. What actually happened here? This is not hard. Two air marshalls shot a crazy man who said he had a bomb. Here is the ironic part. The air marshalls somehow have no faith in airport security because they were jumpy enough to pull the trigger when supposedly air security is suppose to not let bombs in. They had to be thinking how this man got a bomb onto the plane and it can't be. But they made the decision that the outside chance that he got past security warrented shooting. How well trained are these air marshalls. Apparently the guys wife was frantic saying he was a psycho who didn't take his medicine. The air marshalls analyzed the situation and made the wrong choice. Let's be clear about that. Don't say they made the right choice because they didn't. If they did that means they would have the right to kill anybody who in their own judgement was dangerous regardless of outcome.
This is the dilema of law enforcement. Just admit they fucked up thats it. Put it in the memory banks and use it for future prediction. I love how the Florids marshalls director said it was a textbook scenario. How the fuck is it textbook, he is taking half of what happened and calling it textbook. Does the textbook say that you will kill unarmed crazyman and probably regret it for the rest of your life. I'm not in law enforcement but I highly doubt any scenario is textbook. The officers probably realize their mistake but hopefully they don't take it too hard. I just hate the official statements that looks to justify or clear anybody of making a mistake. That is all I want. Realization that this scenario wasn't "textbook" and that being a law enforcement agent comes with these risks. This is more of that mindset of improper anlaysis and eschewing the consequences as long as you reason with it yourself in your head. Why do they do that? What harm would it have done if they said this was a bad day and we messed up and they made the wrong choice. I thought quality of choice was determined by outcome not preconcived notions. Do they think they help the marshalls by defending them. They killed an unarmed person unless they are that rare cold sociopath I think very little of what some big wig says has an effect on what they are going through. If I clearly messed up I'd be trying to figure out what I missed and didn't see to lead me to the wrong decision. I couldn't resolve my mistake on what I thought would happen. That shit ain't good enough. We learn that when we are kids. Well some of us do.
Thursday December 8, 2005 - 3:00AM EDT
I just don't understand. How do people have a complete lack of clear analysis of things. Things that are so clear and simple to me sometimes as I watch people struggle with or argue or completely miss what is happening. When this happens I try to figure out what is going on. Usually it is just a psycological thing. People just want to protect their opinion. Their opinion has become something sacred to them. If their opinion falls they fall too. I don't get it. My opinion is always in flux based on...I don't know. That is just it, I'm still trying to figure out some kind of foundation for my thoughts and opinions and feelings. Right now I don't have any strong foundation to speak of. But right now, what is pushed and what is respected is strong opinion, strong convictions. They call those who waver, weak or wafflers or something. I hate that shit. It is better to be totally wrong than to not be sure. Why is this? I don't know. I'm tired now.
Thursday December 8, 2005 - 2:40AM EDT
So I hear about Warner music threating a maker of an application that searches the net for lyrics for mp3 files. This whole copyright patent thing is started to make me angry. I don't know why it is causing so much trouble. First I think about how copyrights and patents were originally created when it was far harder to duplicate things than it was today. This is where I think it all goes wrong. The original system was built with a purpose that was simple no doubt, but it may have made more sense before because it was much easier to enforce. Now it is virtually impossible to enforce copyright protection. The structure of their business is based on this per unit consumption, which incidently came to be because of recording technologies. Their business is built upon recording technologies being advanced enough to provide easy distribution of content but not so advanced that distribution can be just as easy for any person. So now recording and duplication technology is different from what they originally based their business on. So what do they do? So far they have tried two things. One is to counteract the advancement of recording technology through other technology, thats failing miserably. Other is legal recourse to try and enforce copyright laws. Also failing miserably. Download services are a slight advancement in their business so maybe it will help extend the life of per unit consumption. I feel like that is the problem. The per-unit consumption model is failing. Think about how music was before recording technologies. The per-unit consumption model was not present. So how does it change? There is some subscription based things out there but nothing very successful. That is what needs to change. The per-unit model is failing, how successful can it be going from here on. Instead of wasting money on futile legal action and DRM they should be looking for a new way to do business. The per-unit model will never be as successful as it once was. They have become used to its success and want to hold on to it. With the lifestyle of excess that has sprung up within music and entertainment they can't afford to not be as successful as previously. Does that need to change? Do they need to sacrifice their lifestyle for their music. Not their music personally but music in general. I thought the ultamite goal of music was to get people to listen. The caveat of payment for listening is something new. Now I think about it this way. They say music cost money to make. Music that is made for what purpose? For listening, for people to listen. Ok I accept that music cost money to make and it increasing complexity has increased costs. Costs that essentially must be shouldered by the listeners. The more the listener wants the more they will have to pay. Not strictly more as an amount but more as different kinds and complexity and format, etc. So this is supposed to be the pure dynamic of how this works. Listeners want more music and are willing to shift more resources to get it. This is at the core of their argument for wanting to continue to prop up the current per-unit system. However that is being ingnorant to a whole lot of details in the middle that need to be examined. So as consumers we want these increasingly complex creations and they will require more resources to make. The inefficiency of that creation is chiping away at the resources we give to have those things made. Methods of consumption has surpassed methods of creation and distribution. This sounds like some kind of economics problem and I think it is. Especially with music, now we can consume much more music than ever, however the industry is still locked into a system of creation and distribution that cannot cope with the rampant consumption. To fix this you have to change methods of creation and distribution. But the only foray into that has been the download services, which are a very small step, especially considering the DRM policies. Maybe the industry has to accept that not only does it need to change the methods of distribution but that they will never be able to command the resources it once did. The lifestyle of excess associated with the pinnacle of entertainment may have to disappear. Simply because the system will eventually not support it. Or support it at such a high price of consumption and content that it is not worth it. The forceful arguement from the industry about the reduction of content and quality of it from the lack of the same ratio of resource exchange to consumption is something you always hear. With the interconnections to so many other things not in the entertainment industry's control there is some truth to that. They would have to trade off somewhere. I keep saying lifestyle but it would probably be more than that. As far as quality of content suffering because of the differing ratio that is something that I don't think will happen. Advancements in technology has allowed us to make up such gains. The problem is one of efficient use of technology to overcome the resource loss and maintain quality. So far they are sucking at it. Right now, the artist are gaurding their lifestyle and the corporations are guarding their profits which connect back to those who are in the corporations lifestyle. One thing that gets lost is all the various smaller roles played. Those who don't have the lifestyle of excess. Often times they are the ones who take the first hit not the ones who have the excess. This makes it hard to judge the real affect on the smaller roles. Because those at top are rarely willing to sacrifice their excess to protect the smaller roles I don't have a good idea how much theses smaller roles are affected. So what to do? First is that the lifestyle of excess has to be risked. That is the first thing that has to be done. You may get it all back you may lose it all but you have to be willing to risk that lifestyle. Risk it up to a certain point. Nothing here is absolute. You can't possibly give up everything but you need to find an acceptable level. Risking the lifestyle is mainly a psychological step. Setting you up for anything. It says that you are willing to move ahead to something. Maybe you will reclaim it or something like it later. Then there is the efficiency thing.
The ultimate philosophical goal is to create music or movies or other forms of entertainment. Wrapped around that is the goal to make money to keep up the structure to make those movies and that music. This is cliche but losing sight of the ultimate goal to make movies is very damaging. Because everything is based on that. One should have the mindset to protect the movie making, not soley through protecting the money. Money is integral but is is always in flux and is unreliable. You will lose if you focus soley on your resources. Focusing on your resources with the mindset that they will always be available at a level that you've become accustomed to will lead to failure. Resources are way to fickle to rely on them being steady to be successful. This whole thing boils down to that. The non recognition that resources are not static and that you have to consider your methods of using these resources as the key to sustaining success. Resource centric thinking is not the dominant philosophy. The dominant philosophy is consumption. We find a resource and immediately go to ways to use it. Effecient use is an after thought. Just me saying that seems all wrong. Why wouldn't you immediately start consuming a resource that was available. Why worry about effeciency of consumption? It is sort of counterintuitive to think that way. But I argue that we have learned enough about consumption that we must recognize that you have to think that way. Before you consume you must try and figure out how much you are going to have and for how long. Not an exact measurement but an estimate. You must first consider things like this. The boudless bounty of our world is a farce. It isn't unlimited. You have to make an effort to think about how you consume the resource and how long it is going to last with your method of consumption.
Wednesday December 7, 2005 - 10:18PM EDT
Wheaties is a funny word. Think about it. It's so funny.
Tuesday December 6, 2005 - 3:23AM EDT
That clown Michael Chertoff that I ripped a while ago actually had someting intelligent to say recently. He called the idea to build a fence along the border a bad one and that it really wouldn't be effective. I sincerley applaud him for making that kind of statement.
Tuesday December 6, 2005 - 3:01AM EDT
I was going back over some posts and I came across this excerpt. I really like how I worded it, captures what I was thinking precisely.
Once an ideaology rises it spawns hoards of followers who are under the impression they are reasoning to a better future when all they are doing is following rigid idea structures.
Tuesday December 6, 2005 - 2:35AM EDT
It makes me so angry that all of a sudden there is coverage of bogus information on Wikipedia. First off, anyone with any scruples knows that you don't use Wikipedia as the end all source for accurate info. You need to be somewhat educated already to be able to have a decent idea of what is true and what is false. Most users know this so when some moroons who don't know what the internet is discover the wikipedia I have no sympathy for their complaints. Besides all that stuff there is one thing that should be brought up among all this discussion of wikipedia inaccuracy. There is nothing like it. What I mean is that there is no place on the internet for one to freely access what is essentially trying to be a compendium of all human knowledge. This is because the modern print publishing system guards knowledge fiercly as a profit machine. Google just wants to stick excerpts of books on the net and they get hell for it. Forget encyclopedia makers. They only target a small sub section of knowledge and usually want you to pay for it. That is what people should be talking about. Not the inaccuracies in wikipedia but why in the hell hasn't there been an effort to put all human knowledge in a freely accessible place. Sure there are a lot of things that are in contention but there are also a whole lot of things that everyone agrees on and would be perfect for wikipedia. The publishers and academia should pool all their knowledge into one place. Who wouldn't benefit from having all human knowledge gathered and verified in one place?
Monday December 5, 2005 - 7:50PM EDT
I cooked some boneless chicken tenderloins in a wok with some extra virgin olive oil and some rosemary, thyme, lemon herb marinde, minced garlic. It came out with this slightly sweet tinge to the taste. It was unexpected. And tasted good. Usually my concotions come out tasting horribly, not this time chump.
Monday December 5, 2005 - 4:05PM EDT
All the presidnet has left anymore is the don't be a chicken shit line. That is the only thing he has left to show for his 4+ years in office. When pressed on Iraq it is always the same thing now. We can't run because that means they win. Logic like that doesn't make sense no matter how you slice it. It is simplistic and barely fits into schoolyard rablerousing. I just wonder if his administration thinks the american people are that stupid to actually believe in that crap-ass line beyond 5th grade or they actually believe it themselves. The Republican party is in shambles. They were already seen as backdoor crooks and not just people on the other side of the idealogy spectrum by their opposition. They are just prooving a whole bunch of people right and the funniest part is that they still find nothing wrong with their shennanigans as a whole because frankly it is they way it has been done for way too long. Country is in shambles organizationally. Basically the war and natural disasters finally pulled the wool off some idiots eyes to show them how ineffective and ineffecient our government is. They say the 2nd terms are not as good as the first. Well if you want to call Bush's first term good go ahead. Even clinton had the great economy to ride out his 2nd term on. Bush doesn't have a goddamn thing. Come to think of it. Bush never had anything positive in his presidency. Country has gotten progressively worse since Clinton left office and nothing has improved one bit since.
I'm not particularly caring or am I this all human life is precious type of person. But I'll be goddamn if I keep reading articles about how people get put on death-row mainly through a witness or confession of a third party. Seems like it should be much more difficult than it is to get someone executed.
I hate the term "victims' rights". I should be rephrased as "revenge rights" because that is all it is. Once your a victim all your so called rights and protections have been eradicated. Victims' rights is an oxymoron. Victims are people who's rights have been taken away. Just for the sake of being honest with ourselves we have to expose this farce known as victims' rights. Maybe if we were and referred to it as revenge people would be more pensive about it when using victims' rights as a reason for death penality and a whole slew of other things.
Frankly I don't know how 1 billion plus people call themselves Christians and live the way they do. How is it that our president considers himself a Christian but signed off on death warrants during his governership. What happened to the 10 commandments. It doesn't get anymore basic and clear than "thou shalt not kill". How in the hell a whole bunch of Christians reasoned that to mean its ok to kill sometimes is beyond me.
Sunday December 4, 2005 - 5:36PM EDT
The cartoon series was bad when it was on MTV. Why did I think the movie would be different? It wasn't. It mirrored the same crapulance the TV series had. High on style and not much else. Plot, explanation and continuity are virtually non existant. The only reason I went to see this was that it was the only new movie out this week and it was a sci-fi. There isn't much to say about this. It wasn't promoted all that much and for good reason. I wouldn't fault the movie though. The original series sucked-ass. I don't know why they even made a movie out of the garbage anyway. I don't know how the series lasted as long as it did on MTV. It was just an attempt at MTV trying to be cool with an anime program. Why did they pick such a crappy one.
Sunday December 4, 2005 - 1:23AM EDT
What is the deal with this face transplant muddled nonsense I keep hearing from the news. They give a few minor details but gloss over anything important and keep talking about how this woman won't recognize herself because of the "new" face she has. Does anyone have any sense? Seriously. Does anybody know how even the simplest things work. The way they just inject their own ingnorance into things and present it to people makes me so angry. Will I ever see a competent news report dealing with any kind of science?
An interesting question that I would like to find out is what happens when the transplanted parts of her face get inured. Maybe a small cut or something in that area. How does it heal? Does it heal like her original face would or like the transplanted face? How our body regenerates certain parts and not others is still not well understood. With something like this that is visible maybe they can find out more about that process. How is her body going to know how to heal this strange appendage? Will it be able to heal from injury at all. Is the genetic code contained in the transplanted parts replaced by her own? I have so many questions about this.
Friday December 2, 2005 - 11:33PM EDT
The common definition of the word technology is crappy. It either refers to electronics or something related to commercial or industrial objectives. The anthropological definition is the most acceptable to me, though I think it is still restrictive. Technology to me I guess is the tangible representation of ideas. Everything in our world is technology. Clothing, utensils, paper, razors, the wheel. Electricity is not technology in itself. The idea of electricity isn't technology. It is the use of electricity in all its various ways and with its various devices that is technology. The wire that moves electrons along a distance is technology. Not electricity in itself. Electricity always existed. Technology is the tangible representation of the way we put our ideas into use. To me that is technology. It is not just electronics. So there is no need to fear technology. We've had it since we started killing buffalo with sharp rocks.
Friday December 2, 2005 - 10:54PM EDT
I have this idea for something supercool. Based on my rudimentary understanding of current P2P networks and brain structure I think I've got a cool idea.
I think I've said this before but I have this grand vision of things sometime. The vision is rather general and not something complete in every detail. I also lack an starting point. I don't know if I will every even get to that start.
Friday December 2, 2005 - 1:23AM EDT
It seems as if the current Republican powers in governement have attained a lot of their power through less than honorable ways. Ways that were probably all technically legal under the current system but violated the essence of laws and underminded the aim of the system. It's not surprising and doesn't make me angry. It just reaffirmation of what I thought about before.
Friday December 2, 2005 - 12:45AM EDT
I think I've finally crossed over and become that bottom feeding loser that I've always wanted to become. I was in the McDonalds drive through and the realization hit me. I haven't been to a McDonald's in 6 months and it was disgusting. I barely go into work, I've let my website projects lapse and yet I still complain how terrible my life is. That is pathetic. I don't do anything to warrant complaining. I dont't do anything. Least I could do was maintain gainful steady employment, but I don't even really do that. I've got nothing to show for the way I've been approaching this thing.
Friday December 2, 2005 - 12:30AM EDT
Ryan Reynolds is becoming one of my favorite actors. Or at least those smug sarcastic bastards of characters he plays. His character in this movie is actually not a smug bastard. But he still has the sarcasm. This movie is pretty funny. Not the funniest comedy of the year but it was funnier than I expected. Anna Faris keeps nailing these supporting comedy roles. She was good in Scary Movie too. This comedy looks like it could be one of those stupid scenario kind of stories but it turns out to be pretty smart. Although it still relishes the crazy scenario. I think this is a movie most people could laugh at, especially if you like other Ryan Reynolds movies. Definately my kind of comedy. It was chock full of side splitting moments but it had some real knee slappers.
Thursday December 1, 2005 - 3:10PM EDT
When I began to read about this talk about holiday trees and christmas trees I decided I needed to find out a little about the origins of the Christmas tree in the first place. The Christmas tree is a Christian tradition started in Germany. That is about as far as my quick lookup goes for now. It has now taken on a very secular tradition within the larger secular Christmas tradition which of course all goes back to the birth of the Christian messiah. It is a christian tradition so why would we not continue to call it a Christmas tree. It goes up around christmas. I think some people are too concerned about a name. It just seems that the line of reasoning for it to be called something than other than a Christmas tree is weak. The line of reasoning I hear is so that we don't exclude people. But it is already such a secular tradition so how a name like this excludes people doesn't make sense. All trying to change the name is doing is making a whole bunch of Christians angry for no good reason. We've adopted a Christian tradition into secular american society. I really don't see the point of further hijacking the tradition with a name change. It is just a name. A name that may or may not be kept in the long run. The name does signify the origin of the tradition. That is the kind of effeciency I like.
Just saw a headline that read "Urban youths show gains in math scores". I almost dread reading the article for fear of what kind a sewage-like analysis it will provide. Just read the article and there was no horrible analysis. A couple of sentences and points that could have been better served by further extrapolation but mainly the article just presented some basic findings.
I like what the French PM is saying in response to the rioting. Normally I'd think that politicians would not be so apologetic and say that they did things wrong. They would normally gives us a crapload of rhetoric to deflect culpability from themselves. I like what he is saying, but it still remains to be seen what he will actually do.
Thursday December 1, 2005 - 12:27PM EDT
There has to be a lot of people reading these articles about e-voting in the U.S. and wondering how we can make something that should be fairly simple so difficult. I know I am one of them. There are many baffling points. First is paper trail. How is it that any state let voting machines put in use without a paper trail. The whole voting process previously had one yet the new one it magically disappears. Weird how paper trail has become a point of contention when it should be the most basic of things to be required. Then there are these large companies that have somehow established themselves as a e-voting machine provider and instead of following the rules that may be put into place by a state they want to make the state bend to how they created their e-voting machine. I suppose the states deserves some blame for that because some of them let e-voting machines be put in use without a strong policy to regulate them so the manufacturers just did what they wanted. Lastly I am baffled by how no one can seem to come up with decent regulations and standards for e-voting. Not only from a technical standpoint but a process one. This shouldn't be that hard. Its just weird. Especially when a machine exists that you could base your e-voting machine off of. The ATM. Paper trail, easy interface, verification process, everyone knows how to use one. Just seems like if the ATM is so successful how is it that no one can figure out a decent e-voting machine. I've been told by a military security expert that the most secure computer systems in the U.S. are financial ones. Even more secure than public utility and miltary systems. When was the last time someone hacked an ATM.