Thursday, January 22, 2009

The Nomination Game

Well, the academy award nominations were released this morning; and there are some actual surprises mixed in among the usual indie crap that no-one saw, and politically motivated BS.

I'm going to intersperse my commentary, and my predictions will be in bold. If I bold two, it's because I can't really decide which one. If I italizcize it, it's because I think that entry SHOULD win, instead of the one I think WILL win.
Best Motion Picture Of The Year:

Frost/Nixon
Milk
The Reader
Slumdog Millionaire
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
This is the one that's going to piss the most people off I think. For one thing, I think most people are going to be surprised that a movie about a NAZI pedophile is on the best picture list, and Dark Knight isn't.

Oh and for the I don't know how manyth year in a row, I have seen two or less of the nominees. In fact, I haven't seen any of them, and this is coming from a certified movie nut; though admittedly I'll probably watch Milk, Frost Nixon, and Slumdog on DVD.

As to my prediction, it's Slumdog all the way. It's going to win for every major category the movie is nominated for (though surprisingly, it wasn't nominated for any of the performance categories). There is way too much buzz and way to much bandwagon, with NO backlash (which is almost unheard of) for it not to.
Achievement In Directing:

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button David Fincher
Frost/Nixon Ron Howard
Milk Gus Van Sant
The Reader Stephen Daldry
Slumdog Millionaire Danny Boyle
No question here, Danny Boyle is getting his Oscar. There isn't even an outside shot for anyone else.

Still haven't seen any of them.
Performance By An Actor In A Leading Role:

Brad Pitt in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Richard Jenkins in The Visitor
Frank Langella in Frost/Nixon
Sean Penn in Milk
Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler
Again, I haven't seen any of the movies; though I will also be watching "The Wrestler" on DVD in addition to the others mentioned above.

There's a HUGE backlash against Sean Penn right now, for playing a gay man while at the same time sucking up to Castro and Chavez, dictators who persecute gays.

Also, people just don't like Sean Penn. He's a nasty, not very bright, and seriously offensive man; even to other liberals. I predict that will take him out of the running, and leave it to Mickey Rourke.

Brad Pitt is the more obvious choice, especially given how many nominations Benjamin Button recieved; but I'm predicting a shutout for Button; and the day hollywood gives the guy who started in soap operas and sitcoms, and whose first notable role was as the beefcake in thelma and louise... Well I'd say that's ice skates in hell day, but the Cardinals are in the superbowl, so I think we've already passed that milestone.
Performance By An Actor In A Supporting Role:

Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight
Josh Brolin in Milk
Robert Downey Jr. in “Tropic Thunder”
Philip Seymour Hoffman in Doubt
Michael Shannon in Revolutionary Road
There doesn't even need to be any discussion on this one. Heath Ledger has been anointed for this since they put his coffin in the ground.

I am thrilled to see Downey nominated for "Tropic Thunder" however. Everyone knows that Ledger is a dead lock, so the real win here is for Downey; and it's especially nice because his second nomination comes from a comedy.
Performance By An Actress In A Leading Role:

Anne Hathaway in Rachel Getting Married
Angelina Jolie in Changeling
Melissa Leo in Frozen River
Kate Winslet in The Reader
Again, there's that Nazi Pedophile thing... But Winslet has a huge steamroller of momentum going for her, and only a relatively minor backlash. No-one else has any kind of buzz or momentum.

Neither Jolie nor Hathaway deserve to be in that list... in fact Jolie didn't deserve her first Oscar either (for Girl Interrrupted; but the vote split between Katherine Keener and Chloe Sevigny that year and she got it by default). She's there mostly because Hollywood likes good stories, and it's a great story having Pitt and Jolie nominated simultaneously.

Oh and yet again, haven't seen any of them; and in this case don't plan to.
Performance By An Actress n A Supporting Role:

Taraji P. Henson in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Amy Adams in Doubt
Penélope Cruz in Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Viola Davis in Doubt
Marisa Tomei in The Wrestler
This one is a little tougher, as there is no strong momentum for any particular candidate; but the buzz is around Penelope Cruz.

If it wasn't a Woody Allen movie, she wouldn't even have been nominated; but it is, and the academy likes to throw Woody a bone whenever he's got a movie. Also, her costars are last years golden boy Javier Bardem, and hollywood IT girl Scarlett Johansen.

With two noms from "Doubt" their vote would be split anyway; and I doubt Marisa has a shot given the role she was playing.

Oh and you guessed it, haven't seen any of them, don't plan to see any of them but "The Wrestler".
Best Animated Feature Film Of The Year:

Bolt
Kung Fu Panda
WALL-E
Well, the fact that they included "Bolt" should be an indication of how thin the pickings were in this category this year; but it doesn't matter because Wall-E is a dead solid lock... and if there were any kind of justice in the academy award process, it would be up for best picture as well. It wouldn't win, but it should be up there.
Original Screenplay:

WALL-E
Frozen River
Happy-Go-Lucky
In Bruges
Milk
I'll be honest with you, I'm having a hard time predicting this one. It could end up being a sop to Milk, for being swept off the stage in all the other categories; especially since the writer himself is both a well known gay activist, filmmaker and writer; and an ex mormon who is very publicly critical of the church.

On the other hand, there is a strong feeling among the actors in the academy that "Happy Go Lucky"should win something; and it isn't going to in any other category.

I think in the end, I'm going with Milk for this one.
Adapted Screenplay:
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Doubt
Frost/Nixon
The Reader
Slumdog Millionaire
Again, I'm guessing Slumdog continues it's sweep; though there is an outside chance "The Reader" will pick this up.

It also may go to Button as a consolation prize for being the best $150 million dollar movie spanked in every way by a $15 million dollar movie... but I doubt it.

So, another year in which I, a certified movie nut, have seen a grand total of four of the movies nominated in any major category.

Funny enough only those four have broken the 100 million mark (actually Benjamin Button has if you count international, and Vicki... made 80m or so including international)... in fact only six of them even broke 50 million domestic, and not one of the under 100s earned out (including Button).

Meanwhile, the second most successful movie of all time, and a massive critical hit as well (a rare combination); having grossed just 3 million less than a billion dollars (and still going strong internationally) gets one nomination in a major category, and it's for a dead man.

Anyone want to predict how big a ratings disaster this years Oscars will be?

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

A Perception Issue

If you ask most people in this country whether we have gun control, they'll say no we don't. If you ask them why, they'll say something like "because the NRA keeps it from passing.

This may seem impossible to those of us in the gun world, but the vast majority of people in this country are entirely ignorant about gun laws... in fact I'd wager to say the majority of gun owners are even ignorant.

Frederik Pohl is a quite well known science fiction author; who has recently decided to start a blog. In one of his first posts, he mentioned his wife was a college professor, a former state rep, and worked with the teachers union in her state; and in the comment thread someone made some disparaging comments about such unions.

She responded with a defense of her union; but also an attack against the NRA, and gun rights supporters:
"So I take exception to my union’s being linked by my husband with an organization like the National Rifle Association. I admit, their members are primarily not lobbying for financial gain either, but I also do not believe that the majority of people who are card-carrying members of that organization are as fanatic as their leadership in defending the right of anyone to bear automatic assault weapons. Many of their members are simply hunters or collectors who want to join an organization which is supposed to defend their right to own rifles and shotguns."
I see this thing everywhere, all the time. It is completely and utterly false; but usually it is motivated not by bigotry, but by ignorance; as most people are informed only by those hostile to gun rights, and their accomplices, the media.

As gun owners, as gun lovers, as gun rights activists, and as those who support human freedom; we MUST correct such perceptions wherever they arise.

We must do so politely, and in an informed manner; and we must engage anyone who is willing to listen; rather than simply shouting "what part of shall not be infringed don't you understand" and "from my cold dead hands" over and over again.

I left this rather long comment; which I hope they choose to publish (update: they did publish it) but even if they don't perhaps at least one or two people will be more informed, and will not take the medias pronouncements to heart so uncritically:
I realize you mean well here, and you make your comments out of ignorance; but as you are angered by people speaking about teachers unions without direct knowledge or understanding; you should recognize that your statements on guns and gun rights are similarly ill informed.

From what you have said, and how you have said it, I'll wager your information and perceptions of the NRA, gun rights, gun owners and shooters are primarily created and informed by media and lobbying groups hostile to guns and gun rights.

Oh and by the way, there is no functional difference whatsoever between a hunting shotgun or many hunting rifles, and the so called "assault weapons" banned under various state laws (and federally from 1994-2004); excepting that the banned weapons are in fact LESS powerful than weapons typically used for hunting.

The common perception, falsely created by anti-gun lobbying organizations, and reinforced at every opportunity by an uncritical and largely anti-gun media; is that such laws keep machine guns out of the hands of criminals. This is completely and utterly false.

Machine guns are legal in the United States (in about 40 out of 50 states)for civilians to own by the way; and always have been. Since 1934, they have been subject to strict federal regulation and background checks; and they cost enormous sums of money (the cheapest are around $5000 and they can easily exceed $100,000).

Since machine guns were specially regulated in 1934, only two crimes have ever been committed using lawfully owned machine guns; and both were by police officers (both were instances of domestic violence).

These "assault weapon" bans;and there is sure to be another proposed shortly now that Obama has been inaugurated; do nothing more than restrict lawful access to law abiding citizens, weapons that LOOK LIKE machine guns.

There are constant calls for "reasonable gun control" when in fact we already have a HUGE amount of gun control in this country.

Most people hear this repeated propaganda about "easy access to guns" etc... and simply assume that it's a wide open field for everyone to buy guns willynilly out there with no control. This is also utterly false.

It is illegal for a felon, the mentally ill, the legally incompetent, substance abusers, and anyone who has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence, or has a domestic violence restraining order against them; to own, purchase, or possess any firearm. It is also illegal to sell, give, or loan a firearm to those people.

Firearms can only be sold across state lines by federally licensed dealers. Firearms cannot be sold mail order. Firearms cannot be purchased over the internet without first being shipped to a federally licensed dealer (unless both the buyer and seller are in the same states, and that state allows private sales without a dealer).

All firearms purchases from federally licensed dealers must be approved through the national instant background check system; which verifies that the person the gun being sold to is not prohibited from owning or possessing firearms under the law.

And that's just federal. There are 28,000 federal, state, and local gun control laws in this country.

And not one of them has any impact at all on criminals. Criminals don't buy guns from federally licensed dealers. They don't buy guns from law abiding citizens. They buy guns from other criminals. The law doesn't do a thing to stop them, BECAUSE THEY ARE CRIMINALS.

I could go on like this for hours, but I hope I have illustrated my point. If you want to make such a comparison, please educate yourself first; and don't count the media or those who oppose that which you'd like to talk about as valid sourcees. You wouldn't treat any academic subject in such a manner, you shouldnt treat this subject as such.


If we don't do this, we lose. It's that simple.

Sick, Sore, and Sleep won't come

Just one of those days. Insomnia is killing me still, and now I'm sick.

Sore throat, achy joints, sore and irritated eyes, sinus, intestinal difficulty, and a light fever.

All the hallmarks of some kind of inflammatory infection. Probably viral, but not flu (no nausea, no upper respiratory involvement, fever is barely registering); though with the unseasonably warm temperatures the last two weeks, after a few weeks of cold and damp, it might be fungal.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Inauguration Day Activities

Today, while some people are worshiping at the altar of the Obamessiah, and many are just grumbling, I'm off to do something useful.

In half an hour I will be off to take the Census Workers test. Hopefully in a few weeks I'll be earning some extra cash for the household in the ultimate of fixed-term, flexible contracts.

And, honestly, I consider it somewhat of a patriotic duty to do what I can to ensure an accurate census. It is not lost on me that the census determines electoral votes, and may be a major factor in the next presidential election (not to mention reassigning House seats).

So I'm off to do what I can to land a job in the 2010 Census.

Wish me luck.

Mel

Cross-posted at Mrs. Anarchangel

Congratulations to President Barack Obama

And may god have mercy on our souls.

Somehow, I just feel like watching "The Life of Brian" right about now.




Why do I have the nagging feeling that Obama is Bill McKay?

Monday, January 19, 2009

A Little Career Advice

A couple weeks back, a reader was asking for some career advice.

This guy has got 10 years of experience in IT, doing phone, desktop/deskside support, and light admin work; but he has no degree and no certifications.

He's currently making about $30,000 a year, and he wanted to know what he should do to improve his financial position, and career in general. More specifically, he wanted to know if I thought certifications would help in that; and how important not having a degree was.

The short answer is, not very much, and not very important.

The long answer is a bit more complicated, but it's important to understand. I know literally hundreds of guys like this; who have five to ten years experience, and are stuck in $30,000 to $45,000 a year, near-entry level positions.

So first, let's address certifications specifically:

I have, literally, dozens; from dozens of vendors, including some very expensive, rare, theoretically high demand ones.

They're mostly useless.

Other than CISSP (which is used to be worth a lot more, but now is only nearly worthless) and CCIE (which still means at least a $20,000 pay bump); IT certifications mean very little to your actual earning potential or career advancement past entry level (actually, management and financial certifications can be more valuable, even in IT jobs).

In the real world, the purpose of certifications are to:
  1. Get you an interview for a job you are not (or are only marginally) qualified for

  2. Fulfill a contractual requirement ("all the engineers on the contract have to be MCSEs")

  3. Allow you to teach professional courses and certifications in a technology (I have over a dozen of these teaching certifications)

  4. Qualify your company for higher partnership status (the highest levels of Cisco partnership require you employ at least 2 CCIEs for example)

  5. Get more press for the companies letterhead ("we employ more CCIEs than anyone in the market")

    And MOST importantly

  6. Get your resume past the recruiter, and HR staffs buzzword filter
Remember, your hiring manager generally decides whether he's going to hire you or not based on your interview, experience, and references; but you can't GET the interview if HR never forwards your resume.

HR staff rarely understand what they are looking for in technical staff. They tend to ask for "wish lists" of buzzwords, experience, certifications etc... and they decide what resumes to send on, based on how many buzzwords they see, how well the resume is written and formatted (yes, it's really that important), and how much of their "wish list" is fulfilled.

That by the way, is why it's important in the IT world to have a "skills and qualifications" summary right at the top of your resume, that lists all your buzzwords, and your length of experience with them. Everyone is lazy when it comes to reading resumes; make it easy on them.

What about a degree?

By all means, get a degree; but don't expect it to do much for your career past the entry level (unless you work for the government, or a university).

I've been in this business for almost 20 years; since I was in high school, with a few year gap when I was in the Air Force and doing security contracting.

In that entire time, my degrees (double BS in aerospace engineering and computer science) haven't got me a single job; and before I had them, the lack of them didn't prevent me from getting any job I was otherwise qualified for.

For the last three years I've been the chief architect for the largest division of one of the largest banks in the world. I, and the team I lead, are responsible for literally billions of dollars worth of infrastructure. Not one of my certifications, nor my degrees; are relevant, useful, or in any way helped me get or do this job; except in that they indicate to some extent my overall breadth of skills and experience.

Degrees (and certifications) are good; I recommend you get one if you can. Aside from making you a more interesting and well rounded person; in general they will help at least some with earning potential, and they make you more promotable later in life.

The thing is though, they may make it EASIER to get a job you are marginally qualified for, or tip you over the line for a promotion; but they don't get you a job, they don't get you a promotion, and they don't automatically make you more money.

That bit is all up to you.

So why are so many good guys with 5-10 years experience stuck in low level jobs?

I'm going to say something that may be very hard for some of you to listen to:

If you have 10 years experience, and you're good at your job, the only reason you're making $30,000 a year is you.

Either you want to make that much (or that little depending on your perspective); there is something "wrong" with you (social skills, interview skills, background issues, work habits etc...), or you haven't been aggressive enough in pursuing career development.

Somehow I think the latter is likely true for most folks in that position (whether the second is also true or not).

Actually, I think this applies to every "professional" job in America today, not just technology. There is no reason for a well rounded person who is good at their job, with 10 years experience, and no other impediment to earning; to be making less than $45,000 for a full years work in any professional field or job I can think of; unless they have deliberately chosen to stay in a job that limits their earnings.

I'm not successful because of my experience, I HAVE that experience, because I MADE myself successful; and it didn't take me twenty, or even ten years to do it.

I haven't made less than $100,000 for a full years work since I was 24 years old. Partly this is because I'm very good at what I do; but it's also because I aggressively pursue career development, and insist on being paid my proper value as an employee or contractor.

A couple of side notes on money

One, as long term readers know, earning a good salary is no guarantee that you will be well off. Expenses have a habit of expanding to fill the budget; and the stuff of life has a habit of happening all over you on occasion.

Three and a bit years ago I acquired a wife, two kids, and an expensive legal battle; and what money I had put aside went away very quickly. Two years before that I lost a job just after using most of my savings to help my mother buy a house; and ended up broke. A couple years before that I had a business partner screw me and a business go bust, and ended up broke.

Starting to see a common theme here?

It happens; and it happens more to people who are more aggressive in pursuing career opportunities. If you want bigger rewards, you have to take bigger risks.

Two, think about your expenses every month; then think about how much you have in savings. Now that you have those numbers in mind, divide the first into the second, and think about how long you could be out of work before going broke.

Never fool yourself into thinking that a good job and a good salary are wealth. Earnings are not wealth, nor are they security; they're just a help along the way.

Three, don't forget with higher earnings come higher taxes, greater costs for benefits; it seems greater costs in general. It doesn't all go into your pocket, or your bank account. A better job with higher pay will always help you improve your financial situation; but it won't automatically put you where you want to be.

Finally, don't ever compromise your quality of life for more money. If you have higher priorities, don't let money get in the way of them. Especially don't let money get in the way of being with your family.

Remember above all else, money is a means to an end; not the end in itself.

So, that's all been about what NOT to do, and what thing's aren't. How about some useful advice about what to actually DO?

Ok, into list land.

First, and most important by far, is to develop your written and verbal communications skills. It doesn't matter how smart or how good you are, if you can't effectively communicate.

This is by far the biggest problem technical people have in their careers. They never learn to write well or present well, and no matter how good their technical work is, that deadends them.

You will never be promoted past the low-mid grade if you can't write or present. It's that simple.

Second, you need to develop time management and project management skills.

You cannot be successful if you can't manage your OWN resource allocation; the most valuable of which is time. Not only that, but if you can't understand, and document, what resources you need on projects, you will never be able to deal with projects that involve more than just your own efforts. This will limit you to entry and low-mid level jobs.

Third, develop your interpersonal interaction skills; particularly your skill at civil debate and persuasion, and your skill at negotiation.

This isn't just about salary, this is about every interaction you have in the work place every day.

That last bit there is probably the hardest for engineers in particular. It's also why I'm where I am, and other people with more experience and higher qualifications than I have are earning half as much.

How many times have I heard "I just couldn't sell myself" or "I just couldn't sell my idea", from an engineer... The problem isn't that their idea wasn't good, it's that they either didn't communicate effectively, or that they didn't hit the persuasion points that people needed to hear for the idea to be "sold".

Even those engineers who have decent writing and communications skills are rarely able to deal with negotiation, compromise, and the interplay of low level politics in the work environment.

Worse, even if they could do well with these skills, many technical people disdain them as "below" them, or demeaning, or "games".

Guess what sparky, you're not only wrong; but your attitude offends the non-technical people you have to work with; who do it every day.

Let me say this again: YOU ARE WRONG

One more time: YOU ARE WRONG, AND THE "NORMAL" PEOPLE ARE RIGHT

Yes you. You're wrong. You may think you're right, you may feel self justified in this; but really you're just being self righteous and condescending.

Sometimes, when the world is saying one thing, and you're saying another thing; you're right and the world is wrong. Einstein, Newton, Copernicus...

Guess what: You're not Einstein, and this is not one of those times. You're Tesla, the death ray doesn't work; and you're going to die broke, in debt, and covered in pigeon crap if you don't smarten up.

But wait, there is hope for the hopeless

The good news, is that you CAN learn all of these things. You may never be a social and political genius, but you can get a basic grasp of what to do, and how, through books and videos. They sell them by the hundreds of thousands; and they aren't even that expensive.

Even better, there are classes that are taught by management and leadership experts; in negotiation, staff management, time management, written and verbal communication, and other valuable business skills. MBAs are going to these courses all the time; think maybe if they were a waste of time, and didn't give good return on investment, that all those business savvy folks would be wasting their time with them?

I put those three skillsets first, because they ARE FIRST. Someone good at those skills will earn at least twice as much as someone only adequate at them, and at least four times as much as someone with an inadequate grasp of them.

Next, into the more advanced areas so to speak.

If you ever want to get beyond entry to low-mid level; it's critical that you work on your management and financial skills.

You MUST understand how to lead projects, groups, and teams (at the least), if you ever want to be anything more than a jr. coder, jr. admin, or first level support tech.

If you ever want to be a leader, or a manager, you must be able to understand budgets, resource allocation, costings, and in general the "business side" of things.

Even if your only goal is to get to third level support, you need to be able to lead teams, delegate tasks, allocate resources, report on status, and manage projects and timelines.

I cannot emphasize this enough. Social and business skills are FAR more important to your career than technical skills are, especially once you get beyond the low-mid career grades; and the further you get in your career, the more important they get.

In fact, I will say to every technical person working in a commercial business (government and university are a little different); if you are going to get a masters degree, get an MBA; it will serve you better in your career than any technical degree.

Looking the part

While you're developing your business skills; learn how to dress the part when appropriate. You don't need to play dressup, or spend a fortune, or wear a suit every day; but you should dress professionally, respectably, and in a manner appropriate to your environment.

Unless it's being held on a factory floor, you should wear suits to interviews and important meetings; unless doing so would make you overdressed. In some companies business casual is overdressed; and different companies have different standards for business casual.

Know the culture, audience, and environment before you go in for the interview, or the meeting; and then dress to one level higher than is customary for your audience (for example in a casual company, wear business casual).

You'll never read this in a business book; probably because all the people who write business books are compulsive suit wearers; but there are some environments where wearing a suit will hurt you. If you want to get taken seriously by hardcore geeks, machinists, factory floor engineers and the like, wearing a suit isn't the way to do it. If you're meeting with your prospective boss, and he's in board shorts and a tshirt, wearing a suit is just going to make you look like an idiot.

...but generally speaking, the advice to wear a suit to an interview, is good...

Buy at least three decent suits, at least five good pairs of pants, at least 7 good button down shirts, a few non-ugly ties, and at least three good pairs of shoes with matching belts. You'll never regret it (especially the good shoes).

Always buy your clothes a little large, and have them properly tailored. Trust me. It's not expensive, and it's more than worth it.

Once you've bought them, learn how to wear them properly, and comfortably; and get used to doing so. If they are properly tailored, this won't be a problem.

Ok, I get it, business skills are important; but what about technical skills?

Well, those can be a lot harder to give advice on; just because there are so many specialties in the technology fields; but I can talk about the common paths and skills necessary to them.

First off, if you're a low level admin, coder, or support tech, you need to decide what areas of specialization you want to get into; or if you want to try and go for architecture and/or technical management.

If you want to go through administration, architecture, information security, solutions consulting, or any other field that requires a broad base of knowledge; this is what I'd recommend (in fact, I'd also recommend this same general skill set to any kind of consultant, and to DBAs, and senior programmers and software architects).
  • Learn Solaris, Redhats variant of Linux, and HPUX if you can (and/or AIX if you want to work in a sector with a lot of mainframes).

    These are FAR more valuable skills than Windows administration. You should still know basic Windows admin, especially Active Directory, Exchange, IIS and SQL server; but learning multiple forms of UNIX administration will bump your salary at least 25% over Windows administration, and open a lot more doors for you.

  • In the process of learning UNIX admin, learn to script in c shell, bash, k shell, and perl. It's not hard. Also learn to use regex.

  • Learn the basics of configuring and administering MySQL, Oracle, Apache, and sendmail; these are the minimum basic applications common to almost every business. Also, as I note above, MS-SQL, Active Directory, IIS, and Exchange from the Windows side.

  • Learn to use monitoring tools, especially Openview, and the various open source tools.

  • Learn basic and mid level security; enough to harden and properly administer systems, deal with audits and security breaches, and build and configure firewalls.

  • Learn least one major firewall technology (two or three are better; preferably checkpoint, cisco, or netscreen), at least one major VPN technology, and at least one major intrusion detection technology.

  • Learn basic networking technologies, including Cisco switching, and local and wide area Cisco routing. Get a CCNP if you feel like it.

  • Learn storage technologies, specifically EMC and hitachi SAN; cisco and brocade switching; Netapp, EMC, and Sun NAS; and Storagetek and ADIC tape libraries (actually they are quantum now, and they OEM for Sun, HP, IBM, etc...).

  • Also at the very least learn Veritas foundation suite, including VxFS and netbackup; along with best practices for backup, disaster recover, and business continuance.
Or short circuit all of this and just learn to be an Oracle DBA, or security or networking specialist for the same or more money; but less options and flexibility. Also as I said above, even as a specialist, the skills above would serve you well.

Oh and you can easily learn all of these skills at home except Oracle, HPUX, and Checkpoint; and you can get practical experience on most of them for free, with open source tools you can use at home.

Ok, how do I succeed in IT without really trying?

Obviously, you don't.

Reaching a basic level of knowledge and experience in all (or most) of the skills I listed above, will start you at at least mid level admin/architect/consultant work; up to around $85k in mid level markets, or $100k in top tier markets.

Then you get on the job carousel.

Your goal is to be promoted to a more senior job every two years, or to change employers to achieve the same result; with at least a 15% raise from your previous grade.

Never stay with an employer more than 4 years unless you receive two grade bumps in that time with at least a 10% bump each time (unless you hit the highest grade for your field, in which case look down below). If you go more than 4 years with a single employer without a grade bump, you are not going to get anywhere with them.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The advice above is for general commercial businesses. The academic and government world are different, including some of the private companies that service them. Also some highly beurocratized companies have very specific (and sometimes intricate and convoluted) processes for promotions and raises. In general the same advice applies, but the processes is more difficult, and slower; often taking 3-4 years per grade bump; but I still say that if you havent had a bump in 4 years, you aren't going anywhere and you should change jobs, or employers, or both.

Oh and by the way; this advancement advice isn't just for technical workers; I believe it applies to everyone in a career field with upward mobility. Some jobs simply are not upwardly mobile, like administrative assistant; and people who spend more than four years in those job need to understand and be happy with that

In an advancing career however, your goal should be at least a minor promotion every two years and a major one every four years; and you should be moving on if you don't get at least a minor bump in 4 years.

If you aren't willing to go through this process with your current job and career field, you should really consider whether or not you'd be happier in another career; either one where mobility isn't a consideration, or if you do want to be mobile, one that inspires you to advancement.

Money Money Money Money... Money

This isn't all about money; but money is how we keep the bill collectors at bay; and it's how this conversation got started.

My advice about pay is simple.

First, it's not all about salary. Salary is important, but what you want is a good standard of living and high quality of life; so understand what in your life is important, and how an employer can advance that, or accommodate that; and arrange your priorities and requests appropriately.

Second, always ask for what you think you're worth to your employer; and never accept meaningfully less. A percentage point or two, OK, but not 5%. An employer who offers more than 5% below a realistic market assessment of your value to them, is an employer who will not value you or treat you appropriately.

Third, make sure that what you think you are worth lines up with what the market thinks you are worth. Know what you're worth in the market (and remember, markets are specific to industry segments, not just career fields), know what you want, know what your prospective employer can afford; and ask for a reasonable amount based on that. It's that simple. If they can't meet your needs, go to someone who can.

Fourth, don't make a game out of negotiation. You're not there to "beat" the other guy, you want a job, or a raise, or a promotion; and playing games will just make you look worse, and hurt your future relationship with the person you're negotiating with.

Where does it all get me?

So, we're five to 15 years down the road; and you're skilling up and cashing up. What's the roadmap looklike?

Well, at any time in this process, you can choose to branch into specialty skills, like DBA, security, storage etc... which gives a big pay bump, but moves you into a different field track, which may have fewer options open to you for future career development.

Once you reach "Senior", or "Chief", or "Principal" (or whatever is the top technical level in your organization) status, which should take 6 to 10 years if you're smart and aggressive (or 15 years if you're less aggressive); you change the game.

At that point you should be making somewhere between $115k and $165k base (depending on your exact skills, and market) as an admin, or a bit higher as a specialist of some kind; plus bonuses and incentives of course.

Generally speaking, once you hit the $165k mark, you've topped out as an admin. You might be able to make a bit more (up to about $185k) as a top level DBA, Systems Architect, Storage Architect, or Security architect; but that's around the limit for technical staff (excluding bonuses, and incentives; which can be very large for consultants, or for long term senior staff).

Once you've topped out, you need to decide if you want to stay an admin/dba/architect; and just stay with the same company and ascend into Guru status; while accumulating COLA, PTO, and if you're lucky bigger bonuses (more years means more PTO in most companies, and higher bonus percentages in some); or move into technical management, which is a whole 'nother minefield in and of itself.

So, now that I've mapped out the next ten years of your life for you, it's up to you to go do it.

... or you could just chuck it all, and go collect seashells, or make birdhouses or somesuch.

Sunday, January 18, 2009

Hell Has Frozen Over


The second (or maybe third) worst team in NFL history, is going to the superbowl.

Why do I say the second (or maybe third) worst?

Well, they are the oldest franchise, and have never been in a superbowl for one. in the pre-superbowl era they never won a league championship; and as of today, have won their only conference championship in 110 years...

Though to be fair they have won their division five times, this year being the only time since 1975.

They have the second most seasons at .500 or under (behind the New Orleans Saints), the fewest playoff appearances (it was the second fewest, but the Saints have been on a roll these past few seasons), and until this year, haven't made it past the first round of the playoffs in the superbowl era. They have finished last in the league more than anyone except the Saints.

The only reason I list them as second worst, is because the Saints have lost even more, and won even less. They're maybe third, because of course, this year the Detroit Lions proved it was possible to lose all 16 regular season games; a feat no other team has ever managed (Tampa Bay lost 14 when the season was only 14 games long however).

Arizona is where good players get drafted to, so they can can build their numbers up to ask for more money from their next team; and where formerly good, washed up players go instead of retiring, when their ex-wives need more alimony.

Arizona went 9-7 this year, and are in the superbowl; when New England, at 11-5 did not even make the playoffs.

Such is football. Any given Sunday.

So how are Arizonans feeling right now?

It's not joy, or happiness... though I 'spose the Cards few hundred fans will feel that a bit later... No, it's UTTER SHOCK AND AMAZEMENT.

Thursday, January 15, 2009

David Poyer?

So this guys name came up on my Amazon recommendations, and I'd never heard of him. Apparently he's on book 11 of a very popular naval fiction series featuring the main character Dan Lenson.

Since I love naval fiction, I'm surprised I'd never heard of him. Knowing my readership however, I'm willing to bet some of you have.

So, should I give him a read?

While I'm at it, as a Sharpe lover, should I bother with Cornwells Saxon Chronicles?

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Why I have a great deal of respect for Camille Paglia

Because although she is a liberal, she is mistaken, not either foolish nor craven, nor pharasiacal. She is intellectually honest, and generally rigorous in her thought, rather than dogmatic or reactionary.

I disagree with her analysis, and in some cases her principles; but she respects facts, and THINKS about things rather than simply feeling and reacting; and then she writes about them, generally quite well (though sometimes she's a bit overblown).

She is the type of liberal you can actually debate with.

I present two extended quotes from her most recent responses to reader mail on the RIDICULOUSLY liberal web site (which still features some excellent writing by the way) Salon (it's four pages, these are from page 2):
I am a conservative lesbian living in New York. I would love you to address how the Fairness Doctrine has become a viable possibility for the liberal agenda, given that it is simply modern-day censorship, and also taking into account the undeniably left-leaning media. How can the left not see its hypocrisy?

Kara McGee


If there's anything that demonstrates the straying of the Democratic Party leadership from basic liberal principles, it's this blasted Fairness Doctrine -- which should be fiercely opposed by all defenders of free speech. Except when national security is at risk, government should never be involved in the surveillance of speech or in measuring the ideological content of books, movies or radio and TV programs.

Broadcasters must adhere to reasonable FCC regulations restricting obscenity, but despite the outlandish claims of Democrats like Sen. Charles Schumer, there is no analogy whatever between pornography and political opinion. Nor do privately owned radio stations have any obligation to be politically "balanced." They are commercial enterprises that follow the market and directly respond to audience demand. The Fairness Doctrine is bullying Big Brother tyranny, full of contempt for the very public it pretends to protect.

As a fan of AM radio since childhood, I adore the proliferation of political talk shows spurred by Rush Limbaugh's pioneering rise to national syndication in the late 1980s. It represented a maturation of the late-night coast-to-coast radio programs that I had been listening to in the 1970s, such as Herb Jepko (broadcasting from Salt Lake City), Long John Nebel (from New York) and Larry King (from Miami).

However, I do lament the gradual disappearance of small, quirky local shows due to the trend toward national syndication. And I often get bored and impatient with the same arch-conservative message being drummed out 24/7. But let's get real: Liberals have been pathetic flops on national radio -- for reasons that have yet to be identified. Air America, for example, despite retchingly sycophantic major media coverage, never got traction and has dwindled to a humiliating handful of markets. The Democrats are the party of Hollywood, for heaven's sake -- so what's their problem in mastering radio?

Instead of bleating for paternalistic government intervention, liberals should get their own act together. Radio is a populist medium where liberals come across as snide, superior scolds. One can instantly recognize a liberal caller to a conservative show by his or her catty, obnoxious tone. The leading talk radio hosts are personalities and entertainers with huge rhetorical energy and a bluff, engaging manner. Even the seething ranters can be extremely funny. Last summer, for example, I laughed uproariously in my car when WABC's Mark Levin said furiously about Katie Couric, "What do these people do? Open fortune cookies and read them on air?"

The best hosts combine a welcoming master of ceremonies manner with a vaudevillian brashness. Liberal imitators haven't made a dent on talk radio because they think it's all about politics, when it isn't. Top hosts are life questers and individualists who explore a wide range of thought and emotion and who skillfully work the mike like jazz vocalists. Talk radio is a major genre of popular culture that deserves the protection accorded to other branches of the performing and fine arts. Liberals, who go all hushed and pious at Hays Code censorship in classic Hollywood, should lay off the lynch-mob mentality. Keep the feds out of radio!

Have you noticed how much the call for combating global warming crusade has in common with how we got into the Iraq war?

In both cases, there are "experts" who tell us that evidence justifying action is undeniable. They say, "The risk of doing nothing is too great for us to do nothing." And as a fallback position they say, "Even if we're wrong, we'll still be doing some good in the world."

Kind of makes me think man-made CO2 emissions will turn out to be the biggest case of nonexistent WMD since Saddam Hussein's nukes. (Or maybe even bigger!) What do you think?

Jim Carroll


Wonderful letter! I became a vocal opponent of the onrushing Iraq incursion when I was shocked by the flimsiness of evidence presented by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations in 2003. Similarly, I have been highly skeptical about the claims for global warming because of their overreliance on speculative computer modeling and because of the woeful patchiness of records for world temperatures before the 20th century.

In the 1980s, I was similarly skeptical about media-trumpeted predictions about a world epidemic of heterosexual AIDS. And I remain skeptical about the media's carelessly undifferentiated use of the term "AIDS" for what is often a complex of wasting diseases in Africa. We should all be concerned about environmental despoliation and pollution, but the global warming crusade has become a hallucinatory cult. Until I see stronger evidence, I will continue to believe that climate change is primarily driven by solar phenomena and that it is normal for the earth to pass through major cooling and warming phases.


And here's two more from back in 2007:

I know you are a Democrat, but you certainly have very strong libertarian opinions. I was wondering where you stand on the Second Amendment. I'm a registered Independent who, the older I get, leans more toward libertarianism. Ideally there would never have been a Bill of Rights, and all freedoms would be understood to be the rights of every American. But since we have one, the rights listed, to me at least, are sacrosanct -- all of them, not just the first and third through the tenth!

I am pro-gun ownership. I have never been arrested, and the sum total of my criminal activity amounts to a pair of moving violations when I was still in my 20s. However, since I live in New York City, I need to either be rich and famous or navigate a confusing legal process if I want to acquire a permit.

We are always reminded, not least by Mayor Bloomberg (whom I generally like and voted for) that illegal guns kill. The problem is, there is no real means to get a gun legally, and those in the world who are anti-gun want to make it harder. The thing that leaves me scratching my head is when people say, Mayor Mike among 'em, that we need stricter laws to crack down on illegal guns! Exactly what needs to be in place to make an illegal gun more illegal!

I know there are bigger issues right now facing our presidential candidates, but this speaks to personal freedom as much as any other issue. Just wondering how you see it.

Dave Hunt
Brooklyn


As a Salon columnist (dating back to the founding of Salon in 1995), I have tried to provide a forum for defenders of the Second Amendment to make their case. The Northeastern major media, which remain heavily liberal, rarely permit these voices to be heard.

I do not own guns and have no interest in them. (Swords, those Homeric and chivalric emblems, have always attracted me more.) But as a libertarian, I read the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights as granting to private citizens the right to bear arms against the potential abuses of a government turned tyrannous. Furthermore, should police authority evaporate after a cataclysm of storm, flood, earthquake or terrorism, citizens have a right to defend their families and property against criminals and looters. If food and water are in short supply over a protracted period, expect predators and violence.

The horrendous problem of illegal guns now rampant among the urban underclass cannot be solved by depriving all American citizens of their Second Amendment rights. Major cities must address their internal problems, which include improving public education and vocational training, creating job-rich public works projects, and instituting on-the-street neighborhood policing. The major media, concentrated in their metropolises, should stop extrapolating their local issues to the nation as a whole.

Just wondering what your thoughts are on the global warming issue. Have you seen the Al Gore movie? Any thoughts on the current debate on climate science?

Many thanks,
April
Vancouver


Oh, great, here comes the hornet's nest!

As a native of upstate New York, whose dramatic landscape was carved by the receding North American glacier 10,000 years ago, I have been contemplating the principle of climate change since I was a child. Niagara Falls, as well as the even bigger dry escarpment of Clark Reservation near Syracuse, is a memento left by the glacier. So is nearby Green Lakes State Park, with its mysteriously deep glacial pools. When I was 10, I lived with my family at the foot of a drumlin -- a long, undulating hill of moraine formed by eddies of the ancient glacier melt.

Geology and meteorology are fields that have always interested me and that I might well have entered, had I not been more attracted to art and culture. (My geology professor in college, in fact, asked me to consider geology as a career.) To conflate vast time frames with volatile daily change is a sublime exercise, bordering on the metaphysical.

However, I am a skeptic about what is currently called global warming. I have been highly suspicious for years about the political agenda that has slowly accrued around this issue. As a lapsed Catholic, I detest dogma in any area. Too many of my fellow Democrats seem peculiarly credulous at the moment, as if, having ground down organized religion into nonjudgmental, feel-good therapy, they are hungry for visions of apocalypse. From my perspective, virtually all of the major claims about global warming and its causes still remain to be proved.

Climate change, keyed to solar cycles, is built into Earth's system. Cooling and warming will go on forever. Slowly rising sea levels will at some point doubtless flood lower Manhattan and seaside houses everywhere from Cape Cod to Florida -- as happened to Native American encampments on those very shores. Human habitation is always fragile and provisional. People will migrate for the hills, as they have always done.

Who is impious enough to believe that Earth's contours are permanent? Our eyes are simply too slow to see the shift of tectonic plates that has raised the Himalayas and is dangling Los Angeles over an unstable fault. I began "Sexual Personae" (parodying the New Testament): "In the beginning was nature." And nature will survive us all. Man is too weak to permanently affect nature, which includes infinitely more than this tiny globe.

I voted for Ralph Nader for president in the 2000 election because I feel that the United States needs a strong Green Party. However, when I tried to watch Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" on cable TV recently, I wasn't able to get past the first 10 minutes. I was snorting with disgust at its manipulations and distortions and laughing at Gore's lugubrious sentimentality, which was painfully revelatory of his indecisive, self-thwarting character. When Gore told a congressional hearing last month that there is a universal consensus among scientists about global warming -- which is blatantly untrue -- he forfeited his own credibility.

Environmentalism is a noble cause. It is damaged by propaganda and half-truths. Every industrialized society needs heightened consciousness about its past, present and future effects on the biosphere. Though I am a libertarian, I am a strong supporter of vigilant scrutiny and regulation of industry by local, state and federal agencies. But there must be a balance with the equally vital need for economic development, especially in the Third World.

Here's a terrible episode from my region that made the news just last year. A bankrupt thermometer factory in Franklin Township, N.J., vacated its building in 1994 but ignored a directive to clean the premises of residual mercury toxins. There was a total failure of oversight and follow-through at the state and local levels. The result: In 2004, a daycare center opened in the renovated building and for two years subjected children and pregnant women to a dangerously high level of mercury vapors from the contaminated site.

The degree of permanent health effects on those children is still unknown. This kind of outrageous negligence should not be tolerated in a civilized nation.


How many liberals today would admit the facts here, and address them rationally?

Plus, she hates the French, and pisses off other liberals and feminists.

So I may disagree with her frequently, but I always respect her.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Some Enlightenment, Courtesy of Mark Steyn



This one is one of five, the rest are linked in the video sidebar:



This one is also one of five, the rest are linked in the video sidebar:

Windows 7 Beta Testing - Day One Observations

Well, I've been using the windows 7 beta all day, and I'm favorably impressed.

But first, the irritations; and surprisingly, they are few.
  1. I hate the gigantic thickness of the status bar; that it can't be made any smaller, only larger, and that all the icons in it are so large.

    Even using the "small icons" property setting only shrinks them somewhat. The windowpane area (the program window indicators) becomes acceptable, but the notification area is still huge.

    I have a high resolution large screen because I like a high density of display information. This fixed large size irritates me.

  2. I really dislike that it forces you to use the new style "jump menu" rather than the classic start menu. I hate the jump menu. I organize things hierarchically in my start menu so that everything can be easily and instantly accessed, and the jump menu prevents that.

    I realize this is pandering to the majority of users who develop these huge unwieldy single tier messes of start menus, but I'm not one of those users. I should have the option of using a cleaner, more logical layout, that takes up less screen room when used.

  3. I don't care for the default folder view opening windows explorer; but I like it better than Vistas default view, because I can at least see all my drives and devices without clicking on anything... so it's better than vista but I still wish it would jsut let me go right to my drive list.

  4. It's taken away some of my options for disabling windows stupidity, or working around irritations etc... Though to be fair it has made those things I can't disable or workaround less stupid and non-functional (like windows security center, which can't be disabled in windows 7, but can be in Vista); but it's MY machine, I still want the control.

    UPDATE: I can't disable security center completely; but I've found I CAN disable it's icon, by digging into advanced preferences in the notification area.
In literally every other way, I am happier than with vista. Everything is cleaner, smoother, faster, more responsive, better designed, clearer, and more logical than in vista (even my tweaked vista with all the crap stripped out).

The resource loading is about 20% lighter as well; and far less processes and threads are running by default.

I have to say, so far it's a big winner.

Windows 7 Beta Testing - Test one: upgrade from Vista

Well, just last week I got my laptop back from being wiped and serviced (bad fan caused mobo and hard drive failure). Coincidentally, the windows 7 public beta has been made available at the same time.

Since I've really got nothing to lose, I decided to try and install the Win 7 (64-bit) beta on my laptop. I'll let you all know how it goes, in liveblog format (indexed by minute)

The machine in question is an HP Pavillion DV9830, with a dual core 1.83ghz core 2 duo mobile, 4 gigs of DDR2, a discrete Nvidia 8600gs with 512m of discrete vram (feeding a 17" screen at 1440x900), a 320 gig 7200rpm hdd, discrete Intel A/B/G/N/bluetooth wireless, and a bluray drive.
00: Begin upgrade procedure. Installing as an upgrade not as clean, jsut to try it out. I'll probably reinstall as clean in a few days to see if it's any different.Also I had it update install files from the internet.

05: Compatability checking ran for five minutes, before starting copying windows files; listed as approximate 3gb. Accurate status and timing indicators (a miracle for MS)

12: File copy took approximately 7 minutes. Install began at the 12 minute mark.

24: "Gathering files and settings" portion of the install reporting 50% complete

27: "Gathering files..." complete, moving on to "Expanding Files"; but I get no status indication for about two minutes; when it comes alive at 2% and moves quickly from there.

30: Expanding went quick to 18% then stalled. Indicates 548mb of 3gb of data to decompress.

32: Rebooted without warning

34: Restarted in under two minutes to a respmnsive desktop. Restarted to the same 18% mark from before the reboot. Startup screen is considerably more attractive than vista or XP.

41: Expansion process finally shows a status indication after 7 minutes stuck at 18% with no status indicator

47: File expansion finally completed, but again became non responsive for about 2 minutes. Moved on to "installing features and updates".

51: Reboots again, without warning this time.

53: Again, reboots to a responsive desktop in under 2 minutes. 1:25 actually. It restarts the process then freezes with no status indication again.

57: Looks like it installed the proper video driver, as I'm now at full resolution after a few black flickers; but again, no status update or counter or taskbar change.

58: Status indicator finally changes from 18%, and it starts copying the over 300,000 "files and settings" it copied over earlier in the process.

78: Reboot

80: Responsive again, and the upgrade resumes with indicators around the 60% mark.

89: Reboot again, this time with a shutdown sound. Status indicators didn't change the entire 9 minutes.

91: Responsive again around 1:30 reboot time. I'm actually really impressed with the reboot times here, as compared to Vista.

92: The install process does a video performance test, then drops me into the interactive portion of the install, to enter my product key. It already has my localization settings since this is an upgrade, so I don't have to go through all that again.

93: 1 hour and 32 minutes from upgrade start 'til completed upgrade to a responsive desktop.
I have to say, this is the cleanest upgrade procedure I've seen for a windows version upgrade. It captured everything, didnt require any unusual input or workarounds, and it seems that almost all my settings were preserved and all my applications and data are working properly.

I have a concern over how long it took. 90 minutes is FAR longer than either Vista or XP took to either upgrade or install. Admittedly, they also dropped a lot of data on the floor in their upgrade processes, but it's still a long time.

Also, the inaccurate and non responsive status indicators could be an issue. At one point there was no update to the status for about 20minutes; and if I were less experienced I may have thought my system had frozen, and given it up as a bad job.

Unfortunately, inaccurate status indicators are something of a hallowed tradition in OS installs; and MS is no worse a violator than anyone else (actually I think Sun is FAR worse. Try installing Solaris 7 on a machine that isn't plugged into a functioning network with a DNS server and see how long it takes you to complete an install).

Now it's off to the races so to speak. I'll report on my findings as I go.

Monday, January 12, 2009

Interesting....

I disagree with some (not all) of their analysis and editorial slant, but still, interesting.



Here's the text of the piece.

It's frikken January, WTF?

It's 82 frikken degrees on my front porch right now.

The "official temp" is only 74, but my neighborhood is usually 5 to 10 degrees above the "official" temp for the area.

That might be because the "official temp" is taken from the top of a 10 foot high post over a bunch of ground vegetation on the top of a several hundred foot high hill.

Just maybe.

Meanwhile, it's still 20 below in Alaska, and most of southwestern Washington is under water.

Truly

Sunday, January 11, 2009

The Unit Nukes the Fridge

The first two seasons of "The Unit" were really good fun. Interesting stories, decent technical accuracy, good writing and characterization... all in all the best fictional military show on broadcast TV (cable has done some interesting things as well of course).

Unfortunately, in season 3 you could say the show jumped the shark. It was still worth watching, but the quality of writing declined dramatically; and of course the writers strike killed season 3... though in retrospect, perhaps that was for the best.

Perhaps the change can be illustrated best in the change of theme music for season 3. Season 1 and 2 used a jody, "fired up", as the theme; and it suited the show perfectly. In season 3, they changed to an 80s'stastic, Richard Marks sounding cheese fest of a theme song, "walk the fire".

In the first two seasons, it was clear that the writers really understood the characters and situation. In the third season however, it seems that the writers had no concept of the characters they were writing, or the stories they were telling.

Frankly, most of the stories, and the actions the characters took and motivations they conveyed; simply didn't make sense.

The fourth season has only become worse. Looking at the credits, it seems that the entire writing staff from the first two seasons is gone; and at this oint the producers of the show are doing all the writing.

Not a good thing.

Today, the show definitively nuked the fridge.

For those who are unfamiliar with the phrase, it's derived from the scene in the most recent Indiana Jones movie, where Indy survives a nuclear blast by locking himself in a refrigerator, which is then blown several miles across the landscape.

By now I'm sure most of you know the term "jumped the shark"; as that moment when a show has peaked, and is clearly on a downhill slide. Well nuking the fridge is where that slide hits a cliff.

Basically, it's something so ridiculous and stupid, that it takes an otherwise good show or movie, and completely breaks the immersion. The whole story loses credibility, and you can't take the show seriously anymore.

I understand what the writers were doing; this same story has worked for other shows before; but those shows were not supposed to be gritty, realistic, military action dramas.

I won't spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen the episode yet; but honestly, if you're a fan of the show, it's just going to disappoint and irritate you.

Looking at the list of remaining episodes for the year on IMDB or Wikipedia gives me no confidence that they will be any better.

The show is currently on a contingency basis at episode 12; with no full season order for the remainder of the year. There are currently four episodes remaining in the can, with another 8 not under contract.

There's no announcement as to whether it's going to be cancelled next year; but it's not looking good for pickup.

Spreading the Message

Kevin had this linked up, and I thought, hmmm.... Kolbe and Beck will ignore it, much as they have when such arguments were presented to them innumerable other times by innumerable other people (As well as myself and my wife); but why not spread it around as far as possible.

Gran Torino - 2 sentence review

Most politically incorrect drama ever. Go see it now, and bring a tissue.

Mel

Saturday, January 10, 2009

A Film School Moment

I was randomly trolling around the web, and came across a list of the biggest "Oscar snubs"; a subject 'pon which I have some very strong opinions (Paul Giamatti anyone?).

Anyway, one of the snubs listed, was Rosalind Russell for "His Girl Friday"; which if you haven't seen it, shame on you. Go, now, rent it, buy it, it's even downloadable or streamable from several services.

I believe I've mentioned my affection for the film before, as well as for Russell (when I discussed strong leading ladies; or the lack thereof in todays films); the chief reason being the amazing, fast, frenetic dialogue and interplay between her, and co-star Cary Grant.

The film has been cited by experts as having the most dialogue packed into the shortest time, of any major motion picture release; though to be fair, such rapid fire delivery was a Howard Hawks (the director) trademark (see "Bringing Up Baby" for a considerably less frenetic example).

For those who are unfamiliar with the film, Russel plays Hildy, a reporter who some years back (I don't recall exactly how many, I think it was two years) was married to, and subsequently divorced her editor Walter (Cary Grant); and then dropped off the face of the earth.

As the film opens, Hildy walks back into the newsroom she left some years before, and announces (or rather attempts to for several minutes of classic verbal interplay) to Walter that she is going to be remarried, to a rather boring insurance sales executive (named Bruce) played by Ralph Bellamy.

From there, as they say, hilarity ensues (and it is one of the funniest films of all time).

As I was reading the "oscar snub" post, it noted (as any mention of the movie does) the high speed interplay; and I of course went back to some of those moments in my head....

... and I had a thought...

I'm sure it's a thought that film students and film geeks have had a million times before, but I never really noticed it or thought about it before.

Hildy (Russel) and Walter (Grant), and all the reporters in the piece (and there are a dozen of them) all deliver their lines at that same lightning pace. All the cops in the film have a different, slightly slower cadence. All the politicians are slightly slower again (until they start literally "talking fast" to try and get out of trouble).

The slowest pacing of all however, is the delivery from Ralph Bellamy; so much so that it is clearly and distinctly noticeable; to the point where in his scenes with Grant, Walter is speaking five or six words to Bruces one.

Interestingly, when Hildy is speaking to Bruce, her pace slows down considerably; but it is still perhaps twice that of Bruce.

By the end of the film it is of course abundantly clear that Hildy and Bruce are so totally wrong for each other; and that, though clearly they will never have a "normal" relationship, Hildy and Walter are very much right for each other (and I wont go into any more detail to spoil the film for those unlucky souls who haven't seen it).

Now I've seen the movie a dozen times; and of course I had noted the pacing before; but the reason why I called this a "film school moment" was because up until ten minutes ago, I had never consciously thought "Hey, I bet Hawks contrasted Walter and Hildys pacing with Bruces, as a deliberate part of the characterization".

Such are the things that keep the rent paid at coffeehouses near film schools.

Friday, January 09, 2009

Disgusting and Creepy

Seriously, this imagery just gives me the creeps:


Now, look closer at the face of the little kid Obama there:

And this picture:


...

uhh...

A little transparent much?

Random Music for Friday

One of my favorite Who tunes:

Thursday, January 08, 2009

The Skeptical Environmentalist Follows Up

A few years ago, Bjorn Lomborg wrote a book called "The Skeptical Environmentalist", where he heretically asserted that yes, climate change was a problem; but that it was a much smaller problem than pop culture presented, and that all the offered solutions were ineffective and uneconomical at best.

Basically that we can do a lot better good saving people from malaria, starvation, healthcare and education; for a lot less money.

In this interview with google, he discusses his thesis, and his followup book expanding on that thesis:



Oh and all his numbers come from before the UN IPCC was exposed as fraudulent, and the MAXIMUM impact of whatever elements of anthropogenic global warming are real, was revised from 5 degrees to about .5 degrees. This of course means that the value proposition is 10 times worse than Lomborg already notes.

Also, the ridiculous indoctrination of some of the commenters is amusing.

Note to Greg Gutfield...

Satire is better when it's funny.

That is all.

Well, I Knew It Had To Come Eventually...

I just received my first-ever jury summons.

February 11th, 8am.

Well, at least I'm already familiar with the Superior Courthouse in Phoenix, though I usually don't use that entrance...

Mel

A Hostile (or not) Audience for an Important Subject

An interesting video featuring Kyle Cassidy talking about his photographic collection "Armed America: Portraits of Gun Owners in Their Homes" (a book we own, featuring a couple people we know).



The interview is with Google, in New York city, so the audience isn't exactly what you'd expect to be favorable; but the reactions are interesting.

One thing I found illustrative, was the questioner at the 46 minute point. It's amazing how little some people understand. On the other hand, I quite liked the authors final remark.

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Fifty Years of Shouting, Smoking, Smirking Evil



January 6th 1959, the forces of Movimiento 26 de Julio (the movement of the 26th of July), having chased the (slightly less evil, but even more corrupt) government of Fulgencio Batista out four days prior; officially declared they had taken all of Cuba, and had established a revolutionary government with Fidel Castro at its head.

They wasted no time in establish a reign of terror, as communist dictatorships have done in every case, everywhere they have raised their malignant heads.

Cuba has now lived under this oppressive, evil regime for fifty years. The only hope is that once Fidel and his brother Raul die, the ensuing chaos will allow capitalist, democratic rule to be re-established.

It's a slim hope, but freedom has a way of winning out eventually.

Monday, January 05, 2009

The Internet Ate My Brain

So last week I stumbled across googles interview archive on youtube. Lemme 'splain...

So since 2005, Google has hosted about 600 authors, writers, film makers, musicians, and chefs; for one hour talks, lectures, or interviews.

Predictably, it being Google, there's some pretty hard lefty folks up there; but also predictably for Google, there are a bunch of cool SF authors up there, as well as internet culture commentators, humorists etc...

Coincidentally, I've been going through an extended period of severe insomnia; averaging about two hours of sleep a night since a couple day before Christmas.

Predictably, me being me, since I found the full archive I've been watching them one after another. Of course me being me, I'm still reading my 100+ web sites per day, and I've been reading adventure and SF novels with the interviews as background noise.

Yeah, I believe in information overload.

Actually, the one good thing about insomnia, is that it lets me catch up on reading. My current "to read" pile is up over 200 books; and since the day before Christmas, I've managed to reduce that pile by 13 books... Of course also in that time I've received 9 more...

It never ends.

So I thought I'd post up a list of the ones I dig, that way you don't need to dig through all 600 videos. Oh, and some UNC chapel hill interviews are mixed in there, just because they're good.

Here's one of the funniest ones, from the writer of "Stuff White People Like":



and a great one from Neil Gaiman:



Google Interviews:

YouTube - AtGoogleTalks's Channel
YouTube - Authors@Google: Neil Gaiman
YouTube - Authors@Google: Neal Stephenson
YouTube - Authors@Google: Charles Stross
YouTube - Authors@Google: Cory Doctorow
YouTube - Authors@Google: Cory Doctorow
YouTube - Cory Doctorow: Pwned: How Copyright turns us all into IP ser
YouTube - Authors@Google: Randall Munroe
YouTube - Authors@Google: Christian Lander, "Stuff White People Like"
YouTube - Authors@Google: Marco Pierre White
YouTube - Authors@Google: Anthony Bourdain
YouTube - Authors@Google: Mario Batali
YouTube - Authors@Google: James Randi
YouTube - Authors@Google: Steve Wozniak
YouTube - Authors@Google: Stan Lee
YouTube - Authors@Google: Daniel Wilson & Anna Long
YouTube - Authors@Google: Greg Bear
YouTube - Authors@Google: Kyle Cassidy
YouTube - Authors@google: Gary Vaynerchuk
YouTube - Authors@ Google: Joe Haldeman
YouTube - Authors@Google: Bjorn Lomborg
YouTube - Authors@Google: Douglas Engelbart
YouTube - Authors@Google: Steven Levy
YouTube - Authors@Google: Lawrence Lessig
YouTube - Authors@Google: Masaharu Morimoto
YouTube - Authors@Google: Michael Carroll
YouTube - Authors@Google: Robert Frank
YouTube - Authors@Google: James Watson
YouTube - Authors@Google: Jeffrey Kluger
YouTube - Authors@Google: David Michaels
YouTube - Authors@Google: Alex Roy
YouTube - Authors@Google - Chris Anderson
YouTube - Authors@Google: Dan Ariely
YouTube - Authors@Google: Eric Ripert
YouTube - Authors@google: Sam Gosling
Other than the two I embedded above, I particularly recommend Neal Stephenson, Cory Doctorow (all three), Charlie Stross, Randall Munroe (I hope y'all are reading XKCD), Marco Pierre White, and Anthony Bourdain.

The Woz one is amazing, but the audio and video quality are crap. It's worth it if you're into that geek history thing, but it might irritate you too much.

Anyway, I know my audience, y'all are probably going to waste as much time as I have... or at least proportionally.

A Slightly Startling Realization

A fair bit of the clothing that I bought new and still own, would now be considered "vintage".

The oldest piece of clothing I still have is old enough to vote, and in a year or so will be old enough to drink.

Technically speaking I don't use it anymore; because my wife has expropriated it from me, calling it the most comfortable thing she's ever worn.

Then there's all the old band and pop culture logo t-shirts I own, that if I were pale and skinny with scrubby facial hair would be considered "ironically hip"...

...but as I'm pale, fat, and neatly groomed (well... if I've remembered to shave this morning); I'm just getting old and never throw shit out.

Friday, January 02, 2009

Personal Updates

Mels brother is out of the ICU. Stable, with his blood pressure down to the 140/80 range, back up to 20% kidney function, and down to one dialysis session per day.

He was admitted last Thursday, and moved to the ICU Friday, with a hypertensive emergency, renal failure, and pericarditis. The proper medication, and a pericardial stent to drain the fluid moved his heart out of danger; and they've been focusing on his kidney function since.

It looks like he may end up with a kidney transplant. He's been on the list for years, but they're apparently moving him up because of this.

Meanwhile, my mothers emergency housing assistance ran out, and she still refuses to move in with us. She was supposed to have completed her paperwork to move to long term housing assistance several weeks ago; but being my mother, she didn't. Mel has been running her around from SSI to DES, to every other bureaucracy trying to get things sorted out.

Technically speaking, she should have been on disability since 2003; but they kept denying her (their policy seems to be "everybody is lying about disability so we'll just deny everyone until they either give up or sue"). Now, in order to get housing assistance she needs to get the disability sorted out.

The good news is, once she does (and it's approved), six to eight weeks from now), she'll be getting $900 a month in housing assistance, $940 a month in direct disability payments, $400 a month in food aid, medicare/aid, and state medical (called ACCHS or "access" here) and prescription coverage; which is equivalent to another $2500 a month or so out of pocket.

Not that I'm enthused about my mother taking the equivalent of a $60,000 a year income from the government; but that's the system.

This by the way is part of what we've been floating her every few months until we cut her off last year. That, and the legal bills, have kept us in a pretty poor financial situation; and the ongoing legal bills (we owe $17,500, and expect another $20,000 to come) will continue to do so at least through 2009.

But we're all alive, and reasonably well, and reasonably happy, and together; and that counts for a hell of a lot.

Not my first rodeo

Dilbert.com

Thankfully, I have a very good, very secure job.

I just assume they are, and act accordingly

Thursday, January 01, 2009

I just have to say...

Holy Christ, it's 2009...

Where did the decade go?

If you'd asked me January first 1989 if I would still be on this earth (instead of in it) on January first 2009, I'd have given 50/50 odds (less if you'd asked me in 1994).

1989 is officially "a long time ago", now, at 20 years. Hell, there were people voting this past election who weren't even alive then.

After 10 years, the soviets left afghanistan; but we were still cleaning up the mess Carter left in Iran in '79 shooting down two Iranian fighters in the gulf of Sidra. Oh, and Khomeni orders the death of Salman Rushdie for writing nasty things about that pedophile Muhammad. At least he died a few months later.

The single most important even of '89 though? The Berlin wall came down. My god... 45 years under the communists, and finally in November, they tore it down. The cracks in the communists facade grow too wide to ignore, as Hungary dismantles it's border walls, Solidarity is legalized in poland and wins control of government, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania follow suit and a chinese student stops a column of tanks by force of will alone.

George Bush becomes president, and some nutbag kills 5 kids with a Chinese AK copy in Stockton California, prompting Bush to ban their importation.... Yeah, that worked, really it did.

Batman, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, and Lethal Weapon 2 were the top movies of the year (funny that sequels to two of those would be the top movies of 2008 isn't it). My favorite movie of the year, Heathers, didn't even make the chart.

Oh, and the Simpsons get their own show. Yes, it's been 20 years.

In Music, it was a bad year for the charts, dominated by Debbie Gibson, Janet Jackson, Paula Abdul, and Milli Vanilli... the only bright spot being Aerosmith.

It was however, a good year for albums: The Offspring, The Bosstones, Mr. Big (don't laugh, they kick ass. Billy Sheehan is amazing) and Dream Theater released their first album; Dylan and the Dead came out, De La Soul had "Three feet high and rising", The Pixies released "Doolittle", Tom Petty dropped "Full Moon Fever " (which I still think is his best album), Faith No More released "The Real Thing", The Beastie Boys had "Pauls Boutique", Nine Inch Nails released "Pretty Hate Machine", Satriani had "Flying in a blue dream" and Aerosmith crushed the world with "Pump" (it was their best selling release to date, went 7x platinum, was the fourth best selling album of the year, and earned them a Grammy).

I'm not even going to note the achievments of those born in '89 yet. Not to say they haven't had ANY, but they are few, and mostly in the field of pop music.

It was a bad year for those we lost however: Salvador Dali, John Cassavetes, Lucille Ball, Gilda Radner, Jim Backus, Mel Blanc, Lawrence Olivier, Irving Berlin, Bette Davis, Graham Chapman, Vladimir Horowitz, all passed in '89.

Remember back to the future, in 1985; when he went back to 1955... yeah, that's 1979 to right now...

1979 is practically ancient by todays standards, but I remember Reagan campaign commercials. It doesn't feel that long ago... but by anyones standards, it was a bad year.

In '79 Iran fell to religious dictatorship... and we helped. Then our own people were taken hostage, and we did... not very much (though it was not for lack of trying; it was for lack of political will). The Russians invaded afghanistan, and inresponse we armed the islamic fanatics opposing them. Meanwhile, Britain grows a spine, and sends Margaret thatcher to number 10.

John Wayne, Charlie Mingus, Arthur Fiedler, Sid Vicious, and Lester Flatt all died... Those born that year... well let's just say it was an imbalance (though maybe we should count Sid on the positive side of things).

Pop culture ws at it's very lowest ebb. Kramer vs. Kramer was not only the number one movie, it was an Oscar sweep too. Disco ruled with every number 1 album and single of the year; and five of the top ten songs being from the Bee Gees or Donna Summer.

At least punk and new wave were doing cool things, with Madness, and The Pretenders first albums, The Clash dropping "London Calling", the talking heads, the Cars, the Police, The Tubes, the Ramones, The Undertones, Stiff Little Fingers, and Elvis Costello all doing interesting things. Metal (and hard rock) had its moments too, with Motorhead releasing 3 albums, AC/DC with "Highway to Hell", Diamond Heads "Lightning to the Nations", a live album and the hell bent for leather tour from Judas Priest, and the first demos from Iron Maiden.

The one real highlight to break into the mainstream was Pink Floyds "The Wall".

Woodstock, and the moon landing? 40 years ago this year. So if you went to Woodstock, you're gonna be pushing sixty at best; and hurricane Camille killed 250 people while you were partying and didn't notice.

Led Zeppelin released their first album, the Beatles broke up; Richard Nixon became president, and Eisenhower died. The 747, the Concorde, Internet Packets, UNIX, and Monty Pythons Circus first flew.

I'm not even going to get into the number of pop culture icons of today born in '69... let's just say that mid '68 to early '69 must've been a good 9 months for pretty people to breed.

Boris Karloff, Judy Garland, and Brian Jones passed, and the world was lessened. Allen Dulles, Ho Chi Minh, Joe Kennedy, Jack Keruac, and Walter Gropius died, and the world was made a better place. Ted Kennedy killed a woman and was allowed to sit in the Senate with no reprecussions.

The day the music died was 50 years ago this year. Hawaii and Alaska joined the union. Cypress and Singapore became independent nations; and Cuba fell under communist dictatorship. The first seven astronauts were selected for Mercury.

Raymond Chandler, Frank Lloyd Wright, Preston Sturges, Mario Lanza, Erroll Flynn, Blind Willie McTell, and Billy Holiday all passed on.

On a personal "makes me feel old" note; Perry Farrel, Brian Setzer, Robert Smith, Morrissey, John Linnell (Flansburgh is next year), Richie Sambora, Joe Elliot, Weird Al, and Rebecca DeMornay (damn... Risky Business... just damn) will be fifty this year.

All this, and I just have to say: Where are my damn flying cars?