Why Ride?

When you get hit, and fly through the air like that, it's called ragdolling... because you look like a ragdoll as you fly.

It isn't as bad as it looks; but how it looks could only possibly be worse by being lit on fire, or dropping into a vat of acid, so that's not much consolation.

Kevin Baker linked to that video above, with the comment:

"I get the urge to buy a motorcycle once or twice a year.

I go lay down until the urge goes away".

I've been riding for 28 years, and 17 years (legally) on the street.

The first bike I ever rode for my self was a little Honda ATC 70 (all pics taken from bikepics.com) that a family friend owned:


A few years later, I graduated to a 1979 Honda XR80, that I personally rebuilt (with some help, but less than you'd think) from a box of parts that had been given to me:


As it turns out the "bike from a box of parts" thing would become a recurring theme in my life.

I had several more small dirt bikes and mini bikes for the next few years; all of which I acquired as busted junk, and fixed myself. I taught myself how to be a mechanic on cheap little motorcycles and minibikes (and the occasional go-kart).

The very first "street bike" I owned wasn't even a motorcycle at all; it was a 1978 Puch VS50. I was 13, and again, it came to me as a box of parts formerly owned by my aunt, handed down to my youngest uncle, then left in a garage for 10 years (looked just like this one, but not as nice):

Once I got it running, I traded it for another BOP bike; a 1986 Honda Spree 50 scooter, in red, identical to this one:

Which I proceeded to get running, and trade up for an '85 Honda elite 250 that wasn't quite as much of a basket case as the Spree had been:


All this was long before I had a drivers license; but long after I'd started working. It was done with my own money, nothing given to me... Except the occasional birthday or Christmas gift of course. One birthday I got a new coil and regulator for the Spree, and I was thrilled.

Meanwhile, I was still offroading. On the dirtbike side of things, I eventually worked my way up to a '90 Kawasaki KDX250 (the pic is a '91 though. I couldn't find a decent pic of a '90).

The KDX was the first bike I ever paid more than $500 up front for. It was $1500 in three instalments, plus my scooter (I was making from $200 to $400 a week at the time working a couple different jobs):


In some states the KDX is street legal, though not in Massachusetts. The cops in rural northern New Hampshire never seemed to care much though...

By that time however, I'd actually figured out that I liked quads better for offroading. When I was 13, I managed to scrape up $500 for a thrashed '86 Suzuki Quadracer 250, with blue nerfbars:


Christ, I though I was Gary Denton. I even had the Hoosier holeshots (but not those magnificent Mr. Ed teeth. Jesus christ Denton was a horseface).

Then when I was 16 I got my license, legally bought and drove a car, and acquired my holy grail of offroading (which cost me the KDX, the Quadracer, and a bucket of cash):


A Yamaha Banshee 350 (with DG bumpers and nerf bars like that one)... and man did I trick that thing out. By the time I was done with it, if it weren't for the ridiculous air resistance, it would've done a flat hundred easy.

I also acquired another BOP bike, a 1981 CB750 (mine was red with gold pinstriping) for the princely sum of $700:

Which I suppose you could say was my first real honest to god street bike.

The only problem was, I couldn't get insurance for it (what company is going to insure a 16 year old on a 750)... so I drove it illegally anyway.

Yes I know. Bad Chris.

It was the first non-aircraft vehicle that I managed to do over 100 miles an hour with while I was in control (though I had cars up to that speed and beyond shortly thereafter); and I estimated a top speed of 130 (the speedo was useless over 100).

A few months later I started my great American and world tour; leaving home for college (I graduated HS at 16), and then the AIr Force; and I sold all my bikes.

I didn't have a bike for about a year and a half; then my room mate at the time crashed my car, and his insurance wouldn't pay, and my insurance wouldn't pay (some technicality about his license, and towing a trailer) so to partially
compensate, he gave me his '86 Honda V65 Magna 1100:


HOLY CHRIST that was a powerful bike.

Of course by the time I got a hold of it, it had seen better days (it was about 9 HARD years old at the time, and had more than 60,000 miles); but fresh from the factory it had 115hp, and could pull an 11 second 1/4 mile.

I could pick up the front wheel all the way up through 4th and I would guess the top speed was still over 130 when I got it (again, the speedo didn't accurately measure anything beyond 100).

Man I had a lot of fun with that bike. Highway 89a from Wickenberg up to the Canyon... it has to be ridden on a powerful but agile bike to be understood. It's absolutely unbelievable.

I would sometimes leave around 5, make the 90 miles from Prescott to Phoenix in under an hour (to see my girlfriend for a few hours) then blast the 90 miles back in under an hour again, to be back by around 2am.

Unfortunately, about a year after I got it, I laid it down. There was some wet sand in a corner, and I slid; and knowing I was going to high side if I didn't, I dumped it and rolled off. The thing slammed into a Joshua tree at 70, and pushed the front brake disks into the crank case.

That was the last bike I owned for myself; though I've rented, borrowed, had companies pay for (while I was living in Europe) and otherwise ridden many others since. I've crossed rivers and blasted through deserts on quads, cruised 1000 miles on a BMW sport tourer, and hit 176mph on a public road with a GSXR1100 (yes, I was VERY VERY STUPID).

I love riding, and I love the machines you ride on. I think the love of them both is intertwined, and in my case can't be separated. One adds to the enjoyment of the other intrinsically.

Is motorcycling dangerous?

Well, that answer is relative. In the U.S. it's between 2 and 5 times more dangerous in terms of injuries than driving a car an equal number of miles; but in terms of number of deaths and serious injuries, it's less dangerous than say, swimming.

In the last 20 years of street riding (including mopeds, and illegally riding in the street before I had a license), I've laid it down in the street twice (both environmental), and been clipped once ("Oh god, I just didn't see you"). By the grace of god, no serious injuries resulted from any of them.

I've actually had far more serious injuries dirt riding than I have on the street (nature of the beast. You don't get 30 feet of air off slippery dirt on the street).

Around the world, there are actually something like two times as many motorcyclists as car drivers; and over all they have a considerably lower accident rate. The problem is, motorcycle accidents are FAR more likely to result in death or serious injuries (again, nature of the beast. Not having a two ton.. or more likely three ton these days... steel cage around you when you hit something is a considerable disadvantage).

The question is, for you personally, is the increased risk of death of serious injury worth the increased fun, sense of freedom, increased manoeuvrability and speed, reduced cost of transportation, and other advantages of a motorcycle?

For me personally, it is; and though I don't have a bike now, it's one of the first things on the list for when we get out from under the legal bills.

Motorcycling combines recreation and stress relief with transportation. On a bike, the journey is at least as much a part of the experience as the destination.

When I'm riding, I'm reducing my stress level. That alone is worth the increased risk; never mind the fun, and the high speed, high MPG transport.

...Of course this is also coming from someone who finds the most effective stress reduction comes from things that almost, but not quite, kill you.

Patches, Security, and Blog Contests

A few weeks ago, I wrote about an author who had, essentially by accident, trained himself to become an intelligence analyst:

Trevor Paglen is an author, and Dr. of Geography, who developed a fascination for the "black" side of the military some years ago; and started snooping.

His first book on the subject "I Could Tell You But Then You Would Have to be Destroyed by Me", was basically a recounting of his experiences in trying to figure out what mission patches for classified projects meant.

...snipped a video...

His new book is "Blank Spots on the Map: The Dark Geography of the Pentagon's Secret World."; in which he extends and develops on the methods and means from the first book, into an expanded view of the black world, focused on geography (and specifically logistics, and how they are related).

...snipped another video...

If you haven't watched them yet, go back to the original post and watch the videos; and be prepared to be amazed at just how much can be inferred about black projects, by simple things like unit patches, and public records.

Amazed, and/or horrified (or perhaps simply resigned and amused), if your job is (or used to be) to keep such things secure…

Which brings me to the fun part of this post.

Dr. Paglens publishers saw my original post, and have graciously sent me a review copy of the book; which I plan to read and review this weekend.

In addition, they've offered a signed copy of the book to one of my readers, to be decided by blog contest (smart publicists these ones).

So, here's the rules and parameters of the contest:

1. Submissions accepted as comments to this post, from now through Wednesday morning at 11:59 AM, or until we recieve 10 solid entries, which happens last (but no later than Thursday at 11:59).
   
   
2. At 12:01 I will pick what I think are the top five posts if we get ten or more, or top ten if we get 20 or more. I will them put them up for a vote to the readers of this blog, open from the time I post the stories, until 5pm the following day (at which time I will also be posting a review of Dr. Paglens book).
   
   
3. Entries will consist of one each of the following:
   
   a. Your best, funniest, most interesting, or scariest (from a security perspective) patch, flash, sign, symbol, or insignia story; preferably with a pic, but at least with a very clear description and detailed story.
   
   b. Your best, funniest, most interesting, stupidest, or scariest (from a security perspective) security story. It can be infosec, comsec, psec, prosec, opsec, doesn't matter.
   
   
4. Stories do not have to be military or governmental in nature; though I suspect most of the best and funniest will be (governments are even better at absurdity than big corporations), so make it good
   
   
5. Multiple entries from a single individual will be accepted; and if the stories are good, are in fact encouraged.
   
   
6. All entries must be true and correct to the best of your knowledge (notice the out I gave you there).
   
   
7. First hand stories are preferred, and will be given more credit; but a sufficiently good second or third hand story will certainly be considered.
   
   
8. (I'd like to think this one would be obvious, but you'd be amazed... or maybe not) All entries should be either declassified, or sanitized sufficiently to avoid compromise; or in the case of non-military security stories to avoid compromise or disclosure of private or confidential (or higher) information.
   

Also, although I'm generally not a linker or memer, I would ask that if you find this interesting, please link it up, and forward it around. I'd really love to see what we get.

If there are enough entries, or if people post some REALLY GREAT after the deadline, I might even throw in a consolation prize myself afterwards.

Credit Stupidity

So this morning, as I do every 90 days, I got an updated copy of all three of my credit reports; along with an estimated FICO.

I do this every 90 days, because since 1994 I've been having issues with fraud and identity theft. Those issues got MUCH worse after I moved to Ireland in 2000.

When I came back from Ireland, I found that two cars had been bought using my info, according to the SSA 18 different jobs had shown up under my SSN during that period, and someone in Kentucky had actually managed to get a mortgage with my info.

Of course, by then I was a long term hand at disputing this stuff, and getting it resolved; so I stuck in right away, and got about 3/4 of the stuff resolved within a few months.

That last 1/4 though, it's tenacious.

The problem, is that by the time they show up on you credit report, often the debt has been resold to a third party.

So you get the thing disputed and taken off your credit, and instead of purging the bad debts from their databases as they are supposed to do, the many many unscrupulous debt buyers will bundle and repackage all their bad debts, and resell them on to someone else for pennies on the dollar; who then reports the debt to the credit agencies as if it were new and valid...

"So nat'ralists observe, a flea
Hath smaller fleas that on him prey,
And these have smaller fleas that bite 'em,
And so proceed ad infinitum."

Which is why every 90 days you have to check; to make sure that some false bad debt hasn't shown back up.

So a couple weeks ago, out of the blue and for no reason known to me (although I understand they've been doing it a lot) Amex cut my credit limit in half; down to the amount of my outstanding balance.

Obviously I was somewhat irritated by this. After all, nothing in my credit had changed...

Or at least that what I thought until this morning.

So two of my credit reports were relatively normal this morning. The most accurate report (in my case Equifax, that's who I work with most directly because ; and because they have the easiest dispute process) showing nothing but the two actual negative accounts I have on file (both small collections under $100 from more than three years ago. I moved and forgot to pay two small final bills until they caught up with me at my next place a few months later).

The only inaccurate info on that report was that it showed some of my credit card balances as much higher than they were; and that for some reason a few months back Equifax forgot about some of my older accounts, which reduced the length of my credit history to under 5 years (this is a constant issue with Equifax. They do the best job of purging bad data, but they also purge good data).

Estimated score before the corrections: 659. Estimated score after corrections, including the updated credit card balances: 719

My Experian report showed two new small fraudulent debts that I had never seen before; and one that was back (the fraudulent car loan from 2000). Of course even if the car loan wasn't fraudulent, it's 9 years since it defaulted, and therefore should be removed from my records.

Now I've been dealing with this particular one for years. I had the original lender strike the records, and now it's been sold on to I believe it's the sixth debtholder at this point?

It also had me down for a tax lien that is actually my fathers; which I've successfuly disputed in the past, so that really should have gone away permanently (the government isn't supposed to resubmit bad data); btu I'm guessing some report didnt get made somewhere and so when the .gov drops its list on the bureau every 90 days, it just repopulated.

Anyway, I disputed all the fraudulent new ones with the debtholders (successfully. All agreed to take them off) and with Experian (they'll mail me in a week or two but I presume they'll pull the records, because the debtholders agreed to). I also disputed the fraudulent car loan, again, and the tax lien again.

I expect that car loan will be off for a month or three, then show up again after the current debtholder illegally resells it again.

Estimated score before the corrections: 615. Estimated score after corrections, including the updated credit card balances: 719

What really threw me though; and what I suspect was the cause for American Express to chop my credit limit, was my Transunion report.

Now anyone in the car business, loan business etc... will tell you, that Transunion is ALWAYS the worst report of the three for the consumers. They keep more data, longer, with lower standards of proof and higher standards to dispute; they always have more inaccurate data; and they have a more difficult dispute process to boot.

...But this was way over the top.

My Transunion score was an estimated 515!!! WTFBBQ???

In addition to two four incorrect/fraudulent accounts that Experian had, transunion had SIX MORE, including a second tax lien that isn't mine.

Good christ, no wonder my score was an estimated 515.

So as of now, I've disputed all of those as well; but knowing Transunion, I'm going to have to go back and forth with them over it for the next few months.

Estimated score before the corrections: 515. Estimated score after corrections, including the updated credit card balances: 719

The difference between a 659 and a 719 is as much as 5-7% on an auto loan, or two percent on a mortgage... that is, if you can get bought at a 659 (these days, that's hard). At a 615, you won't get a mortgage, and the best car loan your going to see is about 13%, and again, best of luck getting bought. At a 515, you can't get any credit at all, at any rate.

And this folks, is why you should pay the money to check your full reports every three months... Hell, I may buy one of the package deals to let me check it every month at this point.

Good news and bad news on the laptop front

So, about a week ago I wrote that due to a customer service issue with my last laptop repair; I would be getting a new laptop from HP.

Unfortunately this has taken some time (4 weeks since I first raised the issue); because there is a legal consideration involved (no big deal, but you know lawyers). I don't fault HP for going slow here, because they needed lawyers and execs etc... to agree to stuff; but it was dragging on some.

Anyway...

Good news and bad news.

So, the good news is, my new laptop was finally ordered for me this morning.

The bad news, is that it isn't the one I thought I was going to get, and preferred: The EliteBook 8730

Apparently, my case is being handled by the small and home office division, and the EliteBook is handled by the enterprise division; and for some reason the two customer service organizations can't order replacement equipment from each others catalogs (I know we had the same problem that horrible six months I worked at Dell in Ireland. Corporate bureaucracy is what it is).

However, there is more good news related to that.

Since they are the small or home office division, I can get any laptop I want within that division, so long as it is the updated equivalent to what is being replaced, or one degree better.

Now the laptop being replaced was their former top of the line 17" media notebook, with a 2ghz dual core processor, 4 gigs of ddr2, Nvidia 8600m GT discrete graphics with 512m of gddr2 video ram, a blu-ray reader witth dual lay lightscribe DVD burner, a 320gb 5400 rpm hard drive, an express card TV tuner, and discrete wireless g.

As it happens, their top end 17" notebook no longer has Nvidia discrete graphics (they swiotched to Intel), a discrete wireless chipset, or a TV tuner; so instead, I'm getting this:


If by any chance you're thinking "My god, that looks like a HUGE laptop", or "That's not a laptop, that's 'the thing that ate Cleveland", that's because it is in fact a ginormous laptop.

Specifically, it's the newly updated HP Pavillion HDX 18t premium series media laptop.

The most salient point there is the 18.4" 1920x1080 edge to edge glass fronted screen; along with which comes a full size keyboard, dual hard drive bays, every connector on the planet, and a just under 9lb weight.

... which is pretty hefty, but considering the size of the thing, isn't bad.

Did I mention lots of ports?



So that's 4 usb ports total (two on each side), one of which is shared with an eSata port; a firewire port; vga, hdmi/dvi, and docking station ports; a gigabit ethernet port; an express card slot with a portable multimedia remote control inside it, to control the integrated HDTV tuner, whose antenna port is on the right side, along with two headphone jacks and a mic jack. Oh and theres a media card reader on the front.

That's a lot of connectivity.

Ok so the exact specs of what I'm getting are as follows:

• Processor: Core 2 duo T9550 (2.66ghz, 6mb cache)
  
  
• Memory: 4gb DDR3
  
  
• Video card: Nvidia GT130m with 1gb GDDR3
  
  
• Screen: 1920x1080 true 16:9 (most laptops are 16:10)
  
  
• Hard drive: 320gb 7200 rpm in bay one (there is a second HDD bay available)
  
  
• Optical drive: SuperMulti BluRay burner
  
  
• Networking: Intel discrete 802.11 A/B/G/N with bluetooth
  
  
• Battery: 8 cell, approximately 2:45 minute to 3:15 life under normal use, 2 hours to 2:15 with BluRay or under heavy use (According to reviews)
  
  
• Other features: Web cam, stereo mikes, card reader, integrated HDTV tuner, two remotes (one in the card slot, one for desktop use)
  

I'm also getting a spare battery, two spare AC adapters, and a new docking station; to replace the accessories I had for my old laptop, which are now no longer of any use to me.

Oh and to top it all off, a free upgrade to a 3 year hp total care onsite service; and three year accident damage or theft replacement warranty. Basically thats full replacement, at my home (no shipping it off somewhere), no questions asked full hardware replacement.

So although I'm not thrilled it took us a month to get there, I am entirely satisfied by HPs solution to the problem.

This thing is going to be interesting to benchmark; especially since the Nvidia GT130 is entirely new (though its similar to the 9650M GT it replaced), and it has 1gb of GDDR3 video ram, and 4gigs of DDR3 ram...

Hell, it's specced higher than most of the desktops I own (none of which are on DDR3 yet and only two of which are faster than 2.66ghz, and that's only because they're both overclocked).

At 8.8lbs, it's actually only about a pound heavier than my current 17"; which again given the increase in screen area (130sq in vs. 144sq in) is not bad... but it's still damn huge, at almost 11.5" x 17.5".

Oh and there is one other bit of bad news.

Because it's a newly updated model and is only manufactured and distributed out of one location; the thing wont ship until the 19th, but they will fedex it overnight.

So in 9-12 days (it may miss the overnight deadline on Thursday the 19th, and I don't think they'll spring for Saturday delivery), I'll have a new... (seems silly calling something that big a laptop doesn't it?) machine to play with.

In the mean time, I'm going to see if I can get the old box being replaced to load the newest iDeneb hackintosh release.

Home videos, now in HD

Well, not NOW, but a week or so from now.

Last year, I sold our standard definition digital camcorder (A Canon ZR 850) planning on surprising the wife with an HD camcorder for Christmas. Unfortunately, we had a budget constrained Christmas, so not only no HD, but no camcorder at all...

Which is kinda irritating since I've been wanting to make some computer videos, and some gun videos for the blog; as well as of course, recording family stuff etc...

Then Woot busts out this badboy last night for less than half what every other HD camcorder I've been looking at costs (and less than 1/3 of the ones I really want):

That is the Canon Vixia HR10 AVCHD mini-DVD camcorder; and Woot is selling it at $300...

...well now... That really got me thinking hard about buying.

For a long time, I wasn't really interested in a DVD based camcorder; because the media was expensive and hard to find. However, over the past year or two, mini-dvd-r and rw have become very widely available, and VERY cheap.

I don't really want a consumer grade MiniDV based HDV cam, because the media is slow, and sequential access; and can't be read without the camcorder (unless I want to buy a professional quality MiniDV deck).

The pro grade cameras in class are all MiniDV; and if my budget were that big ($2k to $10k) I'd live with trading the inconvenience of tape for the quality; but I'm not going to bother with another MiniDV if it isn't pro grade (except maybe the very top of the range HV40 or the model it just replaced, the HV30)

Mainly, I've been looking at flash based camcorders, and hard drive based camcorders. In general I prefer the large capacity they offer; unfortunately as I said, they cost twice (or more) what this camera costs.

That said, I still wasn't sure if I wanted to consider a mini-dvd based setup; so I decided to analyze exactly what I wanted or needed from a camcorder.

What do I need from a camcorder

Alright, so what are my criteria?

1. Resolution
2. Frame rate
   
3. Format
4. Lens
5. Media
6. Battery
7. HDMI output
8. USB 2 or Firewire data out
   
9. Image stabilization/vibration reduction
10. Other features
    

I want to address those out of order, because my first discriminator had been the media; and with the price of this 'corder I needed to re-evaluate whether DVD was acceptable to me.

Media: Tape, hard drive, flash, DVD

Let's get tape out of the way first.

I hate it.

It's slow, it breaks, it gets dirty and degrades over time, it's sensitive to environmental conditions... basically, it's a pain.

It also doesn't support non-linear file access, which means you have to fast forward or rewind to a specific spot on the tape to get the video from that spot; and you can only transfer that video in real time, or at best some low multiple of real time. You can't just pop the tape in a computer and read a specific file, like you can with memory cards, DVDs, and (through USB) hard drives.

Unfortunately for me, tape is still the dominant media format. The best quality recording format uses tape; as do most of the best quality cameras. That said, tapeless media camcorders are catching up.

I've primarily been focusing on flash and hard drive based camcorders, because you get a longer recording time without having to change the media.

Unfortunately, both are expensive. The lowest cost models I'm looking at are around $600, and they go up to $1300.

More importantly from a technical aspect though, flash based and hard drive based camcorders both have the same major problem: you can't cheaply change the media (or at all in the case of the hard drive setups... though some support recording to both hard drive and flash media).

Although flash cards are amazingly cheap, first quality brand (SanDisk, Lexar etc...) class 6 flash cards (high speed data transfer. Class 4 are the standard, cheaper, and MUCH slower type) are still $17 a piece for 8gb, or $12 a piece for 4gb cards. You really don't want to use slower, lower quality cards.

The biggest disadvantage of the mini-dvd format of course is of course lower data storage capacity than flash or hard drive based camcorders; with single layer disks at 1.4gb and dual layer at 2.8gb.

To counterbalance that however, mini-dvds are CHEAP. With DVD-R running under $0.85 in bulk (or $3 for dual layer) and DVD-RW around $1.50 in bulk (or $4 for dual layer); for the same price as one high quality SD card ($12 for 4gb $17 for 8gb $38 for 16gb), you can get considerably more total recording capacity.

Of course, SD card prices are still coming down; but so are mini-dvd prices (especially dual layer).

Just how inconvenient is it having to change DVDs, vs flash cards (let's presume we use rewritable dual layer DVDs to make the comparison fair)?

At the highest resolution and compression rating supported by the mini-dvd format (XP+ at 12mbps. Some flash and HDD based cameras support higher bitrates, but they take up more space, so the relative comparison is the same), a $4 dual layer mini-dvd-rw will record about 28 minutes. A $12 4gb card will record about 40 minutes, a $17 8gb card about 80 minutes, and a $38 16gb card, about 160 minutes (most first generation flash based camcorders only support up to 8gb cards, but some support 16gb; and the newest cams support 32gb, which are running over $100 right now).

If we presume the worst case comparison, you would have to change DVDs five times in just over two and a half hours to equal a 16gb card; but you'd pay $20 to do it, not $40.

However, as I said that is at the highest resolution, frame rate, and compression quality. You can vary the framerate, resolution, and compression (just as you do on a standard digital camera) and get as much as 108 minutes of recording time, and still have a better picture than any analog, and most SD digital camcorders.

Given all that, and that it would be rare for me to want to record something that long without changing the scene (other than lectures, school plays, and meetings; you generally want a scene to last a maximum of about six minutes); I consider it a limitation I can work with.

In addition to a lower total data capacity, mini-dvds have a lower read/write rate than either Class 6 SD cards (they have the same rate as class 4 however) or hard drives. This limits DVD based camcorders to a slightly lower maximum quality than an equivalent flash or hard drive based camcorder. Also, they take longer to format, longer to access, and longer to erase (for re-writable disks).

As to why changeable media is a good thing well there are a LOT of reasons there.

• If you fill the media up, you just change the media.
  
  This is a major reason why pros don't use hard drives yet, except at the very highest end where they have changeable hard drive systems.
  
  
• If media goes bad, obviously, you can change it. You can't do that with hard drives.
  
  This is a big deal actually; because hard drives go bad a lot, especially when they get jostled a lot, as you would expect in a camcorder. And again, this is one reason why pros generally don't use hard drives.
  
  
• You can get the filmed data without the camcorder being present, functional, have a charged battery etc...
  
  This is a HUGE problem with hard drive based camcorders. It's the single biggest reason why pros don't use hard drives; and in fact is why low end pros and semi-pros generally still use Mini-DV.
  
  Of course, to get the data from a MiniDV tape, you either need the camera, or a pro quality HDV deck that can do data export (they start at around $1k). With a flash card or DVD you can just pop them in the computer.
  
  
• You can easily archive media, and make copies etc...
  
  
• It's easy to ship copies around or give them out
  
  
• You can easily read the media on external devices; especially computers
  
  
• You can make the media read only, and keep archive copies in your safe etc.. (important for legal purposes, investigation, insurance records, accident records etc...)
  
  
• You can play the disks or cards on some DVD players and Blu-Ray players (or even some TVs in the case of SD cards).
  

Yes, you can do all that with flash based camcorders, but as I said above the media is a lot more expensive.

There is one specific disadvantage to DVDs though, and that is they aren't nearly as vibration tolerant, or tough as flash devices. It's the difference in reliability between a spinning disk, and a solid state chip.

So, advantages to DVD:

• Cheap media
• Changeable media
• Playable on computers
• Playable on some DVD players and Blu-Ray players
  

Disadvantages:

• Lower capacity media (needs to be changed more often)
• Lower data throughput (limits maximum quality)
• DVD media takes longer to format, finalize, erase etc...
  
• Less reliable and tough as a machine
• Media is also not as tough (scratching etc...)
  

Given all those factors:

• I still prefer flash based camcorders
  
  
• I find DVD based camcorders an acceptable alternative; at least theoretically
  
  
• I find hard drive based camcorders unacceptably limiting, unless they also allow for flash recording
  
  
• I don't want to put up with the inconvenience of tape, unless the quality tradeoff is there; and I don't have the budget for that kind of quality

Other Important Factors

For my purposes, the media wasn't the most important question; but it was the easiest and fastest discriminator.

Of the rest, the biggies are resolution, frame rate, format, image stabilization, and the lens.

Resolution

A lot of the early HD camcorders, and even today most of those under $500, run at 1280x720.

Now, there's nothing wrong with 720. Most of the time you'll never notice the difference between 720 and 1080, unless your TV is huge and you sit relatively close to it.

Most lower end pro-level and high end semi-pro level video cameras (and video software) run at 1440x1080 anyway.

Heck, most of the time, you're going to want to shoot at a lower resolution anyway, to increase your recording time, reduce your data transfer time, and reduce your file size.

Most of the time...

Although the times you'll really want to have a 1920x1080 video are limited; there is a very good reason to shoot at that higher resolution:

Level Of Detail (LOD)

Shooting at a higher resolution gives you a greater level of detail to work with in your video. While that detail may be lost when you convert down to DVD format, or web format; starting with the highest quality possible source, allows you to have the highest quality possible result. You just get more detail, sharpness, contrast, and definition when you start off with a higher LOD.

Also, high LOD gives you a lot more flexibility in your editing. When you start with the highest quality image, you lose less quality in the editing process (it's digital so I'm talking about photomanipulation and downsampling, not generational losses).

Finally, high LOD allows you to take very deep crops of scenes, and blow them up to full screen size, while maintaining acceptable visual quality.

For example, you can shoot a scene wide at 1920x1080; then crop down to a center shot of 1280x720 with very little perceptible loss of quality; giving you more flexibility in your editing, and room to fix misframed shots.

So, for my personal use, I want a 1920x1080 capable camcorder.

Frame Rate

Now to explain that important bit, "P" vs. "I".

"P" stands for progressive, and "I" interlaced. That USED to mean that either every frame was drawn scan line by scan line (progressive), or that every second scanline was drawn every frame, thus forming a full image with every scanline being hit every two frames (interlaced).

This interlaced way of showing an image is why when you shoot a traditional television screen with a video camera, it flickers; because the video cameras shutter speed is so fast, that it sees that half the data is missing in each frame.

Obviously, progressive images give you twice as much data to deal with, because every line is drawn every frame.

I say "used to mean", because with digital displays (and digital cameras), there are no scanlines anymore. Instead, a "P" means the entire scene is rendered every frame (but there's no scan, so it isn't really progressive), and "I" means half the scene is rendered every frame, and the other half the next frame (which is technically interleaving, not interlacing); so again a full scene is drawn every two frames.

There is definitely a very visible difference in quality between an analog progressive image, and an analog interlaced image. An analog image displayed progressively will a fair bit brighter, sharper, and more colorful than the same image displayed interlaced.

In todays digital world however, even though you're getting still twice as much data with a "P" signal, the visible quality difference is much smaller; basically, because the human eye isn't great at discriminating that fast.

That fast being 30, 60, or 120 times a second for television (in the US anyway. In Europe its 25, 50, and 100) and 24 times a second for film (or really 48 times when it's projected. Projectors show each frame twice, for half as long, to reduce the appearance of flicker).

The standard frame rate for films is 24 frames per second, and each frame of film is displayed twice (using a shutter), for an effective 48hz display rate.

The standard frame rate for U.S. analog televisions is 30 frames per second, which is actually displayed at 60hz, interlaced (thus a full frame every 2 cycles, for 30 frames per second).

When we transitioned to digital, we kept the standard at 30fps; but all HDTVs display a non-interlaced image (even if you are getting an interlaced signal, the actual display is showing it non-interlaced).

Also, most HDTVs refresh at twice frame rate (showing each frame twice, or 60hz), and some even refresh at four times frame rate (120hz), to improve the apparent smoothness and prevent blurring or flickering with very fast motion on screen.

The difference in frame rate is one of the subtle but significant ways that images shot on film, and images shot on traditional video "look different" (lighting, color saturation, contrast and sharpness, and the appearance of grain are the other main differences).

Even if two scenes are identical, and were shot at and played back at the same resolution; they will look different when shot at different frame rates.

Basically, images shot and displayed at 30fps look more "like video" to our eyes, and those shot and displayed at 24fps look more "like film" to our eyes; especially when subjects are moving in the scene.

Of course, since the image is displayed at a frame rate, it also has to be recorded at a frame rate (though not necessarily the SAME frame rate).

Basically all camcorders will be able to shoot at either 30 frames per second or 60 frames per second (or both). Some however also offer 24 frames per second to give your video a more "filmlike" appearance.

Canon also offers a 24 frame per second mode, that isn't exactly a true 24p (24 full progressive frames per second), which they call 24f. 24f mode is shot at 60 interlaced frames per second, and then digitally re-sampled down to 24 progressive frames per second (actually, sources conflict. It may be shot at 48 interlaced frames and then de-interlaced. It is definitely shot with a slower shutter speed however, which would indicate the 48fps theory is correct).

According to reviews, 24f looks more filmlike than 30p but less filmlike than 24p.

Like televisions, some cameras offer 720p, 1080i, or 1080p (at 24fps or 30fps depending); with each frame of an "i" image having half the data of a "p" image. This reduces the size of the data to be dealt with making it easier to process.

Not all cameras support a 1080p mode for this reason. Most less expensive cameras only support 720p or 1080i.

To my mind, you're actually better off with 720p than 1080i in most cases, because there is very little visible quality difference (in fact sometimes 720p images can look better than 1080i), and 720p images are still slightly smaller (more recording time).

Of course, as I said above, sometimes you want the highest quality available; and for consumer grade gear right now, that's 1080p.

However, there are two ways of getting a final 1080p image. Some cameras offer a true 1080p mode where every frame is fully captured at 30 frames per second (actually they mostly run at 60fps and either digitally merge, or simply discard half the frames); while others record at 1080i, but they do it at 60 frames a second, and digitally combine the images into a 30fps image.

Either method produces a perfectly acceptable image. The HD industry group allows either to label themselves as "Full HD", though the true 1080p image is anywhere from slightly better to "much" better, depending on the quality of the image processing.

There are two disadvantage to 1080i60 deinterlaced to 1080p. Under some conditions (high contrast and very fast motion), there may be some video artifacts, especially on curved lines. Also some video editing software will choke on deinterlaced video; so it's important to make sure you've got the right import/export filters etc...

Oh and some cameras offer higher frame rates (generally at lower resolutions), to allow you to play back in slow motion. It's a gimmick, but it's a kinda cool and useful one.

For my purposes, I would like a camera that offers both 24 and 30 frames per second at 1080p. I would prefer 1080p30 (or even 1080p60), but deinterlaced 1080i60 is acceptable. While I'd prefer a true 24p mode, I don't mind 24f mode.

If the camera has higher frame rates available, that would be nice to have; but it's not something I'm specifically looking for.

Format

Every recording has a format. In the analog days, your format was generally dictated by your media. When we went to digital though, format was divorced from the recording media, and all of a sudden there were a lot of options.

The earliest HD camcorders either recorded in proprietary formats; or just recorded in MiniDV format, scaled up to HD. That however turned out to be very inefficient, and different vendors implementations of the process had compatibility issues.

Eventually they standardized on an extension to the MiniDV format that works, called HDV; which is used in most pro level mini-cams,and some pro-sumer level camcorders (like the Canon HV20/30/40 series for example).

Today, there are still a lot of cheaper camcorders that use proprietary formats (the ones that look like those 70s pistol grip flashlights mostly; like the Flip, or Aiptek... though some of them actually do use standard formats, you'll have to read the specs); and you can only get the media into a standard format for editing, by exporting it via special software etc...

Obviously, most folks aren't going to want those for any kind of real video work. That said, they are very cheap, and fun, and are just fine for youtube, or for your teenager to screw around with.

There are basically four standards out there right now for higher end amateur, and lower end professional HD video recording (high end professional cameras all use RAW formats specific to each camera):

1. Motion JPEG
2. Raw MPEG
3. HDV
4. Vendor specific proprietary formats based on MPEG
   
5. AVCHD

Motion JPEG is a format that effectively takes 24, 30, or 60 still jpeg photos per second, and compiles them into a video segment.

MJPEG is popular with digital still cameras that have a video mode, and with some extended definition (more than 640x480 but less than a true high def picture at 1280x720) video cameras (they were never very popular so there aren't many out there); but it produces very large file sizes, and has to be converted into other formats for editing. Also, it takes a fair bit of processing power to process those scenes, so generally speaking length, and resolution, are limited.

That said, some still cameras can produce MJPEG at their full native resolution. It looks spectacular, but generally needs a very expensive camera (for clips more than a few seconds long anyway), and produces HUGE files (a gigabyte a minute or more). Most of those cameras can only shoot for a minute or two because their internal buffers can't process more data.

Raw MPEG and HDV are both generally used in professional/prosumer HD cameras; because both require a lot of computational horsepower, and both produce very large file sizes. This means either you need to have big hard drive based recording systems attached to the cameras, or you need to change the DV tapes frequently.

Since professional filming is done scene by scene, and single scenes rarely last more than a few minutes; frequent tape changes are considered part of the process, and not a major inconvenience.

Oh and I should note, raw-mpeg doesn't necessarily mean readable by other raw-mpeg devices; because each vendor has a slightly different implementation. However, it generally DOES mean readable by third party editing software etc...

So, for the cost and size penalty, you get considerably higher quality; and files that are very easy to edit using professional editing tools.

As of today, most reality tv, and most news from the field that's shot in HD; is shot using HDV equipment. Also many lower budget television shows, made for TV movies, and even some low budget feature films (especially from the niche cable networks) use HDV.

The major vendors also generally have their own proprietary formats; most of which wrap something around the raw MPEG data, in order to make it more efficient etc... etc... All are quite similar, and generally provide roughly the same functionality, with a few spcific features highlighted for a particular vendor etc...

The problem with those proprietary formats of course, are that they are vendor specific. They may be very high quality, and more size efficient, but you can only use software and equipment from that vendor. Of course you can then export that proprietary format using another software tool to a standard format; but then you lose the advantages of the vendor format (however questionable they may be).

Oh and most of the mid to high end cameras that use these propietary formats also offer the option of using standard HDV, or raw MPEG as a fallback option.

Joy eh... Confused yet?

The AVCHD format was created by a consortium of vendors (primarily Sony and Panasonic) in order to produce a standard format, that produced a smaller file size than the raw MPEG solutions, and that would be suitable for recording on media other than tapes or gigantic hard drives.

Basically, it uses the H.264 industry standard (the same standard that YouTube and Itunes use to delivery their HD content, but with higher bit rates; which means higher quality) to wrap an MPEG video and AC3 audio stream into an MPEG-4 file.

The resulting video files are still high quality (though not quite as high as HDV-ProHD or raw MPEG, even at maximum bitrate), but it's MUCH smaller (as in 1/3 the size for the highest quality, and 1/12th the size for the most compressed).

AVCHD is now the dominant standard for amateur tapeless HD video; and most HD capable video editing software supports it (that was not the case when it was introduced).

Because the format is highly compressed, you need a fair bit of horsepower to deal with the files natively, and it takes a long time to transfer and transcode files; but it works. Also, because the major video editing vendors all support it now, you can export and transcode the files into standard MPEG based formats and work with it there.

It's important to understand, that AVCHD is a variable bit rate format; which means you can specify different levels of compression, trading file size for quality.

XP+ at 12Mbps is what I would call the baseline HD level for AVCHD. This quality is very good; considerably better than broadcast HDTV for example, and roughly comarable to the quality of a BluRay played on your HDTV. XP+ may be a bit lower quality than you'd like for actual BluRay authoring however (because you always lose a bit of quality in the process).

Because they have a lower maximum read/write rate than flash or hard drive based recording systems; mini-DVD based camcorders support a maximum AVCHD quality of XP+.

There are two higher quality levels available, FXP, and MXP+.

Most flash or HDD based camcorders support one level of quality higher than DVD based cams: FXP at 17Mbps; which is more than sufficient for BluRay authoring, unless you are capturing high dynamic range scenes, with lot's of fast motion (which would tend to accentuate any flaws in compression).

The latest highest end models also support MXP+ at 24Mbps. MXP+ is theoretically considerably higher than Blu-Ray quality; but it takes twice as much space as XP+ quality (which means half the recording time for the same space), and twice as much processing power to handle.

You can also chose two higher compression levels and lower bit rates, to save file size at the expense of quality.

SP runs at 7Mbps, for approximately 1.7 times the runtime of XP+; and roughly the same quality as broadcast HDTV.

LP runs at 5Mbps, for approximately 2.4 times the runtime as XP+, and roughly the same quality as iTunes HD.

OK NOW are you confused?

Well, don't be. Basically, there are two realistic options right now for midrange and above camcorders; AVCHD, and HDV. HDV uses tapes, AVCHD doesn't. HDV is higher quality, AVCHD uses less storage space, and is nonlinear.

I'd love an HDV-ProHD level minicam, but they're just too expensive (about $2k minimum for 720p/1080i, or $4k minimum for 1080p); so for now, AVCHD will work just fine for me.

Image Stabilization

You know that motion sick feeling you get when you watch most home videos? How everything seems to be twitching, and little blurs creep in?

Yeah, that's because we human beings are shaky, twitchy creatures.

Image stabilization attempts to reduce the effect our twitchy little bodies have on the video we record (or the pictures that we take). This reduces jitter in the video, as well as allowing us to maintain sharpness down into lower light levels.

There are two types of image stabilization out there on the market; optical and digital.

With digital image stabilization, the image processor in the camera compares multiple sequential images, and tries to subtract the motion.

It works about as well as it sounds.

Optical image stabilization works much better. It actually compensates for the tremors by physically moving electronically stabilized lens elements in response to motion, as well as using digital image processing; and it works MUCH better.

You want a camcorder with optical image stabilization; and Canon does it better than everyone else (they've been doing it longer, and for higher end professional equipment, than anyone).

Lens

Where most consumer grade camcorders completely fall apart, is with their lenses. Most standard definition camcorder lenses were utter crap. The situation has improved somewhat with HD camcorders, but still the weakest point of the system tends to be the lenses.

Sony and Canon seem to be the exception to this trend; and are generally making much better quality lenses in their consumer grade HD camcorders than other manufacturers (Panasonic is making GREAT pro grade lenses, but that quality hasn't made it down to their consumer grade stuff yet).

Importantly, with their higher end consumer product lines, many of the major manufacturers have standardized on a 37mm lens filter ring, or at least are compatible with 37mm accessories using adapter rings (lower end mini-camcorders often don't have a filter ring at all, or it may be some odd size, as small as 23.5mm. Prosumer grade cameras generally run larger, anywhere from 42mm to 58mm; but they aren't standardized).

I'd really much prefer a camcorder with a changeable lens; but they start around $2k (plus the lenses) so for now, I'll take what I can get, which is a standard sized filter ring.

A 37mm filter ring lets you add decent quality photographic filters; or use step-up adapters to get to the common SLR camera lens filter sizes. Also, there are numerous telephoto extenders, wide angle adapters, and macro adapters at the 37mm size.

For my purposes, I want a low dispersion multicoated lens (called high definition, extended definition etc... depending on what company is marketing it), with either a 37mm or 58mm filter ring.

I'd like a reasonable optical zoom range, say a 40mm-400mm 35mm equivalent (average for a camcorder). I wouldn't want to go much more than 10x, because a very long zoom causes sharpness issues, and vignetting when used with lens adapters.

That approximate zoom range will let me use a .5x wide angle adapter to come down to 20mm equivalent, and a 2x telephoto adapter to come up to 800mm equivalent. Yeah, I'll be losing some quality in the process (TANSTAAFL), but given it's a 1920x1080 camera, and I'm not looking for pro quality, I can live with that range.

I'd also like a lens with a large aperture if possible. The faster the lens the better as far as low light performance, and hyperfocal distance are concerned.

Most standard definition camcorder lenses are dog slow, in the f/3 to f/6 range across their zoom range. Again, as with general lens construction, this is improving with the emergence of HD cameras; which want more light to produce those lovely high resolution images, so they need larger apertures (faster lenses).

For my purposes, I'd like something faster than f/2.8, or even better faster than f/2. If it's relatively fast at full zoom, that'd be nice as well; say f/4 or even better f/3.5.

Oh and if I can get full aperture and shutter control, I'd REALLY love that, but I don't know of any consumer level camera that will give me that (several have aperture priority, or shutter priority modes though).

Oh and ignore so called "digital zoom". All it is, is a crop taken out of the center of the image, then blown up to full size. With a 1920x108o camera, you can take a ridiculous crop and blow it up to claim a 200x zoom; but you haven't actually zoomed any further than your optics, and in the process you're adding artifacts and errors. If you want to crop, do it with your editing software.

Other Features

To me, there are two other important features, that I didn't rate quite high enough for a detailed analysis, but nonetheless are a major factor for me:

• Connectivity
• Manual controls

For connectivity, basically you MUST have either USB 2.0 or Firewire data transfer from the camera. No ifs ands or buts, you have to have high speed data transfer.

Now, since most of my computers have Firewire (aka. IEEE 1394), it generally transfers large files better and faster than USB 2, and video editing software generally likes it better; I personally prefer it for video.

USB 2 however, is FAR more widely available. It's on basically every modern computer, and is most likely a better choice for most people.

Oh and if you're going to include USB, it would be nice if you could get realtime live vidcap over USB; for use as a high def web cam, or a security cam etc...

As to video connectivity, HDMI is critical for anything high def. You should also have a standard def output option available; preferably without requiring weird cables and adapters, but that's hard to find. If you DO need adapters, it's nice to get both composite and component (even better if the component supports HD as well).

You won't get any kind of SDI or BNC or other coax professional high def interconnects on a consumer grade camera; and you generally won't get discrete jacks for anything. Instead you get flimsy octopus cables.

On the controls issue... if you've been reading me for any length of time, you know I want manual controls on EVERYTHING. The more manual control over things I have, the closer I can get to the results I want.

Again, for most people, all the manual controls aren't very useful. Hell, half the time they won't be useful to ME; but I want them.

I'd like an external mike jack; because the internal mikes on most camcorders are crap; and they pick up a lot of conduction noise from behing handled etc...

If possible I'd like an accessory hotshoe, to control an external light... Though that's not really necessary, as there are plenty of lights that will attach to a tripod socket, and are self powered.

The Decision

Woot put this up last night at 10pm my time, and I was intrigued from the price, but thrown off by DVD; so I decided I'd do the research.

This morning, I started reading every review I could find (here's the most authoritative and detailed one). Uniformly the consumers who bought the camera loved it except for the battery life; and the pros thought it was good, but don't like DVD cameras, and don't like AVCHD as a whole.

What I like:

• $299 is an amazing deal
• Very compact
  
• Great physical controls
• Great manual adjustments and controls (more than most video cameras)
• 24 frames per second mode
• High quality Canon glass (high definition, low dispersion)
  
• 43.6-436mm 35mm equivalent zoom (10x range)
  
• f/1.8-f/3 (twice as fast as most lenses)
  
• 37mm filter ring
• HDMI and USB 2 output
• Third party batteries are $20 on the street
• Third party chargers are $20 on the street
  
• According to reviews, the best video quality available in the market segment
  

What I don't like:

• The battery life is a few minutes under 2 hours, which is a little below average for class
  
• OEM batteries are $100 list and $50 on the street
• OEM chargers are $100 list and $50 on the street
  
• There is no microphone jack (most consumer camcorders don't have them unfortunately)
• There is no accessory hot shoe (again, most consumer camcorders don't have them)
• I still prefer flash based to DVD based camcorders
• I still prever HVD to AVCHD
• According to reviews, problems with the 24p mode
  

What really made the decision for me however, was the super fast, low dispersion lens; and the 37mm filter ring.

Well that, and these sample videos:

Paris in 720p at 24fps

Paris in 1080p at 24fps

The close up and infinite zoom performance, the color saturation, the rapid autofocus, and the lowlight performance all said to me "this is a camera that will do what I want".

So I pushed the button on the camera, then immediately ordered these:
Kenko .5x pro series high definition wide angle adapter.


Kenko 2x pro series telephoto adapter.


Tiffen 37mm filter set.

I also grabbed a third party battery and charger, and step up rings for 46mm, 52mm, 58mm, and 62mm threads (so I can use common SLR filters and screw in adapters and lenses).

I'm still iffy on the whole DVD thing; but I have a plan.

See my thought is this: I want a Canon anyway; at least if I'm going for an AVCHD model (and I can't even come close to affording a pro level HVD right now. If I could, I'd still want a Canon - better lenses - and I'd be buying the $9,000 XL H1S or the new modular Red Scarlet system; which for $4,000 is twice the camera, or for $9000 is four times the camera).

If I find that the DVD media is completely unacceptable, I'll know pretty quickly, so I can box it back up, and give it to someone less demanding as a Christmas gift.

The battery is usable in like six different Canon models, and the 37mm accessories are the standard size for prosumer HVD and AVCHD models, so none of that would be wasted.

Then, a few months or a year from now, the price of flash media will have fallen even further, and the Vixia HF11 (which is the consumer grade camera I want the most right now, and which lists for $1200 but currently sells around $900 - read a review here. It's just been replaced with the $1299 HF-S10), will be on clearance for $500 somewhere.

In the mean time, I can finally get some of those gun and computer videos cranked out.

Wish me luck.

Quis custodiet ipso custodes

Nos vigilo custodes.

Indeed we do.

I’ve been struggling with how to review this movie since I walked out of the theater last night.

A few weeks ago someone asked me to explain “Watchmen” to them, and my response was “there is no way I can possibly give you an adequate explanation without telling you the entire story”; and that’s the problem I face here.

This could easily either be a 20 page mass of spoilers, shoutouts, pleasures and gripes, with some substance to it; or it can be a single paragraph or two, with some meaningless superlatives and diminutives.

I’m going to try and split the difference, and explain what I think is good and not so good about the movie; while keeping it relatively simple, and relatively spoiler free.

First things first, “Watchmen” is the best adaptation of a comic book into a film ever released.

This does not mean it is the “best comic book movie ever”; because I think that “Dark Knight”, “Iron Man”, and possibly “Spiderman 2″ were better as straight films. Watchmen is a better adaptation, and there is a big difference there.

Is it a good movie? Oh very much yes. However, it is a confusing, thickly layered, EXTREMELY violent, and disturbing film; with so much detail you need to see it multiple times to get it all.

On one level, it works as a straightforward action film. The fights and other action sequences are great; and the pacing and plotting work to keep everything moving and flowing.

Just as a “comic book film” it also works. The cinematography, production design, and costuming are amazing. For those of that persuasion, Malin Ackerman is unbelievably hot. For the other side, Billy Crudup is very, very naked for the entire film (and surprisingly good, in a VERY difficult roles). Jacky Earle Haley, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, and Patrick Wilson all gave spectacular performances as Rorschach, the Comedian, and Night owl respectively.

As a morality play and social satire it works as well. Importantly, it is not just a nearly 3 hour gigantic anti-American anti-conservative rant, as some web sites are claiming (the GN was somewhat more so, but not so much as most people seem to think. As I said above, it is essentially libertarian in nature).

It is an indictment of many things in modern western culture without a doubt (though more subtle in this than the graphic novel), but I don’t think you could call it anti-American.

It is however, very much, anti-superhero… or more specifically anti-superman (in the neitzcheian ubermensch sense) in particular. Who watches the watchmen indeed.

Watchmen is very much a libertarian movie.

At a high level, it is a denunciation of popular fascism and oligarchy. At a deeper level, one of the central dilemmas of the movie is the conflict between objectivism, absolutism, pragmatism, and utilitarianism.

The whole story and concept behind Watchmen is a very strong indictment of the “perfect man” concept in political and social philosophy (which isn’t what it sounds like. If you aren’t familiar, there’s a lot of research you need to do to bring yourself up to speed).

At core, the political and philosophical underpinning of Watchmen, is an exhortation to individual integrity, morality, and sovereignty.

Which of course is why so many people don’t understand it; because for many, the entire notions of true individualism and liberty are alien.

So what didn’t work?

Nixon… in fact all of the politicians, captains of industry etc… portrayed in the film were nothing more than thinly drawn caricatures, used almost for comic relief. They should have had a creepy menace to them, but the makeup and performance choices Snyder made reduces them to parody.

I thought Matthew Goode was horrible as Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias. His characterization was ridiculous, and wooden at the same time.

Malin Ackerman, though amazingly beautiful with great screen presence, has the emotive range of a turnip. I’ve noted this in her other roles, so you can’t blame the writing.

Also, given that same writing, Jacky Earle Haley, Billy Crudup, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, and Patrick Wilson gave great performances; so again, you can’t blame the writing.

Other than that, my criticisms are structural.

The fact is, there is only so much material you can pack into a movie. Even at a 2:45 runtime (yes, it really is that long. No, you don’t notice) this movie is busting at the seams, and still has to cut about 1/3 of the content of the graphic novel (1/2 if you count the “black freighter” material, which was made available as web videos, and will be released on DVD in two weeks).

I think they made the best choices possible given the constraints they were under. They chose to focus primarily on the main storyline, with reasonably well done fill-ins and exposition of the back story.

The thing that makes this just a good movie and not a great movie (and what in fact might have positioned it as an oscar contender, and I mean that quite seriously) is the missing or abbreviated backstory.

Without it, the characters of Sally and Laurie Juspeczyk/Jupiter i.e. the Silk Specter I and II; and that of Hollis Mason and Dan Dreiberg i.e. Nightowl I and II; are all somewhat thinly drawn.

Some things in the film appear to have very little or very thin motivation behind them. This is especially true of the actions of Ozymandias.

Silouhette, and the other watchmen, are essentially left out entirely; barely mentioned in passing. They were still minor characters in the GN, or more specifically subsidiary characters only slightly linked to the main plotline; but there was much more to them than in the film, and I think the film suffers a bit for it.

Also, the motivations of Dr. Manhattan, and the impact of the personal choices he makes are somewhat muddied or lost without that fuller backstory (and especially without a more fully fleshed Silk Specter).

I have to balance that criticism against the sheer effort of trying to fit it all in. To fully flesh out that background would take at least 5 hours.

As I understand it, the script as shot came in at over three and a half hours, and even with what they left in the script, they had to cut 45 minutes to make time (and to be sure of an R and not an NC-17). I do hope that with the Blu-Ray release, we get a full unrated extended cut.

Some fans of the GN are disappointed that the movie isn’t even darker, more violent, and more disturbing etc… Personally, I think they did an excellent job of capturing the atmosphere (excepting the characterization of Nixon… they missed the boat completely there); and they pulled no punches on the violence or sex.

Yes, there was even more violence, and more sex (and more sexual violence for that matter) in the GN; but it wasn’t necessary for that to be in the movie. Believe me, we got the point.

There is one VERY different twist to things from the GN that has hardcore purists pissed off; but in the end makes much more sense from a story, and dramatic perspective.

Overall, I’m going to give Watchmen a very strong recommendation. I think they made the most faithful possible adaptation of one of the greatest graphical novels of all time; and the result was a very good movie. My only reservation is that it could have been a great movie, but it would have required another hour of screen time.

Stuart Smalley is NOT a Senator...

... at least for now.

More to come later.

Want a bloody revolution?

End backup witholding, and have the IRS send everyone a bill every three months. There will be riots in the streets the next day.

As I mentioned a few days ago, I have a substantial bonus coming to me for my work last year.

So I got my pay and bonus today...

It's interesting how they choose to do the calculation.

Now, what SHOULD happen, is that my base pay is calculated at my normal rate (28%), and withheld at my normal rate. Then, my bonus should be calculated and withheld at whatever higher rate that would put me in if it was my actual salary (I did the math, it's 33%).

That would result in 28% (minus exemptions) being taken from my regular paycheck, and 33% (no exemptions) being taken from my bonus.

Instead, my entire pay and bonus were lumped together, my 401k (which has at least stopped losing money for now) contribution was taken out of both (again, bonus pay shouldn't be counted for such things), and the whole thing was taxed at 35% (minus exemptions), plus FICO, medicare/medicade and state taxes.

All told, they took $7000 out of my check today, $1600 of which was deductions and benefits (the normal amount is $600), and $5400 of which was for taxes... which was actually more in taxes than I have paid since the beginning of the year.

Now I'm going to need to adjust my withholding for the rest of the year to avoid being overwitheld. I don't give the government at interest free loan all year, just to be grateful when they give me back part of the money they've stolen from me.

Seriously, $5400 in taxes out of one check; and believe me I don't make so much that that doesn't sting, hard.

Pop Culture Yes or No....

Or maybe thumbs up or thumbs down.

So, the question before us is one for the musical snobs and scholars as it were. In fact, there's even a hidden pop culture reference in this one.

Do Foreigners first four, generally very good albums, and Lou Gramms undeniable talent as a lead singer, make Foreigner on balance, a great rock band..

...or...

By dint of their HORRIBLE last four albums, plus an extra dose of damnation for the excerable "I want to know what love is", should Foreigner be consined to the ash heap?

Oh god, I SOOOO don't want to know

Wow, that really IS tiny...

Today the BBTOH brought me a special new toy.

About a week ago, Woot's deal of the day was a refurbished Asus Eee 2G Surf for a whole whopping $160.

We've been tossing around the idea of getting me a netbook for quite a while as I'd like something purse-sized with word processing software and an actual screen so I can write from anywhere. My preferred model, the HP1000, is a little pricey at $499 and we weren't sure if the entire concept of a netbook would even work for me. When we saw the Asus for such a low price, and in Linux no less (I love the Linux) we snapped one up. We figured that if we didn't like the feel of this (admittedly) limited laptop that the kids wouldn't object to taking it off our hands.

It is absolutely tiny.

Closed it is no bigger than most of the hardback books present in the household, and its quite light. It is seriously underpowered and limited but given that all I want to do with a really portable computer is surf the web and write, that's not a particular problem. The keyboard is incredibly tiny, but workable, and the screen is quite nice.

I have no idea what the real-life battery life is like, but I'll know soon enough.

In the meantime, I'm quite pleased with our newest computer and looking forward to giving it a good test run.

Mel

We could use more of these...

Vanila Ice apologizes, basically for being Vanilla Ice:

How about "Color Me Bad" next.

Yes, it's a publicity stunt from Virgin Mobile, but I love the idea.

Here's their complete list of "music crimes".

Somethin' I really don't understand

Ok, now this is going to be an odd one for me; though I suspect many of my readers have knowledge and an opinion on this subject.

I am an engineer by training; in particular an aerospace engineer, which is at turns a mechanical engineer, a physicist, a materials scientist, an aerodynamicist, and an artist all rolled up into one.

I was at one time a certified EMT basic, and a certified nurses assistant in the state of Arizona.

Further, I have to say I'm a damn good engineer; and I know my physics, my materials science, my anatomy, and a fair bit about trauma and emergency medicine.

So could somebody please explain to me why Dale Earnhardt is dead?

Now let me just say, I'm not a NASCAR fan, nor a member of the cult of number 3. I do however appreciate the skill, and stamina required to drive at 200 miles per hour in a pack of 40 other cars for 3 hours. I also appreciate the skill and hard work necessary to get an iron block, naturally aspirated, 358 cubic inch engine to produce 850 horsepower while running at 9000 RPM reliably for that three hours.

Others may denigrate NASCAR as low tech, low skill racing; but as an engineer, an automotive enthusiast, an amateur mechanic, and as someone who has raced as an amateur (autocross, ice racing, and amateur rally), I'm not one of them.

What I am, is mystified, that in 8 years of intense scrutiny, we still don't have what I would call a satisfactory answer as to why Dale Earnhardt died.

I've seen the video, I've seen the documentaries and the "investigations" on every TV show. I've seen all the reconstructions. I've read all the reports.

Not one of them has shown me any convincing proof that this crash:



Should have resulted in the death of that man.

Unless Earnhardts safety equipment was either defective (and I don't believe Simpson made bad gear) or he was wearing it improperly (as many have suggested, but the accident reports concluded he was not); I see no reason for him to have died.

I see no severe and sudden g-loading (in comparison to hundreds of other similar, and worse crashes) that would cause his neck and basal skull injuries (which were ruled as his cause of death) without a HANS device. I see no significant telescoping of the frame of his vehicle or cockpit intrusion. Primarily I see non-impact side loading, and relatively minor (if any impact at 150+mph can be called minor) g loading.

If you look at Earnhardts injuries, they suggest that he was moving freely in the cockpit; with 8 broken ribs on his left side (the vehicle did not suffer any substantial left side impacts), a broken left ankle, a broken sternum, and abrasions and contusions from his harness.

... but a Nascar driver is in a very different driving position than you or I are driving in our cars; approximately 8" closer to the centerline of the vehicle; and his restraints (if worn properly and not malfunctioning) should have prevented such injuries from happening

The only way I could understand these injuries, is if he was free in the cockpit, and slammed against the left side door of the vehicle; but the accident report contradicts this possibility.

Now I admit, the human body is a strange and at times frighteningly weak thing. There are times where we will survive amazing injuries, and other times when something relatively minor does devastating damage.

The thing is, I've seen hundreds of other far more severe crashes, that have caused significantly less, and less severe injury than the Earnhardt crash. Also, in all cases I know of with injuries as severe as Earnhardts (and sadly, basal fractures are not uncommon in motorsports. Heads are not well supported, and helmets are heavy), the crashes in question were more severe, or had specific dynamics which would clearly cause the injuries in question.

There is a theory which fits the evidence:

Given Earnhardts injuries, the only thing that makes sense is that he was moving forward and left. If he had properly fastened, properly mounted, functional restraints AS THE REPORTS STATE, that should not have happened.

If that was the case, I understand perfectly why he had the spine/skull injury that killed him. Rather than being properly restrained, his body was moving down, forward, and left at a high rate of speed (left from when his car snapped right, and forward and down from when he hit the wall), and when he snapped to the end of his range of motion (either against loose restraints, or the internal structural members of the vehicle - no-one outside the investigative team has seen the photos so we can't be sure which), his helmet detached the base of his skull from his spinal column.

That absolutely makes sense. It fits the evidence. It fits the physics. It fits the medicine.

And NASCAR swears up and down that it isn't what happened.

So why did Earnhardt die? Is there something I'm missing? Is someone lying?

Am I wrong here?

Our own personal "Cute Overload"

So over on this thread at the gun counter, we've got folks posting pics of their dogs.

Serious cute overload.

Then two of the bastards have to go and post pics of their dogs that died...

I am a grown ass man dammit...

Seriously though, a half Boston terrier, half german shepherd, with great big watery googly eyes? I mean never mind the logistics of the thing (what, did they use a forklift?), but it has no right being that damn cute.

Maconomics revisited - Part 1

So, about a year ago I wrote "Maconomics", and a few months later followed it up with "The Mac I Want".

In both articles I found that the price difference for Macs on identical or substantially identical hardware, if they even offered the hardware you wanted, was ridiculous; and that at that pricing, Macs didn't represent a good value.

Since then Apple has completely revised their notebook product line from top to bottom.

I'm seriously lusting after the new MacBook pro 17". It's probably the nicest computer Apple has ever come up with. Seriously, it's gorgeous.

As it happens, after a little less than a year with my current personal laptop (I have separate personal and business laptops, as well as a couple I use for field engineering and testing), I'm going to be getting a new one. In this case it's because HP screwed up a warranty repair rather badly, and my current laptop is their former top of the line and is now out of production; so they are giving me a whole new laptop, a new EliteBook 8730

As it happens, I'm also in the process of rebuilding my hackintosh, which has decided to be non-cooperative of late. So I thought this would be an opportune time to revisit the state of Mac economics, from the laptop side.

It is expected that the next few months will also see a refresh of the MacPro, and MacMini lines; and when that happens I'll take another look at them as well.

So, the basic parameters for my personal notebook look like this:

1. 17" screen, matte preferred, at least 1440x900, 1920x1200 preferred
2. fast dual or quad core processor, at least 2.5ghz
3. at least 4 gb ram
4. at least a 250gb 7200rpm hard drive
5. discrete graphics with at least 512m dedicated vram
6. DVD recorder required, Blu-Ray STRONGLY preferred
7. Discrete wireless A/B/G/N and Bluetooth (discrete is important for driver support)
8. Both HDMI and DVI output preferred (at least one is required), HD15 (VGA) optional
9. At least 3 USB ports required, and more preferred, firewire preferred, but not required
10. At least a 4 hour real world battery life
    

Not a lightweight either figuratively or literally by any means; but the higher end models from most manufacturers are meeting that spec, and for most vendors have been for some time.

HP is the king of super-high end notebooks right now (actually they have been for a while); and as I said I have an HP and will be getting another one, so I chose them to compare to the 17" MacBook.

I matched the config of the MacBook as close as possible to the list above (it offers fewer options than the HP does), and then built an HP to match it exactly (which was easy with off the shelf options choices). Then I built a maxed out configuration on the Mac and matched it again.

So first, how does the elitebook stack up?

HP EliteBook 8730

Features: The elitbook matches every feature on that list, and then some. Critically, it has BluRay available (+ $475) and all the requested ports are onboard without adapaters.

Pluses: Replaceable battery. When fully loaded has available "dream color" display, Nvidia QuadroFX 3700 (far more graphical power than the Mac), and quad core, or core 2 extreme processors.

Minuses: Just barely makes the 4 hour realworld battery test

Price (matching config): $2550

Fully loaded (matching config): $3725 (about $5k with every option added, but that includes twice the processor as the Mac, 4 times the video, and BluRay)

Now the Mac

17" MacBook pro:

Features: Matches most things, but doesn't have BluRay available, and doesn't have all the desired ports (or requires adapters) or discrete wireless.

Pluses: Battery is officially rated at 8 hours. Chassis is very sturdy and durable.

Minuses: Battery can't be changed without tools. Real world testing shows just over 4 hours life.

Price (matching config): $3066

Fully loaded (matching config): $4566

So on the high end, where the price differences tend to be smaller between Macs and comparable machines, you're talking a basic config difference of $516, and a top config price difference of $831. Or, for the same price, you can add a BluRay player, and significantly better video to the HP, and for $500 more you can go to a core 2 extreme, or quad core processor.

Just for giggles, what about a more mainstream choice, the 15" business laptop?

This is the straight up mainstream performance sector of the market, where the majority of the "above entry level" laptops are purchased.

This segment includes my own business laptop, a Dell Latitude D830; and because Dell leads the market in this segment I think I'll do the comparison with Dell against a 15" MacBook pro.

Ok, first, the features:

1. 15" screen, matte preferred, at least 1280x800, 1440x900 preferred
   
2. fast dual core processor, at least 2.5ghz
3. 4 gb ram
4. at least a 250gb 7200rpm hard drive or 320gb 5400 rpm hard drive
   
5. discrete graphics with at least 256m dedicated vram, 512m preferred
   
6. DVD recorder required, BluRay desireable but not necessary
   
7. Discrete wireless A/B/G/N and Bluetooth (discrete is important for driver support)
8. DVI or HDMI output (at least one is required), HD15 (VGA) optional
9. At least 3 USB ports required, and more preferred; firewire preferred, but not required
10. At least a 4 hour real world battery life
    

Again the higher end models from most manufacturers are meeting that spec, and for most vendors have been for some time.

So I matched the config of the MacBook as close as possible to the list above (as with HP, Apple offers fewer options than Dell), and then built a Dell to match it exactly. Again, as before I then took the same model built a maxed out configuration on the Mac and matched it again.

The closest match was the Dell Studio 15; but I couldn't get it down quite as low as the MacBooks lower end spec; ending up with a slightly faster processor (or you could go 75mhz slower than the Mac, for $175 cheaper), but lower end video.

The next higher model Dell with higher end video, is MUCH higher end than the MacBook (
The Latitude e6500 is CONSIDERABLY more capable; and still far cheaper, at $1950 in a matching or better configuration. ); given that, I left it on the Studio 15 as the closest comparison.

Also, there are only two configurable options on the 15" 4gb MacBook pro; a 2.8ghz processor vs a 2.53, and a different hard drive (you can go to SSD for $250) so I'm not bothering with a "high end" configuration comparison.

You could go to the 2.4ghz model for $500 less, which would also reduce the price on the Dell by $300.

Dell Studio 15

Features: As with the HP, the Dell matches every feature on that list, and then some. Critically, it has bothe a matte screen and BluRay available (+ $150) while the Mac does not. Also, as with the HP all the requested ports are onboard without adapaters.

Pluses: When fully loaded has available 1920x1200 display, slightly better audio, BluRay, and considerably faster processors.

Minuses: Case construction not as nice as the Mac. Lower end video.

Price (matching config): $1367

Now the Mac

15" MacBook pro:

Features: Matches most things, but doesn't have BluRay available, and doesn't have all the desired ports (or requires adapters) or discrete wireless.

Pluses: Battery is officially rated at 6 hours. Chassis is very sturdy and durable. Video is slightly better

Minuses: Real world testing shows just over 4 hours battery life.

Price (matching config): $2715

The price difference here in the midrange, is quite frankly obscene; with the Mac costing almost exactly double the equivalent Dell.

So it looks like, at least for the notebooks, the Mac tax is in full effect.

Seriously folks, if you really want a Mac notebook and don't care about the style, do some research on the hardware specs, buy a retail copy of Leopard, and hackintosh your way to happiness for half the cost. It's even legal, at least from a copyright standpoint **.

**You would be in volation of the software terms of use; but I both personally believe (from a moral standpoint), and in my legal judgement, that a vendor does not have the right to restrict your use on a purchase.

Software vendors try and get around this by saying that you don't purchase software, you effectively lease a license; but anywhere it has gone to court, that argument has been smacked down. So long as you actually pay for a copy of the software, you are within your fair use rights to use that software however you like.