The TV news, even Fox, is pushing this idea. If you don't have health insurance, then when you do go to the the hospital, you get treated for free, and the doctors jack up their fees on the insured to cover the free health care they give the uninsured. Therefore it's fair and just to demand that everyone buy health insurance. TV newsies have bought into this fantasy, which indicates that they are mostly of low IQ, and poorly educated to boot.
This isn't true. Not even now. If you turn up in the emergency room with out insurance, they treat you and then they bill you. In fact they play catchup and bill you double what they bill on an insurance job. And you have to pay up, there are courts and sheriff's to force you to pay up. They can garnishee your wages if you won't write a check.
If you are destitute, without money, unemployed and homeless, you cannot pay the doctor bill. Nor can you afford to buy health insurance. The only way the truly poor have health insurance is the government gives it to them, free. Or, free to them, but paid for with my tax money. This is an improvement?
Monday, March 26, 2012
It's snowing
They must have canceled spring. After three days of really nice warm weather, it's well below freezing and the ground is snowcovered again. It's supposed to drop below zero tonight.
Hunger Games, Good Flick
Went to see it last night. It's the third night running at the Jax Jr, and so the crowd was medium sized, the true fans saw it on opening night. I haven't read the book, and was seeing the movie 'cause of all the buzz on the Internet. This is a science fiction movie, set on Earth, in the far future. So far in the future that present day countries, institutions, and even personal names are gone, lost in the dim past. It's an impoverished world, with the 99% scratching out a living from the land, and the 1% living in luxury at Capitol. It's all live acting, with little CGI.
For a book based movie, it was very watchable, the plot was understandable, the dialogue was reasonable. Better than the later Harry Potter's, where the plot is unintelligible if you haven't read the book. The sound man did his job on this one and the dialogue was audible, unlike all too many films were the sound is terrible and the dialogue is lost under the score and the sound effects. Give this flick some points for that. The camera man started off with the annoying modern "shake the camera" and "fast cut piled upon fast cut" technique which has spoiled so many movies, but he wised up and used a tripod once the movie gets rolling.
Katniss and Peeta, the heroine and hero, are well written and beautifully acted. They are portrayed as decent, tough, caring, brave young people, thrown into a terrible situation. They are selected to compete in the annual Hunger Games, a "Survivor with live ammunition" type of gladiatorial game, televised for the entertainment of the 1%. The game continues until only one contestant is left alive. With this threat hanging over them, Katniss and Peeta manage to fall in love giving the movie a Romeo and Juliet type of attraction. Heh, if it works for Shakespeare, it can't be all bad. Katniss and Peeta are much more attractive characters than the Twilight protagonists who come across as whiny and flaky. Despite the unfairness of their treatment, and their world, Katniss and Peeta don't whine, they shoulder their packs and move out. Watching the movie, I fell in love with both of them, and rooted for them to win. It's been a long time since I enjoyed a movie character as much.
This movie has been marketed as a teenager's love flick. It's better than that. In fact it's the best Hollywood movie to come out in years. Go and see it.
For a book based movie, it was very watchable, the plot was understandable, the dialogue was reasonable. Better than the later Harry Potter's, where the plot is unintelligible if you haven't read the book. The sound man did his job on this one and the dialogue was audible, unlike all too many films were the sound is terrible and the dialogue is lost under the score and the sound effects. Give this flick some points for that. The camera man started off with the annoying modern "shake the camera" and "fast cut piled upon fast cut" technique which has spoiled so many movies, but he wised up and used a tripod once the movie gets rolling.
Katniss and Peeta, the heroine and hero, are well written and beautifully acted. They are portrayed as decent, tough, caring, brave young people, thrown into a terrible situation. They are selected to compete in the annual Hunger Games, a "Survivor with live ammunition" type of gladiatorial game, televised for the entertainment of the 1%. The game continues until only one contestant is left alive. With this threat hanging over them, Katniss and Peeta manage to fall in love giving the movie a Romeo and Juliet type of attraction. Heh, if it works for Shakespeare, it can't be all bad. Katniss and Peeta are much more attractive characters than the Twilight protagonists who come across as whiny and flaky. Despite the unfairness of their treatment, and their world, Katniss and Peeta don't whine, they shoulder their packs and move out. Watching the movie, I fell in love with both of them, and rooted for them to win. It's been a long time since I enjoyed a movie character as much.
This movie has been marketed as a teenager's love flick. It's better than that. In fact it's the best Hollywood movie to come out in years. Go and see it.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
So why did John Carter flop?
Disney is writing off the $35o million spent on John Carter. They figure the movie will earn no more than $150 million. It's too bad, there will be no sequels. So why? What did they mess up?
The fans have been generally supportive with their Internet reviews. The pro's have panned it from the beginning.
First off, the camera work was bad. Here we are on Mars, with big green men, exotic animals, strange scenery, and we want to see it, take it in. But the camera never steadies down to let us admire the view. For that matter we would like some good views of Dejah Thoris looking beautiful and John Carter looking heroic. In Avatar, we get a good look at the colorful, romantic, and beautiful world of Pandora. In fact Avatar was a National Geographic documentary of the wonders of far off Pandora. And we viewers enjoyed the show. On Mars, the camera never steadies down long enough to enjoy the view, and, what little we can see is dusty and shabby, not red romantic desertscapes under two moons.
Then the movie lacks the deep love between John Carter and Dejah Thoris. In the book it goes like this.
"I understand your words John Carter," Dejah Thoris said, " But you I do not understand. You are a queer mixture of child and man, of brute and noble. I only wish that I might read your heart."
"Look down at your feet, Dejah Thoris; it lies there now, where it has lain since that other night at Korad, and where it will ever lies beating alone for you until death stills it forever." replied John Carter.
No American man from this age of instant hookups, pre nuptial agreements, no fault divorce, and single parent families, is going to make such an irrevocable declaration of love and loyalty to a woman. Not in the 21st century. But oh boy, how we would love to meet a woman worthy of such devotion. This relationship made the Mars books what they are. The movie lacks it, and turns Dejah Thoris into Xena the Warrior Princess. Xena had many virtues, but you wouldn't want to fall in love with her.
In the book, John Carter and Dejah Thoris escape from captivity among the Tharks and set off riding double across the red ocher moss of the Martian desert. Along the way they are discovered and attacked by yet another tribe of green Martians. In an emotional scene, John Carter sends Dejah Thoris to safety over her protests, and takes his long radium rifle, with 100 rounds in the magazine, and another 100 rounds in a backpack, and stands off a charge of mounted green Martians. After expending all that ammunition, he lays into them with the sword. The movie skips the gunfight and cuts the sword fight down to just another passage of arms. They did not show John Carter pulling the strangely wrought Martian firearm from a scabbard on the riding animal, snapping down the bipod legs, and taking a prone shooting position hidden on a ridgeline. We did not see the crosshairs line up on a enemy, and the explosive round blowing the target off his mount. Couple more such shots, and we would believe that a great battle had occurred. The movie skips all this.
The fans have been generally supportive with their Internet reviews. The pro's have panned it from the beginning.
First off, the camera work was bad. Here we are on Mars, with big green men, exotic animals, strange scenery, and we want to see it, take it in. But the camera never steadies down to let us admire the view. For that matter we would like some good views of Dejah Thoris looking beautiful and John Carter looking heroic. In Avatar, we get a good look at the colorful, romantic, and beautiful world of Pandora. In fact Avatar was a National Geographic documentary of the wonders of far off Pandora. And we viewers enjoyed the show. On Mars, the camera never steadies down long enough to enjoy the view, and, what little we can see is dusty and shabby, not red romantic desertscapes under two moons.
Then the movie lacks the deep love between John Carter and Dejah Thoris. In the book it goes like this.
"I understand your words John Carter," Dejah Thoris said, " But you I do not understand. You are a queer mixture of child and man, of brute and noble. I only wish that I might read your heart."
"Look down at your feet, Dejah Thoris; it lies there now, where it has lain since that other night at Korad, and where it will ever lies beating alone for you until death stills it forever." replied John Carter.
No American man from this age of instant hookups, pre nuptial agreements, no fault divorce, and single parent families, is going to make such an irrevocable declaration of love and loyalty to a woman. Not in the 21st century. But oh boy, how we would love to meet a woman worthy of such devotion. This relationship made the Mars books what they are. The movie lacks it, and turns Dejah Thoris into Xena the Warrior Princess. Xena had many virtues, but you wouldn't want to fall in love with her.
In the book, John Carter and Dejah Thoris escape from captivity among the Tharks and set off riding double across the red ocher moss of the Martian desert. Along the way they are discovered and attacked by yet another tribe of green Martians. In an emotional scene, John Carter sends Dejah Thoris to safety over her protests, and takes his long radium rifle, with 100 rounds in the magazine, and another 100 rounds in a backpack, and stands off a charge of mounted green Martians. After expending all that ammunition, he lays into them with the sword. The movie skips the gunfight and cuts the sword fight down to just another passage of arms. They did not show John Carter pulling the strangely wrought Martian firearm from a scabbard on the riding animal, snapping down the bipod legs, and taking a prone shooting position hidden on a ridgeline. We did not see the crosshairs line up on a enemy, and the explosive round blowing the target off his mount. Couple more such shots, and we would believe that a great battle had occurred. The movie skips all this.
Friday, March 23, 2012
MacBeth
So I got it from Netflix. It's the 1979 version with Ian McKellan. Bad idea. No sets, no scenery, just a dark black stage. No costumes. The actors recite Shakespeare's verses in a sing song tone, no life, no warmth. Ian McKellan's black hair is all slicked down with Brylcreem. That greasy kid stuff. And it's all dark, just the actor's faces show in the darkness. No tartans. I mean what's Macbeth without at least a tartan scarf? The three witches don't even have a kettle simmering over a fire.
There must be better Shakespeare than this one.
There must be better Shakespeare than this one.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Harden the electric power grid against hackers
NHPR did a long piece this morning. They talked about regulation, deregulation, and who was in favor of more regulation. Not once did they talk about what to do about vulnerabilities.
What to do is straight forward. Do not use the public internet to monitor or control generators, circuit breakers or other equipment. And do not use Windows computers for any of the same purposes.
Back when we were selling data acquisition equipment to the electric generating industry, I saw a remote controled generator. A big gas turbine unit was humming happily away. They had an ordinary desktop computer running a remote control program. The computer monitor showed an image of the turbine, a little arrow showed it was turning, instrument readings for oil temp, oil pressure, exhaust gas temp, rpm, amps, volts, engine pressure ratio, and more. It was about 10:30 AM, and the power station man sat down at the remote control and ordered the generator to shut down. It was a peaking plant, only run for the morning and evening power peaks, and 10:30 was the end of the morning peak period. A few key clicks, and the big turbine obediently shut down, we could see the RPM and EGT winding down on the display.
The turbine was l0cated a couple of miles away. The controller sent little messages (Start Up, Shut Down) over the internet. A computer at the remote generator listened to the internet and acted upon orders coming in from the net.
All an enemy hacker needs do, is learn the addresses and the codes used and send his own commands to the turbine. If the computer at the turbine is a Windows machine he can load his own code into it and really go to town. First step of such an invasive program is to reject all messages from it's proper owner, and only accept commands from the hacker.
The fix is simple. Connect the remote computer to the control center with a pair of your own wires, hung on your own poles, by your own people. Then the command link is secure against any sort of Internet attack. To gain control the hacker has to climb a pole and splice in a tap. Hackers are swivel chair people, they don't climb poles.
As for Windows, we all know how vulnerable Windows is to anything. The famous Stuxnet program that did great damage to the Iranian nuclear program spread via Windows "autorun" feature. Windows has so many security holes that it's beyond fixing. Computers running Linux, Unix, MAC OS, anything, can be made secure. Windows is so bad that it is beyond hope.
What to do is straight forward. Do not use the public internet to monitor or control generators, circuit breakers or other equipment. And do not use Windows computers for any of the same purposes.
Back when we were selling data acquisition equipment to the electric generating industry, I saw a remote controled generator. A big gas turbine unit was humming happily away. They had an ordinary desktop computer running a remote control program. The computer monitor showed an image of the turbine, a little arrow showed it was turning, instrument readings for oil temp, oil pressure, exhaust gas temp, rpm, amps, volts, engine pressure ratio, and more. It was about 10:30 AM, and the power station man sat down at the remote control and ordered the generator to shut down. It was a peaking plant, only run for the morning and evening power peaks, and 10:30 was the end of the morning peak period. A few key clicks, and the big turbine obediently shut down, we could see the RPM and EGT winding down on the display.
The turbine was l0cated a couple of miles away. The controller sent little messages (Start Up, Shut Down) over the internet. A computer at the remote generator listened to the internet and acted upon orders coming in from the net.
All an enemy hacker needs do, is learn the addresses and the codes used and send his own commands to the turbine. If the computer at the turbine is a Windows machine he can load his own code into it and really go to town. First step of such an invasive program is to reject all messages from it's proper owner, and only accept commands from the hacker.
The fix is simple. Connect the remote computer to the control center with a pair of your own wires, hung on your own poles, by your own people. Then the command link is secure against any sort of Internet attack. To gain control the hacker has to climb a pole and splice in a tap. Hackers are swivel chair people, they don't climb poles.
As for Windows, we all know how vulnerable Windows is to anything. The famous Stuxnet program that did great damage to the Iranian nuclear program spread via Windows "autorun" feature. Windows has so many security holes that it's beyond fixing. Computers running Linux, Unix, MAC OS, anything, can be made secure. Windows is so bad that it is beyond hope.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Israelis think an air strike will work
As in Israeli Air Force strikes Iranian nuclear sites. Blomberg News reporter Jeffrey Goldberg has a piece here. He spent some time in Israel, talking to Israeli officials. They talked about a favorable reaction inside Iran, a strengthening of the Iranian internal opposition, and the Iranians not immediately declaring war on Israel. And setting back the Iranian A-bomb project by 5 years. Goldberg writes mostly about the political angles to such a strike.
A weakness of the Goldberg piece is lack of objective data, such as how many nuclear sites do the Iranian's have? And how deeply are they buried? Are they buried under loose desert sand or under hard granite? Can Israeli deep penetration bombs go that deep? Do the Israeli's have enough planes to strike ALL the sites on the same night? Or would they have to fly multiple strikes on successive nights? Do Israel's aircraft have the range to fly the mission round trip, or will they need aerial tanker support? How many tankers do the Israeli's have? In short, would an Israeli air strike actually hurt the Iranian A-bomb project, or would it merely give the Iranians an expensive fireworks display?
And then there is disinformation. Was I running Israel, I'd tell my people to keep the Iranians worried about an air strike, just to make life harder for them. And to encourage Israelis who are under terrible pressure of events and could use a little hope.
A weakness of the Goldberg piece is lack of objective data, such as how many nuclear sites do the Iranian's have? And how deeply are they buried? Are they buried under loose desert sand or under hard granite? Can Israeli deep penetration bombs go that deep? Do the Israeli's have enough planes to strike ALL the sites on the same night? Or would they have to fly multiple strikes on successive nights? Do Israel's aircraft have the range to fly the mission round trip, or will they need aerial tanker support? How many tankers do the Israeli's have? In short, would an Israeli air strike actually hurt the Iranian A-bomb project, or would it merely give the Iranians an expensive fireworks display?
And then there is disinformation. Was I running Israel, I'd tell my people to keep the Iranians worried about an air strike, just to make life harder for them. And to encourage Israelis who are under terrible pressure of events and could use a little hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)