Snakes on a Plane!

Following up on wadE’s post about Hollywood’s questionable movie-making techniques, I’d like to proudly present you with the following monstrosity, since I just now heard about it:

Snakes on a Plane!
(Starring Samuel L. Jackson!)

Ok. … Really? ‘Cause that sounds like an awful movie. And I looked at the cast list, it’s just Samuel L. and a bunch of people no one’s ever heard of*. However, I will allow for the fact that it may be so awful as to be entertaining, much like Lake Placid, or Deep Blue Sea. But I don’t think that’s probably what the movie makers intended, nor am I going to hold my breath for that outcome.

Ah well, what do I care? I’ll just continue to vote with my wallet, by not going to see the things. I just wish I had better options for when I do want to go see something.

*(I’m well aware that many of you will say you’ve heard of Julianna Margulies. Whatever.)

The Return of Mix Tape

If you’ve been around the site before, you know that we started out in this business by writing longer, feature-length pieces, which we will officially be calling ‘articles’ under the new system. Each time one of us writes an article, we will post an announcement here on the main site proclaiming its link location. These posts will contain an article-specific tag, so if you’re looking for an archive by author of our new articles, you can find it via the pull-down menu on the side of each page. End preamble.

With that in mind, I am happy to provide you with a new installment of Mix Tape, my musical top ten list. Enjoy.

Dan Serafini

Oh good grief.

Found the following link via Deadspin, for the record:

Gotta hand it to that crack staff at the Good Neighbor. I’d seen a few of his comments at Deadspin, checked out his blog, and gotten a chuckle that anyone, anywhere, would name anything after Dan Serafini. Did I ever think for one moment that this person was actually Mr. Serafini? No. In fact, it was really pretty damn obvious that it wasn’t.

Then again, who’s to say that this anonymous man didn’t pitch for the ’97 Twins? They were so bad, it wouldn’t have mattered.

Forgiveness Please!

Hey Folks.

We’ve switched our comments to the built-in system (trying to streamline things around here a bit), and I’m sorry to say in the process I destroyed all your old comments.  At least we’ve only been up and running for a week.  All new posts going forward will have comments open, and when I get time I’ll go back and turn ’em on for the old posts, so you can go back and re-live the glory of past conversations (if you so choose).

For now we’ll have the only requirement be to provide name and email address to post.  If the SPAM gets to be too much, we’ll put something more onerous in place.

Carry on.  (and thanks for your patience.)

The Tubes Will be Plugged!

Ok, I’m gonna put a link at the bottom of this to explain where I’m coming from, but let’s try the concept on for size first. We’re talking today about ‘Net Neutrality. Now bear in mind, I work with people who work with computers, and I realize that you should never take someone’s understanding of a concept for granted. So let me try to explain ‘Net Neutrality in my own words.

Say you get your internet service from a company – for illustrative purposes we’ll call them QWorst. QWorst also offers you a way to run your phone over the internet, but you feel it’s too expensive, so you don’t get it.

Well another company comes along – Bob’s Internet Phone Shack. They offer phone over the internet, and they cost only a quarter as much as QWorst does. All you need to run Bob’s phone service is the internet, which you’re getting through QWorst. Piece of cake, right? You buy your internet from QWorst, and your phone service from Bob’s. It’s a shining example of capitalism, you’re choosing the phone company that offers you the cheapest price.

Well the Net Neutrality we’re talking about would make it illegal for QWorst to do anything to their internet service that would make Bob’s phone service run slower than QWorst’s own phone service. The idea being that the internet itself is neutral, and that companies should not take unfair advantage of the technology to stick it to the consumer. I think we can all agree on that, right?

Not Sentaor Ted Stevens, (R-Alaska). Read in wonderment, folks.

I can’t even begin to tell you where this goes wrong, but I do love the fact that his staff sent an internet. I don’t even know what that means, but it sure sounds impressive. He must really know what he’s talking about. We should trust him with our rights.

Hold on. Wait. Come to think of it, I know exactly where this goes wrong. He thinks the internet is a bunch of tubes! Tubes!!!! I’m picturing Senator Stevens picturing the internet as an immensely complicated network of vacuum tubes, like the kind he still uses to deposit money at the bank. And if all this fancy technology is allowed to run unfettered, it’ll clog up the tubes!