Ok, um, no particular reason I’m mentioning this, but why the hell don’t all cars have some mechanism to prevent the battery from being totally drained? I have to believe that a simple mechanism/program to turn the lights off before the charge was too low for a reliable start would not be that expensive to implement — a decade ago.

“Well,” you might say, “there is such a mechanism. It’s called: don’t forget to turn off your damn lights.” (You might say that, if grammar wasn’t terribly important to you.)

Anyway, I’ll accept that explanation only from people who disable their O/S’s recycle bin/trash can, never use the backup battery in their PDAs/phones/etc., and love UNIX. Otherwise, it’s just nice to be user-friendly.

Who has time to think about the movie? I was too busy being scared by things in the theater. At the ticket stand: a sign promising you can “Thrill Your Date” — by buying a combo. In the theater itself: “I Can Only Imagine” on the Movie Tunes loop. Isn’t there some sort of tacit agreement that to be a crossover success you can’t mention Jesus? As it was, I was looking for the exit. (Later, the quasi-DJ promised “we’ll recycle ourselves and be right back.”)

After the confusion, I was glad to see the movie start. I’ve always enjoyed confidence scam/grifter movies, and I wanted to enjoy this one. Given this goal, I overlooked some quibbles (Dustin Hoffman was underused, Ed Burns’ voice grated at times, and the style/substance ratio went out of whack a few times) and found it a pleasing way to spend two hours.

A day later, I’m still conflicted over the second part of the Matrix trilogy. As much as I am tempted to say that the Matrix is all about style — and thus dialogue should be ignored wherever possible — I still can’t shake some disappointment.

Many of the scenes had the top-heavy, self-important quality of another disappointing film, especially during any scene that involved “the Council” or its members. (Or the fucking grating, pompous, self-important individual Neo meets late in the final act.)

The action scenes were a welcome respite, but even they occasionally came up short. In the vaunted armies-of-agents conflict, I was really looking forward to a demonstration of digital photogrammetry in action. While impressive, it wasn’t entirely convincing. Some portions of the scene made Neo seem too smooth — almost antialiased — and were just not convincing enough. A great step forward, but when I heard John Gaeta boasting about virtual cinematography, I really expected a show.

Here’s hoping the brothers hired a good (screenplay) editor for Revolutions.

I was cruising on a stretch of road with a 40mph speed limit, and I look up to discover I’m being tailgated — by a Ferrari. It’s a red Testarossa, with that unusually placed mirror. What’s more, he’s not just on my ass, he’s moving rapidly from side to side as if there’s some imaginary slalom course in our lane.

Fun stuff.

“Call for price.” Those simple words in any catalog drive me crazy. While I’ll grant that they make some sense for items that fluctuate in price during the gap between press and distribution, I know that the practice is also used to satisfy manufacturers who don’t want their products advertised below a certain level, lest the public think them cheap.

Even then, the “lowest advertised price” policy works right up until you get to the Internet. Then the practice becomes ridiculous, as when Amazon says “To see our low price, add this item to your cart.” At least one vendor has found an even more annoying method. (Workaround: in a search list, you can sort by price. With a query that’s general enough, you can figure out what the price is.)

It’s time to stop this silly practice. The Internet provides more pricing information than is available anywhere else. Cost is an essential and unavoidable part of e-commerce transactions, and there is no reason customers should be expected to jump through hoops merely to learn it.

I hope retailers will soon discover that fact.

Someday, the techies tell us, we will have Location-Based Services. Cell phones will tell us where we are and how to get where we want to go. I anxiously await that day, but until it comes I rely on a plain ol’ cellular and the patience and generosity of my net-enabled friends, to whom I am eternally grateful.

I don’t usually lift entire briefs from StudioBrief (would that be fair use?), but this one begs for comment:

Paul Hogan To Portray “Straight-Gay” Man
Crocodile Dundee star Paul Hogan will make his first fully Australian film in 16 years, when he returns to the country to star in Strange Bedfellows, about two straight men who declare themselves to be a homosexual couple to qualify for tax benefits, then have to learn how to behave like one when a tax investigator comes calling., the Australian Associated Press reported today (Tuesday). Hogan told the wire service that the Bedfellows script was the funniest he had ever read. “It’s the first script I’ve had where I thought, ‘I don’t have to rewrite any of this’,” he added.

Just as a refresher about Hogan’s ability to spot/create good writing, I present his writing credits. Yep. Exactly.

I’ve gotten a few e-mails confidently dismissing yesterday’s Weird Al post, noting the activity falls under “fair use.” I have a massive fair use (and “first sale”) post I’ve been meaning to do for some time.

Fortunately for you, dear reader, today is not that day.

To this point, let’s just say that all parody is not equivalent. Relevant case law in this area includes, most prominently, Campbell v. Acuff Rose Music, Inc. [syllabus]. That case concerned a 2Live Crew song “Oh, Pretty Woman” and whether it constituted fair use of the Roy Orbison original.

Was it a parody? Certainly. Did it therefore constitute fair use? Not necessarily. I’m sure you’d love me to go into the four tests in detail, but instead I’ll allow those who care to read the original decision. (Anyone? Anyone?) I’ll just leave you with this nugget from one analyst:

It is important to distinguish between parody of the original work, which is fair use, and use of the original work to parody something else, which requires permission. For this reason, entertainer “Weird Al” Yankovich has been unable to write any of his parodies to the tune “Purple Rain,” as the copyright owner with the unprintable name (it used to be “Prince”) has so far refused his requests for permission to use the tune. — What is “Fair Use” in Copyright Law?

“Weird Al” traditionally asks for permission not just because he’s a nice guy, but because he treads a very fine line, legally. Which is shame. The bigger shame, of course, is that Eminem doesn’t hold other people to the same standards he has for himself.

I was surprised to learn that Weird Al has to get permission to make his parodies. Michael Jackson allowed “Eat It”, Madonna allowed “Like A Surgeon”, but Eminem Won’t Let ‘Weird Al’ Parody Video for 8 Mile.

I find this behavior to be just a tad bit hypocritical from an artist who mocked Moby in his own work — and I’m sure that was without permission. But what does this say about copyright? Could there be any artist on Earth whose work is more clearly parody than Weird Al’s? I submit there is not.

That would be Stupid-Ass Republican Staffers, who are dishing out some amusing quotes while playing pattycake with the Dems on the cost of Bush’s Top Gun stunt. It’s pure politics, of course, but I found many of the quotes to be a textbook example of fallacious reasoning. (Quotes come from White House Defends Bush’s Jet Trip to Carrier, an NYT/CNN piece.)

Ok, let’s begin.

“The president wanted to go out somewhere to thank the men and women who made this possible in person,” White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters Wednesday. “They deserve nothing less. These are the men and women who fought a war to keep us free, to protect us and to save us.”

Translation: Who cares what it cost when it’s about the troops? The TROOPS, I tell you! And freedom! Yes, sweet freedom, like suckling at the warm bosom of Lady Liberty herself. Who’s got a question on freedom? Anybody?

The White House officials said the Navy recommended the jet as the safest mode of travel to the aircraft carrier because it offered the option to eject if the aircraft missed the deck on its approach for landing.

No, wait, I take it back. It’s about safety. Yes, safety — and not just the kind that our brave, true American soldiers brought us by bravely volunteering to protect freedom (did I mention freedom?) — but the safety of our dear, duly-elected leader. True, we didn’t talk about safety for any of the cabinet members who attended, such as Condi Rice. We didn’t really see why comparisons between every other time a president visited an aircraft carrier without using a fighter jet make this stance a contradiction, given that slamming a jet at full thrust onto a short landing strip in the hope that a hook said jet is trailing will snag a line, thus (usually) snapping the jet to a stop, is so doggone safe. None of that is important. But trust me, it’s so safe, you wouldn’t believe it. Much safer than, say, taking a boat the 30 miles to the carrier. Also, ignore those published reports about Dick Cheney suggesting the flight. It was, um, Navy safety experts.

“Bring it on,” said one senior official said of the Democratic criticism. “If they think there is something to be gained by investigating and criticizing the president for going out to welcome the troops home, they are even more ridiculous than I thought.”

Did we mention the troops?

But officials said the cost differences were analyzed and were marginal; one official said the hourly cost of using a helicopter was only slightly less expensive than using a jet. This official also said that in the end, the cost of the jet might actually be lower because it made the trip in less time than a helicopter would have.

I don’t know what that other guy was talking about. Safety? Pshaw! This is about your tax dollars. We looked at all the options and found this the cheapest. And why? I’m glad you asked. You see, I, a White House official, happen to be an expert on the cost of operation for military equipment. I was crunching some numbers and I have decided that faster = cheaper! It’s so logical, isn’t it?

In fact, since every flying machine has the same operating expenses, I can’t understand why airlines don’t service every airport with 747s. It would certainly be cheaper.

Of course, here in the Land of the Brave, we wish it could be free.

Dell sells tens of millions of dollars worth of equipment every day on their Website. That must mean they’re doing something right. Sadly, it’s not usability research. The site’s “configurator” has always had some annoying little quirks.

Consider this printer option form (shown at 90%):

First, assuming you want a Dell-branded Lexmark printer (which you probably don’t, given how expensive the proprietary cartridges are), you can pick it. But then, wait, what’s this next thing? “Remember to choose a pre-loaded printer driver”? Huh? What the hell kind of dumb statement is that? Why must I “remember”? What is “pre-loaded,” anyway? Is that like “loaded”?

It’s not just the way it’s asked (though much better approaches do exist) but the fact that they ask at all. When would anyone ever choose not to install a driver? Why doesn’t Dell ship all their computers with both drivers? It all reeks of something used to trigger an item on an installer’s list. If they’re going to pre-install MusicMatch without a “None” option, they can damn sure put some drivers on. They won’t hurt anything.

The same can’t be said for the annoying way they’re pushing USB cables. A cable is certainly required to connect a printer, but twenty bucks for a Dell house brand? I think not.

Update [02:48]: While we’re on the subject of clarity, I think B puts it best: “what the fuck is advanced exchange?” (The Help text doesn’t.)

Update [02:57]: Ahh, it’s a stupid marketing term for “ship you a replacement.” (Have to read the footnotes.) And how nice it sounds: “Replacement system or replacement part will be dispatched, if necessary, following phone-based troubleshooting, in advance of receipt of returned defective part or system. Replacements may be refurbished. Defective unit must be returned. Availability varies. Other conditions apply.” So, to sum up: your replacement — if available — may be used and subject to other conditions. What a warranty! This is sounding almost as good as paying for shorter hold times.

As my fellow ISU graduates/attendees are aware, our Webmail system sucks. For the longest time I didn’t use it at all, but I finally gave in because I like the protection afforded by SSL when I am away from my Kerberos-enabled e-mail client.

I’ve found the Webmail system can be painfully slow at times, not just in speed but also in interface. For example:

You got all that? A screenful of generic words that tell you nothing. (What folder am I deleting, any idea?) It gets worse: for those who don’t use the “fast” mode, this message displays with frames (!) and clunky button graphics that are dutifully downloaded each time (instead of about 20 bytes of code to have the Web browser make one.)

If I were doing it, here’s how I’d remake that same message:

It’s less than a third of the words, yet it provides more information. Also note the renaming of the “Continue” button. I think it is far more intuitive to label buttons with the actions they will trigger (the Mac OS model) than just a generic question answer.

Next up: an interface foible non-ISU people can actually see for themselves. (Aren’t you excited?)

Target thought I might enjoy a $5 discount on a Swiffer WetJet, so they dropped me an e-mail today to let me know about it.

They were mistaken.

I gave the unsubscribe link a click and jumped through the necessary hoops, to be informed that they’re happy to help:

We are happy to remove your name from our e-mail list. Please be aware that removal may take up to 30 days. We apologize if you receive an e-mail in the meantime.

Now I have a little bit of knowledge in this area. I might not be able to tell you why it takes 6-8 weeks to start a magazine subscription, 4-6 weeks to get a free game piece, or a lifetime for a rebate check, but databases, I know about. E-mail, I know about.

I know it doesn’t take 30 days to update a database, especially not one run by a third-party company specializing in (legit) commercial bulk e-mail. Database updates are measured in minutes (admittedly, sometimes hundreds of minutes), not weeks. Let’s hope that on- and off-line marketers will stop claiming otherwise.

Get this:

RABAT (Reuters) – King Mohammed of Morocco celebrated the birth of a son and heir on Thursday by ordering the release of more than 9,000 prisoners from Morocco’s crowded jails, one of the biggest royal pardons in the country’s history. — Morocco and Algeria Free Prisoners to Mark Birth

OK, let me say at the outset that I’m trying not to let my experiences in Morocco influence my judgment in this matter. That said — huh? What’s going on here? The king celebrates a new son by allowing 9,000 convicted criminals to go free and then reducing the sentences of another forty thousand?

Turns out Morocco’s jails are horrendously overcrowded, so maybe he was casting about for a pretense. Perhaps he was sending the petty crime offenders home. Yet in neighboring Algeria, they’re jumping on the bandwagon for no other reason than to commemorate the birthday of the Prophet Mohammed. Five thousand prisoners will be freed, and it sounds as if they’re not all lightweights: “The Algerian amnesty … included some inmates sentenced to life but not those jailed for terrorism, corruption, drug trafficking or rape, the radio said.”

In for murder? Pack your bags!

News.com reports that Microsoft’s next operating system may protect sensitive information windows from being forged by putting personalized details in the edges. (The example was dogs’ names: “A hacker can create a spoof page with dogs’ names running along the border but, in all likelihood, not one reading ‘Buffy, Skip and Jack Daniels–and in that order,’ Biddle said.”) A simlar idea has already been implemented in the Verified by Visa program, which displays a message unique to each cardholder in its pop-up screen.

I think it’s a smart approach, but for me it only emphasizes how poor the security cues are in current-generation Web browsers. A small padlock or key in the status area is insufficient as a cue for something as important as encryption. Perhaps the entire location block should change color for secured sites, in addition to the padlock (which would remain to help visually impaired users.)

When it comes to important transactions, I see no benefit in making security subtle.