Second Hand Lions
I'm not even going to try to summarize the whole plot — if you've gotten this far, you should have rented the movie and watched it already (or perhaps you caught it in theaters). Ok, Ed, you can keep reading, but anyone else must go rent the movie first.
The basic plot we have here is that of the two eccentric uncles and their young great nephew, Walter, who has been all but abandoned by his mother at the beginning of the movie. Throughout the movie, the uncles tell the story of their journey through Europe, fighting in Africa during World War I, and Uncle Hub's finding of, and loss of, true love. The story that the uncles tell Walt is certainly wild and the one uncle even questions if the young man believes the story. Along the way there are people that claim they know the “real” story — the Uncles really were mafia members or the uncles were cruel bank robbers. The latter storyteller, Walt's mother's questionable fiance, even suggests that Hub's “true love” Jasmine was actually merely someone left to die at the scene of a bank robbery.
Ultimately, Walter chooses to ignore the nay-sayers and stays with his Uncles rather than going with his lie-telling Mother. Despite that, I think both the audience and Walter wonder if the stories his uncles told him really are true or only a cover up. As Uncle Hub tells Walter, it doesn't always matter if something is true, that isn't always what is important. Walter needs to believe in his uncles and so he does. He takes a leap of faith.
This reminded me so much of how it is with our relationship with God. Like Walter, we are mere children in need of someone to watch over us and lead us. God offers us the opportunity to be His sons and daughters and we experience just a tidbit of a real relationship with Him while on earth. The world itself remains theistically ambiguous and there are plenty of people making claims as to who God really is or whether God is God at all. We can choose to believe the critics or we can choose a leap of faith.
Taking a leap of faith does not mean believing something that is not true. Walter has evidence to support his belief in his uncles' stories (such as the sandy chest with the picture of Jasmine in it), but he also has evidence that seems to point in the opposite direction (such as the bank-like safe hidden in the barn). Walter keeps the faith despite the ambiguity of things and that is what makes the end of this movie so poignant: as he arrives to see the airplane wreck that has brought both uncles to their demise, a helicopter from a Middle East oil company lands and out steps the son of the sheik from his uncles' stories. He had seen the plain wreck on the news and recognized the names of Walt's uncles. The stories were true both men standing there discover that day.
Isn't it the same with God? In this life we will never have all of the proof to silence every critic. I believe this is very much for a reason, which I'll address in my next movie review, hopefully later this week. But for now, just consider that fact. I will never be able to prove God to everyone. There will always be arguments from people trying to convince me otherwise. But, just like Walter needed to trust his uncles before he had all of the proof, so that he could gain the wisdom and love they had to offer, we must trust God now. After this life we will have the equivalent of a helicopter landing with “the proof,” but then it is too late to seize upon that truth.
Back To Busy-ness
I have a mixed accuracy record.
Brit Lit I - I was a bit skeptical about this course, but overall pleased with it. It turned out to be a very good course rather than just an OK one. I liked it a lot. The professor turned out to be excellent and, in fact, is the one teaching Shakespeare this semester. (Better than predicted.)
Philosophy of Religion - This class was absolutely excellent. If you saw the Questions of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud TV special, you saw the material we covered in an abridged form. It ended up often taking the form of debates, just like the panel on PBS, only the debates were much better informed in the class than on TV. (Same as predicted.)
Modern Poetry - This class was disappointing. It was taught by an excellent professor, but the material was not logically ordered and things just didn't seem to flow as much as I would have hoped. (Below prediction.)
World Lit II - This class ended up taking on a lot of the elements of a religion class and was the second best class of the semester. Fascinating, engaging, etc. The material reminded me of why I'm there trying to get a lit-focused degree. (Better than predicted.)
Rennessiance Lit - This class was good, although there was simply too much material to cover and the amount covered in one period was sometimes a bit overwhelming — it would be better in a fifty minute format than a 75 minute one. As a whole, though, it was interesting and I had the opportunity to devote a paper to literary influence in Puritanism. (Same as predicted.)
Sunday Brunch: Sitcoms
Christopher just had some Sunday Brunch, so I thought I'd have some too. Join me in the comment, if you'd like.
1) What sitcom have you seen every episode of?
None. I have come quite close with I Love Lucy and I Dream of Jeannie, but despite constant reruns, a few episodes elude me.
2) What sitcom makes you laugh until you cry?
Most any one I'll waste my time watching must, at least on occasion, cause me to laugh hard enough that I cry. Let's see, that would include the two aforementioned ones with episodes such as the Vitametavegimin episode and most of the Hollywood episodes of I Love Lucy, just to name a few. Likewise, for example the Tony sounds like Caruso episode on I Dream of Jeannie. I'd also point out the Beverly Hillbillies on this point, with classic episodes such as the one where Jed, Jethro and Elly May think they are buying a piece of land for Granny and they are really buying a cemetery plot — you have to see it to understand it.
3) What sitcom do you wish had not been canceled?
I Dream of Jeannie could have gone longer, as could have Gilligan's Island. Those two are the only ones coming to me right now as shows that died before they really deserved to.
4) What sitcom do you wish they WOULD cancel?
Given that none of the modern ones intrigue me, I rather wish they'd cancel them all so perhaps the writers would go back to the drawing board and come up with something a bit better.
5) Who is your favorite sitcom character, either past or present?
Tough! Probably Lucy Ricardo. But Dr. Bellows, Granny from the Beverly Hillbillies, Mr. Bean and numerous others also are worth mentioning. Lucy gets the nod because Lucille Ball had a knack for comedy that I have not seen from anyone else. Her perfect timing on facial expressions, proficiency at slapstick and her character's general “likability” all play into this.
Coffee: How Do I Love Thee?
My good friend Eduardo is presently on vacation, and invited several people, including myself, to guest blog on his site over the time period of January 14-February 1. So far, two of my other friends and fellow bloggers, Josiah and Ed, have posted some interesting posts that are most definitely worth checking out.
Today, I finally posted a piece over there, which I thought I would link to from here. It is a piece honoring everyone's favorite brown liquid — coffee. Take a look and join me in celebrating the world's most perfect form of caffeine.
Request for Comments: Pingback NG
Trackback
Trackback is older than Pingback and is dominant primarily because it was advocated by Six Apart (MovableType). Now, with the winds blowing in WordPress' favor (at least from what I can see), I wonder if Trackback will eventually be marginalized, since Pingback is automatic in WordPress, whereas Trackback is not.
The flaws in Trackback, in my opinion, are as follows: (1) the pinging process uses the HTTP POST form data mechanism rather than XML-RPC and (2) there is no notification of what form the link takes on the site initiating the trackback. The first is a flaw that seems to be caused by a desire for simplicity. To send a form via Perl using Trackback, all we need to do is call LWP::UserAgent and feed it the form item names and contents. Easy, but not that much easier than feeding a properly formed XML-RPC document to LWP::UserAgent using the same POST method. This creates a situation where we send information in one format (URI Encoded form data) and receive a response in a different format (XML). The second flaw probably wasn't obvious when the spec was originally created, but is now clear; since I know what entry is being linked to but not the actual URL leading to that entry, my blogware must scan the initiating site's page for every possible format my URL might be in, if I wish to verify that linkage has taken place. Adding another parameter to the trackback spec (it could be optional for backwards compatibility) that contained the form of the link that the initiating blog was asserting it was using, would allow for an easy rectification of this issue.
Pingback
Pingback's problems are bit more annoying than what I have listed above. First, since the only two parameters of the spec are the initiating blog entry's URL and the destination URL (which, does, at least, solve my second complaint concerning Trackback), we are confronted with a big problem on a dynamic web site. The pingback client might tell me that http://site/blog/entry/22 is being linked to, but if I support multiple URL formats to request a given document (either directly via the blogware or indirectly via mod_rewrite), I must perform pattern matching to figure out exactly what http://site/blog/entry/22 links to. This isn't a problem in cases where the pages are static, such as some of those that Pingback seeks to support, but it is the problem in the case of blogware. This is not a problem with Trackback, since the trackback server can be different for each page (thereby identifying which document is being linked to), but it does rear its ugly head with Pingback, since the goal is to have one Pingback server for all documents on the site.
Therefore, I would propose that an additional, optional attribute should be added: Pingback-ID. This would be a text string that could be in any form and could be provided in the HTTP headers, just as X-Pingback supplies the pingback server location. A pingback enabled site could push this additional X-Pingback-ID header just as easily as the primary Pingback header, and it could specify, in the form of the server's own choosing, how to properly identify the page. The form of the string could be the local path to the document, an article ID number or perhaps even something encrypted so that the server could insure that it received an unmodified copy when the string is sent back. Even in the case of pingbacks to static documents, the server could pass along a Pingback-ID to insure that the real file being linked to is easily identifiable, should its actual location be obscured by mod_rewrite, for instance. The format would not need to be specified in the Pingback spec, since only the server needs to understand what the string means. Once the client pulled in this information, the resulting XML-RPC ping could contain this parameter in addition to the standard parameters of the pingback.
The second flaw I see in Pingback is that it does not include any useful information about the initiating site. Optional parameters ought to include title/site name and a text excerpt/description, in the same manner as a Trackback. Without this, the Pingback server must go and attempt to pick out useful substitute information from the initiating site if we want to include pingbacks with trackbacks in the comments section of a blog (as WordPress does and I have also done in SAFARI). While this works, it can produce less useful results than if we are fed the proper information by the author of the source document. By making this optional, we would avoid making the Pingback spec any more specifically tied to blogs than it already is, while greatly enhancing its ability to be a suitable mechanism for blog-to-blog communication.
Conclusion
Pingback's flaws, in my estimation, make it harder to implement in a manner that provides the Trackback-like functionality it is being used for in WordPress and other blogware, and frankly, limits its usefulness even in broader deployments, due to problems such as the aforementioned inability to easily determine what the destination URL links to on a server that uses mod_rewrite or otherwise is non-static.
That said, Pingback is consistent in its usage of XML-RPC, and therefore is preferable, in my estimation, to Trackback in the future. An improved, Next Generation Pingback spec (or “Pingback NG,” for short) could easily remove the most problematic parts of the system, creating a spec that was simple and efficient to implement in blogware, like Trackback, while remaining more flexible than Trackback in where it can be applied.
Useful links:Another Favor
I believe I have pingback and trackback fully implemented (both the client and server). Both work against my test implementations of themselves, as well as against my test WordPress installation. That said, testing on the same server doesn't provide all the variables that could be involved. Thus, I am asking anyone who would be willing to please pingback or trackback against this entry — especially if you use MovableType (but even if you don't!). Five juicy asisaid points are yours for the taking if you do so, just for making me feel better about my code.
Note: I have it setup so that it only accepts one trackback/pingback from a given entry, so if you try to do both a pingback and a trackback, you'll find it only accepts whichever one is sent first. Also, I have everything in place for automatic detection of both types of pings, however, if your blogware needs to be manually fed a Trackback URL, you'll find one on the permalink'ed version of this page.
Thanks for your help! And thanks, once again, to Christopher, Josiah and Eduardo for their volunteering on my last call for help. Without the help of you three, I may not have gotten this far so soon.
Oligopoly Versus Monopoly for the Future
For the moment, neither Apple nor Microsoft are in any position to exercise anti-competitive behavior (the only part of being a monopoly that is illegal), simply because digital music is still a minute chunk of the market. But, both companies are behaving the way they usually do, so we can pretty much guess what things will be like once digital downloads become the dominate form of distribution by analyzing the two companies' track records.
Apple is a vertical kind of company. They create as much as possible in house so that it works in a simple and elegant fashion. You'll pay a bit more and you shouldn't wait for compatible clones, they ain't happing. That isn't the Apple way. This is the same as many other segments of the industry — for instance, the electronic gaming industry, where you would never expect a Nintendo Gamecube to be able to run Sony PlayStation 2 software. You could probably expect a lawsuit to occur if Nintendo even tried, just as Sony sued Connectix in the late nineties for making a Virtual PlayStation. And that's perfectly reasonable and legal.
Microsoft has a very different approach, partially because Microsoft is only a software company (normally, at least), unlike Apple, who has always been mostly a hardware company. Microsoft has always sought to open the hardware portion of the business up, because they aren't in that business. Yet, Microsoft is the company that has violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, quite likely for a reason that is lost on no one: they do not make the hardware, but by establishing a firm software monopoly, they have essentially taken all but a facade of control away from individual hardware makers. HP, Dell, Gateway and others who are beholden to Microsoft cannot afford to make Microsoft mad, lest they be cut out of volume discounts and development partnerships. This is true, even in the post-DOJ v. Microsoft world.
How does this factor into music? It factors in perfectly. Apple has chosen to keep FairPlay close to home, licensing it only to a fellow member of the PowerPC AIM trio (Apple/IBM/Motorola). Apple did, apparently, also approach Sony last year, only to be turned down, but essentially, Apple doesn't license stuff. The closest you'll likely see, I believe, would be more HP-like deals where Apple will co-brand iPods like PalmOne did in the past with Palm PDA's. Apple never tries to hide this. Microsoft, on the other hand, is on track to create the same kind of abusive monopoly in media players that they have in computers — all they have to do is topple the Apple iPod phenomenon. Think about it. Try to name one major media player, other than the iPod, that doesn't use Microsoft technology. You won't think of one, save for the dismal failure that is the Sony MP3 player.
That's right. Part of your purchase price for a Creative NuVo, Rio, Dell DJ, RCA Lyra, iRiver, etc. goes back to Redmond as licensing for Windows Media support, now known as PlayForSure. Likewise, think of online stores and try to name just one that uses something other than Windows Media, save for iTMS and Sony's store. This is very important. Microsoft has essentially secured control of both sides of the equation just like Apple has done with the iPod/iTMS, only there remains a facade of competition that will become increasingly hollow, presuming Microsoft manages to secure a majority share of the market.
Given that Apple seeks only to control its own platform, and not everyone else's, we can be confident, I believe, that even if the iPod remains the dominate player, Apple will never secure a real monopoly, simply because the iPod will not be the best player for every single person. However, Microsoft's plan allows for a very real ability to create another abusive monopoly, since Microsoft seeks to play the role of puppet master rather than actor on the stage of multimedia.
The media player war is only the beginning. Both Apple and Microsoft are trying hard to get their competing formats accepted as part of the next generation DVD standard. Whomever holds this will likely be given easy passage to dominance in the majority of multimedia on TV, the computer and elsewhere. While a win for Microsoft will usher in an era of the proprietary Windows Media Format, Apple's entry is only partially proprietary. It is true that the PlayFair DRM is proprietary, but AAC, the format of iTMS, is based on the open standard MPEG-4. In fact, the parts of QuickTime that Apple is advocating for DVD playing are also components of MPEG-4. What Apple has done with media formats is much like what it has done with Mac OS X. It has a proprietary element, but Apple has also willingly used an open foundation in both cases (MPEG-4 and the now FSF-approved APSL-licensed Darwin, respectively).
So, which is worse? An oligopoly where Apple controls its portion of the market, but is never dominate and even uses open standards as its foundation, or a competitively facaded monopoly dominated by Microsoft (and the companies beholden to the same) as one prong in its Trusted Computing Initiative?
To Geek or Not to Geek
I found this via Christopher. I'm nerdier than I thought.
More Code Debugging
http://whatintarnation.net/blog/archives/2005/01/06/blast-from-the-past-ii-my-first-field-trip/ For debug purposes, please ignore.
Could I Ask a Favor?
I'm trying to finish my pingback/trackback client implementation for SAFARI. I set up a copy of WordPress to use as a test target, but it isn't working right (my WordPress installation can't seem to locate the test entries I posted on it). Would any asisaid reader using WordPress be willing to allow me to send some test pings/trackbacks to an old blog pos on your site? It would be a lot easier if I was testing against a WP installation that I knew was in working order.
Thanks in advance! I'll provide extra asisaid points — how about 30? — for willing victi… volunteers.
