Thanks, Amy. The two that I have now are formerly Lee's, so I could keep that set together.

I couldn't decide if this was better placed in Tech or in Movies, so here it is in Natter -- What code DOESN'T do in real life (that it does in the movies):

1. Code does not move
In films and television code is always sailing across the screen at incredible speeds; it's presented as an indecipherable stream of letters and numbers that make perfect sense to the programmer but dumbfound everyone else. I understand that to the non-savvy person the abilities of a programmer might seem amazingly complex, but do they honestly think we can read shit that isn't sitting still? It'd be like trying to read six newspapers flying around in a tornado. Sure, I can watch a kernel compile, tail a log file, or simply monitor the scrolling output of a program - but the most value I get out of those activities is when execution stops and I can actually scroll back to read what the hell happened (unless the output was going slow enough I could read it as it happened).

5. Code does not make blip noises as it appears on the screen
This goes for ANY text, not just code. When text appears on my monitor it doesn't make blip sounds - this isn't 1902 (or whenever monitors used to do that). This is one of the most common offenses in Hollywood films, almost every movie that has a scene where a character is composing an email or surfing the net has the text make blippity-blip sounds as it appears. Do they have any idea how fucking irritating that would be in real life? This article alone would be like thirty thousand blippity-blips

From Jessica's link:

If real life were like film I'd be able to port wordpress to my toaster using a cat5 cable and a bag of glitter.

Being able to blog with my toaster would be awesome.

Do they have any idea how fucking irritating that would be in real life?

Yes. I briefly has the misfortune of sharing a workspace with someone who had a keyclick sound thing turned on. Why? I don't know.

I have a problem. Today, we're getting free pizza in celebration of something. Which is good because I didn't have the fixings for lunch today. The problem? I'm starving now and I have 80 minutes to go.

Survivor:

Appalled to see the Aitus so easily falling into the "let's all hate on Jonathan" thing, especially when the rationale seem to be that Adam and Parvati manage to behave like more like adults in his absence. That said, I kind of get Yul's thinking (and you kind of have to assume he's the only one thinking) in axing him. Because while Aitu has the numbers in the tribe, they *do not* have the numbers on the jury. So while it's vitally important that no Raro make it to the final, I can see where it seems as important - for Yul, and Yul alone - to be seen to be throwing them a bone at this stage.

Going forward - in most people it might have just been blowing smoke, but the whole - "I've won if I last longer that Jonathan" - the Raros generally are exactly that petty and emotion-driven. Yul is still very much seen as the one in control, and sooner rather than later at least a couple of Aitus are going to have to go. So if there are two Aitus in final four, Yul is going to need some goodwill from Raro, and Parvati and Adam, and maybe others they drag along with, can provide that.

I'm pissed that he's gone just because I was liking him more and more. And if they screw up and either of the Raros makes it to the final, whoever is there from Aitu is fucked. But it was a good move, I think.

(Plus Jonathan had his own dangers in the F2 - wouldn't be the first time a jury has said "You betrayed every single person in this game and still made it? You earned it.")

This occurred to me after I had posted about Survivor last night, but for all we know, Sundra, Becky and perhaps Ozzy realized that their best bet was F2 with Yul, and all realized that Yul would take Jonathan as his goat. I really liked Jonathan, but can see why Becky in particular would be threatened by him.

Survivor: It's like everyone was playing so well and then it all went out the window this week. I mean, I can see why it might not be a good idea, but why was there no discussion of keeping Jonathan around for the finals? I would at least have expected him to bring it up. And has no one noticed that Parvati does quite well in challenges?

I know somebody who 'fakes up' computer screens for movies and TV... and he's as tech-savvy as you could ever want to be, too. Howsomeever, he has to make it a) comprehensible to viewers like my Mom who only have a vague idea of what a mail screen looks like and b) make it look exciting for the director who wants to keep the plot moving along. He's pretty much accepted that he's going to have to dumb it way WAY down....

I think that's exactly why Jonathan was voted off -- Yul wanted to win points with the jury, and throwing Jonathan under the bus was the easiest way to do that. I don't think it was a stupid move on his part, but I do think it was stupid for the rest of his alliance to go along with it.

Because right now, none of the other Aitus could beat Yul in the final two. The Raros have flat out said, you're the one we like and respect and we know that you're the mastermind behind the Aitu alliance, congratulations on being such a stand-up smart guy, here, have a million dollars. And I just don't know if Sundra especially realizes what a shitty position she's in right now.

In random news, when I was listening to the news this morning, every time they said "Iraq study group," I thought they were going to talk about the Rock Steady Crew. Um, yeah. No.