I swore to myself I wouldn't be talking about Avatar, here is an epic fail.

Here I want to rant. I just read Some see racist theme in alien adventure 'Avatar' and it's not making any sense to me.

Let me destroy the argument.

But [Robinne Lee] said the film, which so far has the second-highest worldwide box-office gross ever, still reminded her of Hollywood's "Pocahontas" story — "the Indian woman leads the white man into the wilderness, and he learns the way of the people and becomes the savior."

"It's really upsetting in many ways," said Lee, who is black with Jamaican and Chinese ancestry. "It would be nice if we could save ourselves."

Oh right. So there is a movie exploiting one of the oldest theme ever, and just because now everything is about PC (politically correct), it's becoming upsetting? The Na'Vi are a small tribe, deeply connected with nature, they have accomplished all that mankind could accomplish in probably 2000 more years, and they are peaceful. They chose harmony over technology, they chose to NOT rule nature, they are powerless against pure destructive power and pure human cruelty first because they don't know the concept, and second because they haven't been shipped the handling book. What the hell is wrong with a dude from outside deciding to show them how to do it?

You sir, do not seem to travel a lot, come over my place and I'll show you some real chunks of cultural shock. You won't believe it (I love it).

Here is another nauseating comment (in here):

As Left-wing conceits go, this one surely tops all the others: the ethnic Na’vi, the film suggests, need the white man to save them because, as a less developed race, they lack the intelligence and fortitude to overcome their adversaries by themselves. The poor helpless natives, in other words, must rely on the principled white man to lead them out of danger.

What a triumph of PC, what a triumph for blindness and self disgust! Yes the Na'Vi are a less developped race, lacking intelligence and fortitude, of course they are, but only if you chose to see them like that! So they don't have iPhones and bulldozers, they don't have machine-guns, they don't have the Bomb... they are inferior, right? Oh right, they don't seem to ever get sick, they can communicate with mostly everything (so long, facebook) even with the dead, they are happy and they are tough, but it doesn't seem to count.

They rely on the white man? I thought they relied on the only dude who knew about the other dudes plans to obliterate their home. I could be wrong, yes, maybe in the movie I've missed the scene where someone says "Oh yes we need to believe him because you know, he's white".

Or are you just regretting all the blood our ancestors have shed in the name of civilization and don't wanna be reminded anymore?

Let's play a game. Let's change the hero, replace him by, say, Will Smith. Does it change anything? I don't think so, the Na'Vi are still blue. Ok, let's spice it up, let's put some Na'Vi on the human side, and give them all guns and ipods. And let the Na'Vi build a Death Star to eliminate the human invaders and smite them to smitereens.
Oh...wait...It's not the same...MOVIE anymore.

What would you chose to represent harmony and peace with nature? I'd chose a tribe in the forest over a gang of armed rebels. Sorry, I'm racist, I would love to live like them, get rid of all the techno crap all around me and talk to my horse the way they do. Forgive me.

And the best for the end, here

…Commander Quaritch (leader of the mission) says to Jake, “you’re going to get your real legs back”…Yet this piece of dialogue overlooks a fact that’s glaringly obvious: Jake still has his legs! Yes, he has a disability, but what’s the problem with his legs and/or wheelchair? The commander is implying that there is something not just physically, but morally, wrong with Jake’s disabled legs and wheelchair use: it is unacceptable in the military for a soldier to be disabled and, moreover, to show it.

Ok, Jake you still have your legs! You can't do shit with them, but at least, you know, you still have them, and boy, to turn you in a monster killing machine in a battlefield, that's such an asset! And I'm sure you're happy to still have them even if later on you'll go as far as switching bodies to get rid of the dead weight.
Sad to say, I won't type really well with paralyzed fingers, and if some idiot told me I'm still lucky to have them attached, I'd throw my elbow at his face.

So, critics, people, read:

Men and women are different
Being and healthy is cool and old and sick sucks
Bing short makes it hard for you to play basketball
Some people have different skin color
Colonization has killed civilizations
Some people hare happy without ipods

Now, if you see the word 'inferior', you put it there by yourselves. Sorry.

But I liked the movie, and agree with the (old) storyline. So I must be the intolerant racist.

So be it.

Follow me on Twitter

Google have spoken about openness. Basically they agree to be open as long as it's not about their search algorithm or their secret back end. Makes sense.
After having read this article at The Register, one thought is slowly forming on the top of my head.

As I have been writing somewhere earlier, Google tends to become the favorite toy in the hands of links/content farms, and I have to insist on the fact that I'm actually using it less and less when it comes to searching.

Google's main argument about not opening their sources is that it would give key information to black hats and spammer to manipulate their algorithm and bias the search rankings.
Another argument is that they simply don't want to give away the product of ten years of hard labor.

What could actually happen if Google DID go full open?
Probably both argument would turn out to be true, but in the end I tend to think that it would enhance user's browsing experience, simply because once an algorithm is supported by a whole open source community, it benefits from the smarts of hundreds more people. Yes black hats would go at it, but fixes would eventually come and anyway in case you didn't notice, spammer are ALREADY at it.

Now, in a context where users tend to rediscover to power of social interaction, and where the word of the fingers is slowly replacing the world of the mouth, search engine might quickly become a 2nd or 3rd grade facility if they don't find a way to adapt this current change of trend.

Would they actually take the dare?
Maybe. I don't think their current attempt at becoming the internet's major hub will benefit any freezing of their policies after the launch of Chrome OS. They will by then be everywhere, and do mostly everything, and they will need to keep up the good work, harder than ever before... what's better than some hundreds/thousands extra heads for that?

Follow me on Twitter

Now, Microsoft tries to gain the sympathy of their users, proposing an IE 7 that doesn't need a genuine window's version.

Good news, except for the users of Firefox, Opera, Safari and Whatabrowzar, for the Adobe Reader users (who said everybody ?) for the Linux and Mac users and for anybody who just don't want to have it installed against their will .

Still, a blocking pack is available for all those system admins who don't want to get an instant angry users mob at their door.
Still you have to download the blocking script. Does this one break the system restore function ?

At any rate, if MS wants to generate traffic, that's not that a bad idea.

Technorati Tags: microsoft, ie7, damage control

Powered by ScribeFire.

User - Dev stubbornness is not an exclusivity of Microsoft it seems...

Take a look at this thread, isn't it cute to see how a solvable problem can become a nice troll feeder in a couple of posts ?

I am so glad to have a mac.

Powered by ScribeFire.

"We initially thought Microsoft's stealth update,
though unwise, was harmless. But that is not the case, because it
cripples the updating process on XP after the repair option is used."

Source here.

I really like this quote. "Yes we knew it was stupid, but since we though it was armless we did it anyway."

I'm waiting now for "Yes, yes, the update to enable the repair function was loaded with a virus, but look, you needed it right ?"

Powered by ScribeFire.

It's confirmed. They are focusing on something else, they have other projects, they've lost it.

After introducing a silent update which infuriates many Xp and Vista users, it appears that this feature doesn't really likewhen one tries to repair his/her/its installation.

Well, let's just hope they don't deliver the patch on a scratching-packed disc.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Since when has reliability become an electronic standard ?

Well, one thing is sure, it has not --yet we hope, for Microsoft. Embracing the technology race full throttle, MS seems to forget that patience is better than rage.

The company's policy seems to tend more and more toward "promise much, deliver what you can, fix it later". The proofs (amongst many) :

Not only they finally came to consider that bundling a low performance-features-late-power voracious Vista with new computers was not such a good idea (related story here) but they are now currently replacing Halo 3 discs damaged by their own packaging !

Along with some funny mistakes such as the last humongous Ms Excel 100 000 bug these facts let us wonder if the whole staff of MS has spent the last three years browsing facebook and thinking only during the coffee break.

Powered by ScribeFire.