Blog Archive

Monday, June 18, 2018

Du Hasst Mich

Du Hast
Du Hast Mich
Du Hast Mich Gefragt
Du Hast Mich Gefragt  

und ich hab nichts gesagt

Willst du bis der tod euch scheide
Treu ihr sein für alle tage

Willst du bis zum tod der scheide
Sie lieben auch in schlechten tagen

Saturday, June 16, 2018

Lance's Dark Mood Party Mix Vol 117 (Trip Hop / Downtempo / Electronica ... Itam - Donnie Brasco 2. Emapea – Jazzy – 2:19 3. Dj Noizcut - Napalm Breaks... – 5:18 4. Mani Deïz - La Paz – 8:23 5. Dexter - Moving Force – 11:22 6. 610 SAARi - Dom ord jag vill ha sagt  (The Words I Want To Say)– 14:40 7. Mr. Moods - Trick or Treat – 18:31 8. Smokey - Mean Streets – 23:24 9. Mista 93 - The Sacrifice – 26:33 10. Dusty Ohms - High Noon – 31:18 11. Auditive Escape - Black Train – 34:51 12. Panic Girl – Echoes – 39:32 13. Whitewildbear – IWALY – 44:48 14. Hamatsuki – Autumn – 48:13 15. Ogi feel the Beat - She and Dogma – 54:19 16. Marinella - Kamia Fora(Valeron Remix) – 58:49 17. Bjork - Scatterheart(Kasst Reshape) – 1:05:09

The Trouble With Hollywood’s Gender Flips

Back in the summer of 2016, when the female “Ghostbusters” remake hit theaters, aggrieved fans of the original regarded the new film as a politically motivated assassination. Replacing their childhood comedy idols with women was a kind of narrative murder, committed by a cabal of Hollywood moguls and humorless feminists. This summer’s own splashy female reboot, “Ocean’s 8,” channels such histrionics with a deliciously literal twist. As the orange jumpsuited Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock) attempts to talk her way out of prison — a scene that mirrors the opening parole hearing of Danny Ocean (George Clooney) from the 2001 “Ocean’s Eleven” — she reveals that Danny is her brother, and that he’s dead.
Maybe. Now that every modern film franchise is destined for eternal reincarnation, no character is ever for-sure dead anymore. So as Debbie mounts her own fantastical heist — lifting $150 million worth of Cartier diamonds off a celebrity neck at the Met Gala — she keeps one eye on her brother’s tomb, half-expecting him to crawl out. We spend the film anticipating his appearance, too. Even when Debbie is on screen, Danny is in the back of our minds. And even when a Hollywood franchise is retooled around women, it still revolves around men — the story lines they wrote, the characters they created, the worlds they built.
In the 2001 heist caper “Ocean’s Eleven” (starring, from left, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Elliott Gould and Don Cheadle), the main female character is little more than the love interest.CreditWarner Bros.
“Ocean’s 8” (starring, from left, Sandra Bullock, Sarah Paulson, Rihanna, Cate Blanchett and Awkwafina) may be a splashy female reboot of a Hollywood franchise, but it still manages to revolve around men.CreditBarry Wetcher/Warner Bros.
In the two years since that “Ghostbusters,” the gender-swapped remake has expanded from one-off stunt into full-blown genre. This summer produced three such films. Joining “Ocean’s 8” is the Melissa McCarthy vehicle “Life of the Party,” which cribs its premise from Rodney Dangerfield’s 1986 comedy “Back to School” — a midlife crisis inspires a parent to join his or her kid at college and high jinks ensue. There’s also “Overboard,” with Anna Faris as the working-class single parent (played by Kurt Russell in the 1987 original) who exacts revenge on a wealthy playboy after he falls off his yacht and forgets who he is (Eugenio Derbez takes on the Goldie Hawn role).
More are on the way. A female-centric remake of “What Women Want,” starring Taraji P. Henson, is coming in December. A “Dirty Rotten Scoundrels” redo, “The Hustle,” with Anne Hathaway and Rebel Wilson tagging in for Michael Caine and Steve Martin, is slated for next summer. Gender-flipped adaptations of “Lord of the Flies,” “Splash” and “What About Bob” are in various stages of development. Even KFC mascot Colonel Sanders has now been rebooted as a woman.
The gender-swapped comedy satisfies a couple of-the-moment entertainment industry imperatives: It allows Hollywood to reanimate lucrative old properties (“Ocean’s Eleven” was, of course, itself a remake), while recasting them with diverse casts and woke politics. That’s resulted in a boom in comedic parts for women, but they come with baggage. These reboots require women to relive men’s stories instead of fashioning their own. And they’re subtly expected to fix these old films, to neutralize their sexism and infuse them with feminism, to rebuild them into good movies with good politics, too. They have to do everything the men did, except backwards and with ideals.
In “Back to School,” a midlife crisis inspires Rodney Dangerfield’s character to join his son at college.CreditMGM
“Life of the Party” casts Melissa McCarthy in the Rodney Dangerfield role, but without his character’s thorough commitment to offending.CreditWarner Bros. Pictures, via Associated Press
Some of the rankest sexism of the past several decades of Hollywood comedy can indeed be slickly resolved with a gender swap. The very idea of writing over these movies with hot-pink graffiti supplies a thrill. The few roles for women in the originals were as love interests (Julia Roberts in “Ocean’s” is the crown jewel in Danny’s heist) or helpmates (Annie Potts as the “Ghostbusters” receptionist). But compared to the awkward white male geeks and leering white male boors that constituted underdogs in many of these films, women now fit more cleanly into the disadvantaged position, whether they’re fighting for respect from the scientific establishment (“Ghostbusters”), seeking lost educational opportunities (“Life of the Party”) or suffering under the conditions of low-wage work and single parenthood (“Overboard”).
Even “Ocean’s 8” conjures the current corporate-feminist imperative of women seizing capital, like a kind of equal-pay initiative for female thieves. Debbie pumps up her girl gang on the evening of the heist by telling them: “Somewhere out there, there’s an 8-year-old girl lying in bed, dreaming of being a criminal. Let’s do this for her.”
Then there’s the sex stuff. Eighties comedies routinely built bits around men harassing, stalking and sexually humiliating women. By giving women the sexual upper hand, these remakes neutralize the most offensive aspects of the originals. When Mr. Russell kidnaps an amnesiac Ms. Hawn and convinces her she is his wife in the 1987 “Overboard,” he threatens her and amuses himself by gesturing at raping her. But in the remake, it’s the playboy played by Mr. Derbez who attempts to initiate sex with an uninterested Ms. Faris, the woman who has tricked him into thinking he’s her husband.
Similarly, when Mr. Dangerfield arrives on campus in “Back to School,” he barrels into a sorority house, throws open a shower curtain and leers bug-eyed at a naked and screaming sorority girl. (“Take it easy, honey! I didn’t see a thing!” he says as he whips the curtain closed, before opening it once more to add, “You’re perfect!”) Compare that with Ms. McCarthy’s mid-divorce mom in “Life of the Party,” who hits it off and gets it on with a college boy at a frat rager, breaking a taboo without actually becoming a creep. Because middle-aged moms are coded as sexless, Ms. McCarthy’s character needs merely to nudge the sexual envelope in order for her antics to feel unruly.
And when the women of “Ghostbusters” gently sexually harass their ditsy hunk of a receptionist (Chris Hemsworth in glasses), it lacks the malicious edge of Bill Murray effectively stalking Sigourney Weaver under the guise of busting her ghost. Because real women are physically and socially vulnerable to men, granting sexual power to them on film feels harmless and a little cute.
In the 1987 film “Overboard,” Kurt Russell kidnaps an amnesiac Goldie Hawn and convinces her she is his wife.CreditMGM
In this year’s “Overboard,” Anna Faris takes on the Kurt Russell role as a working-class single parent who exacts revenge on a wealthy playboy (Eugenio Derbez) who’s forgotten who he is.CreditDiyah Pera/Mgm
One gets the sense that these movies aren’t just fixing up old plots; they’re working as symbolic correctives to Hollywood’s mistreatment of women writ large. But the increased social acceptability often comes at the expense of the story. When the “Ghostbusters” scientists shamelessly hit on Mr. Hemsworth, it strains credulity. And when Anna Faris’s single mom Kate hauls the womanizer who recently physically assaulted her into her home to live with her three girls, the choice feels actively insane.
Though these remakes are often referred to as “all female,” they typically retain men in a key role: that of the antagonist. (Well, two: For some reason, men get to direct all of these movies, too.) The female Ghostbusters contend with male university and government officials, supernatural debunkers and an embittered occultist nerd who recalls the internet neckbeards who protested the film itself. The criminal crew in “Ocean’s Eleven” set out to swindle casino mogul Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia), and “Ocean’s 8” wraps its plot around a male mark, too: Claude Becker (Richard Armitage), the smugly slick art dealer who pulls Debbie into an art fraud scheme (and a relationship) and then turns on her. But while Benedict proves a formidable opponent, Becker is an underwritten egotist. That helps serve a female empowerment message, but not the plot. Late in the film, James Corden turns up to investigate Debbie and crew and all but walks away with the movie, revealing another ironic twist to the choice of a male rival — it robs an actress of what can be the reboot’s juiciest role.
As much as these gender-swapped films free women from old Hollywood expectations, they box them into a new one: Their female protagonists must be admirable. No such requirement was placed on the characters of Mr. Dangerfield or Mr. Murray, who gained admiration from audiences through their thorough commitment to offending. For women, the demand often manifests itself as typically feminine behavior — acting nice, and looking it. In “Life of the Party,” Ms. McCarthy gets a makeover; in “Ocean’s 8,” the female oddballs slip into gowns to strut down the steps of the Met. And of course, the women ought to be good to other women. Ms. McCarthy’s female rivals in “Life of the Party” are cardboard-cutout mean girls easily converted into allies, and the rifts that emerge in Debbie Ocean’s girl gang are effortlessly smoothed. Even the self-involved actress Daphne Kluger (Ms. Hathaway) is instantaneously redeemed midway through.
Since “Ghostbusters” got a gender-swapped remake in 2016, what was a one-off stunt has grown into a full-blown genre.CreditSony Pictures
When the female “Ghostbusters” remake hit theaters in 2016, aggrieved fans of the original regarded the new film as a kind of narrative murder, committed by a cabal of Hollywood moguls and humorless feminists.CreditHopper Stone/Columbia Pictures
There is a slight moral miscalculation here: that in order for a film to be considered feminist, it has to show women fighting men, and not each other. But life pits women against one another, and eliding that is just as ridiculous as staging all intra-female conflicts in kiddie pools full of Jell-O — it ignores what women are actually like. One of the most intriguing facets of “Ocean’s 8” is its implied bisexuality, and the hinted tension between Debbie and her partner in crime (if not more), Lou (Cate Blanchett). The subtext would have been more interesting as text; it would supply a true conflict and depth of character for the two stars and make the film feel truly transformative. But for all the female characters jammed into these films, they can shy away from revealing the complexity of female experiences.
It’s hard not to watch these female ensembles and yearn for the heights of “Bridesmaids,” or more recently, the coastal California social satire-murder mystery “Big Little Lies,” both of which lean into conflict between women instead of shying away. These stories acknowledge that women have problems that originate within and between themselves, not just in their relationships with men. In short, they let women be interesting. And when their feuding crews of women do team up, it feels earned instead of assumed. (Both stories were also originated by women.) Besides, comedy requires the upending of social expectation, and the funniest parts of these projects are the moments when the characters wrestle free of feminine demands — not by “acting like men,” but by acting out as women.
“Bridesmaids” was Ms. McCarthy’s breakout film, and though she has since become a star, her subsequent roles have failed to match the unbridled inappropriateness she embodied through her bridesmaid, Megan — a woman who shows up to a ritzy engagement party in a golf cap, announces her intension to “climb” a male guest “like a tree” and proffers a “Fight Club” theme for the bachelorette party. Compare that to her “Life of the Party” character, who is well-meaning, universally loved and (naturally) less funny. When women are moved to the center of the frame, they’re expected to act more womanly — even when they’re playing roles originally occupied by men. It’s interesting, and a little sad, that the highlight of Ms. McCarthy’s recent career has involved her straight-up playing a male character, channeling the impotent rage of former press secretary Sean Spicer on “Saturday Night Live.”
The meta conversation around these gender swaps has focused on the manboy backlash, but now a feminist resistance is brewing, too. When a female “Lord of the Flies” project was announced at Warner Bros., the writer Roxane Gay tweeted that it “makes no sense” as “the plot of that book wouldn’t happen with all women.” So far, many of these female reboots have drummed up female support that matches or exceeds the passion of their male detractors. It can feel as if it’s a kind of feminist imperative to buy a ticket. But as the novelty fades, these movies will begin to be assessed not on their politics, but on their merits.
The men of “Oceans Eleven” got to do one thing the women of “Ocean’s 8” do not: star in a good movie. The construction of Debbie’s supposedly masterful heist is so sloppy that the one rule she sets for it — no men in her crew — is limply betrayed in the climax, when a male member of the franchise shimmies in to execute its most strenuous element. Upon second viewing, the ’80s “Ghostbusters” and “Overboard” aren’t lofty critical achievements, either, but at least they’re originals, which gave them the room to become phenomena. Note to Hollywood: When women complained that they aren’t afforded the same roles in Hollywood that men are, they weren’t speaking literally.

Friday, June 15, 2018

Pink Floyd Compilation (HQ)

01. Shine On You Crazy Diamond (Pts. I-V) 0:00 02. Fat Old Sun 13:16 03. What Do You Want From Me 18:18 04. Time 22:37 05. Astronomy Domine 29:20 06. Cymbaline 33:25 07. Louder Than Words 37:17 08. Money 42:59 09. The Fletcher Memorial Home 49:03 10. Hey You 53:06 11. Echoes (Edit) 57:40 --------------------Part II-------------------- 12. Childhood's End 1:13:46 13. Sheep 1:18:13 14. On The Turning Away 1:28:03 15. Let There Be More Light 1:33:27 16. Wish You Were Here 1:37:07 17. One Of These Days 1:42:31 18. Not Now John 1:47:40 19. See Emily Play 1:52:01 20. Fearless 1:54:49 21. Learning To Fly 1:59:18 22. The Happiest Days Of Our Lives 2:04:12 23. Another Brick in The Wall (Pt. II) 2:05:52 24. Comfortably Numb 2:09:46 25. Shine On You Crazy Diamond (Pts. VI-VII) 2:15:57 26. High Hopes 2:22:28

SOAKED IN BLEACH 2015 - Film Documantary About The Death Of KURT COBAIN

Charlie Manson had less evidence than this. Tex Watson had less evidence.
Clearly not a Suicide, the Cobain Case needs Reclassification to Unknown.

Brother Theodore Complete on Late Night 1982-89 "It is fatal to be right when the rest of the world is wrong." Brother Theodore » born Theodore Gottlieb, was a German-American monologuist and comedian known for rambling, stream-of-consciousness dialogues which he called "stand-up tragedy".

1. September 10, 1982 (taped September 2) 2. October 20, 1982 3. February 3, 1983 (taped February 2) 4. May 19, 1983 5. July 8, 1983 (taped July 7) 6. September 7, 1983 7. February 21, 1984 8. May 16, 1984 (will replace when a better video turns up) 9. September 17, 1984 10. October 9, 1984: cameo bumper 11. December 19, 1984 12. July 8, 1985 (taped June 3) 13. October 31, 1985 (taped October 14) 14. September 17, 1986 (with Billy Joel sitting in with Paul) 15. October 7, 1986: cameo on Elayne Boosler's "Party of One" prologue 16. July 24, 1987 17. January 13, 1988 18. February 17, 1989

Tuesday, June 12, 2018

Net neutrality is dead, now what?

How Fortnite is transforming the gaming industry

**Correction: Black Ops footage at 4:54 should be sourced to Activision, not EA.**

Monday, June 11, 2018

The Fred Rogers documentary Won’t You Be My Neighbor feels radically subversive The kindly children’s TV host was a man on a mission. By Alissa Wilkinson As a number of critics have noted, what’s so startling about the movie is the revelation that Mr. Rogers was, as far as anyone seems to be able to tell, basically the person he presented himself to be onscreen. And more importantly, that’s unexpected. Watching the film, it’s hard to believe it’s true. Even after seeing the film, it seems a bit suspect, as if a story of a hidden crime will eventually come to light if we just wait long enough. That we expect this so keenly (and fear it just as sharply) tells you almost everything you need to know about the times we live in. And it’s reflective of a conversation that many women have been having during the era of #MeToo — making lists in private conversations of the men we know or respect whom we’d be shocked and genuinely devastated to discover were predators. They’re very short lists.

Fred Rogers (and Daniel Tiger) is the subject of Won’t You Be My Neighbor, a new documentary.
Focus Features

Who among us can resist getting a little verklempt upon hearing the strains of some familiar Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood song? Hum with me:
It’s such a good feeling to know you’re alive
It’s such a happy feeling, you’re growing inside
And when you wake up ready to say,
“I think I’ll make a snappy new day!”
Generations of American children now have grown up watching Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, in part because it runs on public television, something that Fred Rogers himself was instrumental in saving. Somewhere between a playmate, an affable uncle or grandpa, and a fairy godfather, Rogers’s slow and compassionate approach to children’s television ran counter to what we typically expect of TV shows for kids; there are no bright, flashy, fast-moving cartoons or slapstick humor in his neighborhood, just simple, direct conversation and storytelling. You got the feeling he cared.
Those same qualities might seem to disqualify Rogers from being a very good subject for a documentary, unless it’s the kind that “exposes” a public figure. But Morgan Neville’s documentary Won’t You Be My Neighbor tackles him anyway, and comes to the benign conclusion that Fred Rogers was, in fact, the guy he appeared to be. It’s a gentle film that doesn’t take a lot of risks but doesn’t really need to. Fred Rogers was a kind and gentle man who saw children as important, his work as ministry, and kindness as essential to human existence.  So the main goal of Won’t You Be My Neighbor is to convince us that while kindness and empathy are in short supply today, it need not be that way. Through interviews with Rogers’s close collaborators and friends (his wife, several performers, and the head of the Fred Rogers Center), archival footage (some of it rare), and interstitial animated segments, the film builds out a portrait of a man who saw in the new technology of television an opportunity to communicate with a generation of children and tell them that they were special just the way they were.
And in 2018, that makes him a subversive figure.

Won’t You Be My Neighbor is less about Rogers himself than the worldview he embodied

The film opens with black-and-white footage of Fred Rogers in 1967, playing a piano and then using a musical metaphor to explain, in the familiar gentle cadence that somehow never comes off as patronizing, that one of his jobs is “to help children through the modulations of life.” What he means is helping children figure out how to express and regulate their emotions during exciting, scary, and confusing moments they encounter in life: dealing with bullies, experiencing parents’ divorce, feeling uncertain about the future, and going through frightening world events.

David Newell and Fred Rogers in Won’t You Be My Neighbor
David Newell and Fred Rogers in Won’t You Be My Neighbor.
Focus Features

That last one — the world events that children in the late 1960s and onward have had a greater awareness of, in part due to the very medium Rogers worked in — is a key part of Won’t You Be My Neighbor. Neville (Best of Enemies, 20 Feet from Stardom) is less interested in giving us a straightforward cradle-to-grave account of Rogers’s life than in making an argument around his subject. That argument is that Fred Rogers’s worldview, a kind of humanism that had roots in Rogers’s Christianity but expressed itself as a commitment to everyone’s dignity, is what helped many navigate the scariest events of childhood (RFK’s assassination, the Challenger shuttle explosion). And the power of that worldview, the film suggests, doesn’t stop when childhood ends.
The film is structured around those big world events. The first episodes of Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood aired in 1968, amid heated political debates about borders and wars. On the show, King Friday (the stern monarch of the Land of Make-Believe) erected a border fence of his own around his castle, and was convinced to take it down only by messages of goodwill and peace that other characters (both puppet and human) floated over the fence.
The parallels are almost too obvious (a border wall in the first week, 50 years ago?), but this really was the way the show started, and the film carefully shows how Rogers went on to gently and subtly address other cultural battles. In one segment that aired during pitched battles about integration, he soaks his feet in a small wading pool outside his home, then invites the black policeman to cool his feet in the pool with him. Today, a shot of the two men’s feet in the same pool may register as little more than a nice image, but Won’t You Be My Neighbor splices the show’s footage together with images from that time of black children being chased out of a public pool. Rogers knew what he was doing.
Sections like this are the strongest in the movie, straightforwardly told with historical footage to contextualize the Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood segments and to remind us what it was like, as children, to see an assassination or explosion on TV and wonder what it meant for the future. Rogers’s commitment to addressing these events is framed as stemming from two things: his Christian faith (he was an ordained Presbyterian minister, and many interviewees talk about how he saw the show as “ministry”) and his deep interest in child psychology. Those two things led him to believe that children’s emotions were important to address and talk through, and he spent his life doing just that.
“The space between the TV screen and whoever is watching is ‘very holy ground,’” Rogers says in archival footage at one point.

Won’t You Be My Neighbor’s most startling element is how it affects viewers — and why

What’s so striking about Won’t You Be My Neighbor isn’t really onscreen, though. It’s the effect the film has on the audience, and what that reveals about us.
As a number of critics have noted, what’s so startling about the movie is the revelation that Mr. Rogers was, as far as anyone seems to be able to tell, basically the person he presented himself to be onscreen. And more importantly, that’s unexpected. Watching the film, it’s hard to believe it’s true. Even after seeing the film, it seems a bit suspect, as if a story of a hidden crime will eventually come to light if we just wait long enough.
That we expect this so keenly (and fear it just as sharply) tells you almost everything you need to know about the times we live in. And it’s reflective of a conversation that many women have been having during the era of #MeToo — making lists in private conversations of the men we know or respect whom we’d be shocked and genuinely devastated to discover were predators. They’re very short lists.
If as a nation we were to make one of those lists, Fred Rogers would almost certainly be on it. The man who told us through the TV every day when we were children about our own worth, about feeling our emotions and then learning to control them, about living in harmony with other people — we need that man.
Thankfully, what Won’t You Be My Neighbor turns up is just that man, and a crowd of people who loved him. That’s probably why just watching the trailer of the film can induce weeping: It’s jarring to realize how much his simple message still makes sense, and how little it is evident in our public life.
And maybe most uncomfortably, the film surfaces why. There’s a clip near the end of the film in which a talking head on Fox News decries Rogers and the “narcissistic society he gave birth to.” I briefly expected the audience at my screening to riot, because it was such a plainly stupid response to what we’d just seen.

Fred Rogers believed in radical kindness.
Fred Rogers believed in radical kindness.
Focus Features

But it’s also a good example of the confusion that marks public discourse today, in which kindness far too often is decried as weakness, courtesy as political correctness run amok, respect as pandering, and the belief in each individual’s dignity and worth as narcissism. These things can all go in toxic directions, of course. But it seems clear that ordinary, old-fashioned goodness has gone out of fashion.
Rogers, the film proposes, was interested in “making goodness attractive in this next millennium,” as he says in a PBS segment recorded late in his life. The idea that everyone has inherent dignity was obvious to him; if you say otherwise, for him, “you might as well go against the fundamentals of Christianity.”
After all, Jesus’s answer to someone who asked him “Who is my neighbor?” was to tell the story of the Good Samaritan, a parable in which the most “righteous” and powerful members of his own society passed by a man lying in a ditch on the side of the road. Who finally rescues him and cares for him? A Samaritan — the people whom Jesus’s listeners considered to be less worthy of dignity and respect than themselves. There’s no chance that Fred Rogers, an ordained Presbyterian minister, didn’t have this story in mind when he structured his entire show around the concept of neighbors.
And you can’t miss the parallels to today. Rogers was against the fast-paced children’s programming of his time that, as he saw it, found most of its humor in denigrating its characters’ dignity via pratfalls and cartoonish violence; it’s an easy line from that to the loud and shallow form that cable news uses to get its adult viewers addicted. Similarly, his slow, self-effacing, and deliberate way of speaking, with a gaze that made his audience certain he was paying attention only to them, is in stark contrast to all kinds of public figures today, not least the one leading our country.
So while Won’t You Be My Neighbor isn’t a particularly inventive film as a piece of cinema — its choices are expected, and we’re still left with questions about how Rogers’s work shaped his own life — that may in the end be for the best. The film succeeds on the radically subversive and obvious notions we learned when we were children: that being nice is not a weakness; that speaking with care is a thing we do simply because we believe the person we’re talking to is a human being with worth and dignity. What’s most startling about Won’t You Be My Neighbor, and what makes it feel almost elegiac, is how very jarring that message feels.
Won’t You Be My Neighbor opens in limited cities on June 8 and will expand over the following weeks.

Sunday, June 10, 2018

Psycho Babble

You start a conversation you can't even finish it. You're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything. When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed. Say something once, why say it again?

Train Crosses Motorway With No Warning! - Explained

► Train Track Location = The City of Baku in Eastern Azerbaijan. The train crosses Port Baku Park then across Neftchilar Avenue Baku City. ► If you want to check out the area yourself, type "Port Baku Park" into Google Earth and it will zoom right into the area. ► If you click on google earth, use the back arrow clock button on the top taskbar and go to 9/21/2015 and 4/17/2016 on the slider bar you can actually see the trains going across the road.

Miracle in the Desert This film is used with permission of Holly Corporation.

Dr. Cyril Wecht on Kurt Cobain's Death: Tom Grant PI Response to Seattle Police Department

Honey Gentry - Bleed Honey

The Salton Sea Is Shrinking And Exposing Toxic Dust | AJ+ Docs

The Accidental Sea

The Atom and You, Part 1

Films are showcased at Safe As Mother's Milk: The Hanford Project website at

The Atom and You, Part 2

Films are showcased at Safe As Mother's Milk: The Hanford Project website at

The Atom and You, Part 3

Films are showcased at Safe As Mother's Milk: The Hanford Project website at

Saturday, June 9, 2018

The Verge:Tesla’s Autopilot steered car toward barrier before deadly crash, investigators say; Model X began ‘a left steering movement’ and then sped up By Andrew J Hawkins


Illustration by Alex Castro / The Verge

A navigation mistake by Autopilot contributed to the grisly death of a Tesla Model X owner in Mountain View, California, according to a preliminary report released today by the National Transportation Safety Board.
Apple engineer Wei “Walter” Huang was traveling south on US Highway 101 on March 23rd when his Model X P100D smashed into the safety barrier section of a divider that separates the carpool lane from the off-ramp to the left. The front end of his SUV was ripped apart, the vehicle caught fire, and two other cars crashed into the rear end. Huang was removed from the vehicle by rescuers and brought to Stanford Hospital, where he died from injuries sustained in the crash.
The agency says that Huang’s hands were detected on the steering wheel for a total of 34 seconds, on three separate occasions, in the 60 seconds before impact. NTSB also confirms Tesla’s position that the vehicle did not detect the driver’s hands on the steering wheel in the six seconds before the crash. There were two visual alerts and one auditory alert for the driver to place his hands on the steering wheel, but those alerts were made more than 15 minutes before the crash.

Huang’s Model X was following a lead vehicle using adaptive cruise control and autosteer, and traveling about 65 mph, eight seconds before the crash. A second later, the Tesla began a left steering movement. Then the vehicle the Tesla had been following moved, causing Huang’s vehicle’s speed to increase from 62 mph to 70.8 mph. There was no braking or evasive steering detected prior to impact.
A Tesla spokesperson declined to comment on the preliminary report, and instead pointed to the company’s prior statement on the deadly crash. In that statement, the company said that a damaged safety barrier, called a crash attenuator, contributed to the severity. Tesla also said that Huang had “about five seconds and 150 meters of unobstructed view” of the concrete divider with the crushed safety barrier before the incident. Huang’s family has retained a law firm and is exploring their legal options, local reports say.

NTSB confirms the attenuator had been damaged in the previous week when a Toyota Prius crashed in the same location. The damage likely made the attenuator ineffective and contributed to Huang’s death.
The battery from the totaled Model X began to smoke later that afternoon while in the impound lot, according to the NTSB report. “The battery was monitored with a thermal imaging camera, but no active fire operations were conducted,” NTSB says. “On March 28, [five] days after the crash, the battery reignited.” Firefighters responded and extinguished the blaze.
The report follows the decision by NTSB to boot Tesla from its investigation into the deadly crash, which the agency claims was because Tesla had released “investigative information before it was vetted and confirmed by” the agency. Tesla CEO Elon Musk also reportedly hung up on the head of the agency during a heated call concerning the investigation.
The NTSB said Tesla is still a party in two other ongoing investigations into non-fatal accidents: one from January 22nd, 2018 involving Autopilot, and one from last summer involving a battery fire. In May, Musk vowed to begin releasing a quarterly safety report about Autopilot.

What self-driving cars can learn from brainless slime mold

The Verge: Tesla can change so much with over-the-air updates that it’s messing with some owners’ heads By Sean O'Kane

Marcelo Rinesi says it’s also hard to define “software” in the first place since much of what modern technology does relies on things that live outside the physical object — in this case, the car. “You don’t buy a car, or a phone, or soon enough a house or a medical implant or whatever: you buy an interface to, or an aspect of, a huge platform-company-ecosystem-whatever that changes by the minute,” he says.


Illustration by Alex Castro / The Verge

When Consumer Reports recently found that the braking distance on the Tesla Model 3 was worse than that of a Ford F-150, CEO Elon Musk took the criticism and found a solution. Days later, Tesla shipped an over-the-air update that, according to CR’s testing, improved the braking distance by 19 feet. It’s a wild idea: your car automatically downloads some code, and it’s instantly safer. It also wasn’t possible even a few years ago, and some have held it up as an ideal example of how futuristic technologies can make our lives better. Analysts said it was “unheard of.” Jake Fisher, CR’s director of auto testing (and the person who originally flagged the issue), said he’d “never seen a car that could improve its track performance with an over-the-air update.”

Others, like Navigant Research’s Sam Abuelsamid, looked at the recent Model 3 braking distance issue as a sign of a larger problem with Tesla’s quality control. He wrote this week that the fact there was that much room for improvement on the braking capabilities of the car shows there’s something “fundamentally broken in what they were doing” with the Model 3. Shouldn’t Tesla, which by now has made and sold over 300,000 cars around the globe, have caught this problem before CR did?

We don’t yet know why the Model 3’s braking was underperforming, and we may never know. That matters less than what the update actually signaled.

Tesla has shipped OTA updates to its cars for years now that have changed everything from its Autopilot driver assistance system to the layout and look of its touchscreen interfaces. At one point last year, it even used an update to extend the range of some cars to help customers evacuate the path of Hurricane Irma.

This week was different, though, because it showed just how far the company can go with those updates. With a swift change in the software, the company showed it can reach as deep as the systems that control the brakes. It creates the feeling that you could get out of your car one night, and by the time you get back in the next morning, the car could do some things — maybe everything — in a totally different way.

Tesla is ahead of other carmakers when it comes OTA updates — just look at the recent mini FCA fiasco. But being on the frontline of a new technology means that you have to deal with problems that no one else has encountered, and find answers to questions that people are asking for the first time.

Take this one, posited just a few weeks ago Tesla’s own official forums: ”Did Tesla just slow down our cars?”

In the thread, owners point to how a recent update (specifically 2018.18.3, released in the middle of May) lines up with what could be the possibility that their Model 3s don’t quite accelerate with as much kick as they did before.

“It seems in the latest update that my Model 3 is much slower off the line,” the original poster writes. “It doesn’t throw you into the seat like it used to!”

Then the worry sets in. “Did Tesla purposefully reduce acceleration? Can we please get it back?”

“[M]y car is one of the ones who has definitely lost its ‘oomph.’ It is not near as fast as it was prior to the upgrade,” another owner writes. “When I would hit the gas pedal from a complete stop, it would throw our heads back into the headrests, it was that fast! Now it no longer does that.”

Some have veered into conspiracy territory, noting that the perceived acceleration change happened right around the same time that Tesla announced a new “performance” version of the Model 3. “Frankly, nothing Tesla does at this point would surprise me. This would fit perfectly into their ongoing campaign to ‘disappear’ the $35,000 base model, and upsell everyone to the $87k fully loaded model,” a different user writes.

No one seems to have come up with anything other than anecdotal evidence to support these claims. And plenty others say they haven’t noticed a difference. “I don’t feel like the performance changed at all,” one poster writes. “Still pulls like a bat out of hell! Loving this car so much.”

Tesla says it didn’t tinker with anything in the update. In a statement to The Verge, a spokesperson for Tesla said the “Model 3’s acceleration capability remains unchanged.”

But forget for a moment the question of whether Tesla toyed with the Model 3’s acceleration. Something else is happening, and it suggests Tesla has once again charted new territory for an automaker.

By adopting the behavior of issuing regular OTA software updates — ones that can apparently affect things so deep in the car that the company can demonstrably improve braking distance — Tesla has started to open itself up to the same kinds of controversies and conspiracies that some consumer electronics giants have famously dealt with.

Take Apple, for example. iPhone owners spent years worrying, with little more than anecdotal evidence, that their phones were conspicuously slowing down around the same time that Apple released a new version. It later emerged that Apple was programming iPhones to slow down after a certain amount of time, though the company argued it was in an effort to preserve the phones’ battery life.

The way Tesla is using software, and specifically how liberally it’s changing its cars with OTA updates, puts the automaker and its customers in a similar position, according to Marcelo Rinesi, the chief technology officer for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies.

“Among the qualities we prize the most in our things is their behavior, but as most things have computers inside, this means these qualities are defined by software, and as most things are also connected to the internet, this software changes continuously at the whim of somebody else,” Rinesi tells The Verge via email.

Rinesi says it’s also hard to define “software” in the first place since much of what modern technology does relies on things that live outside the physical object — in this case, the car. “You don’t buy a car, or a phone, or soon enough a house or a medical implant or whatever: you buy an interface to, or an aspect of, a huge platform-company-ecosystem-whatever that changes by the minute,” he says.

This fluidity with regards to what a Tesla car can do (or, more philosohically, what it is) at any given moment might sound a bit scary, and could be the source of the worry in the forum thread. But Rinesi doesn’t expect any such apprehension to last long. At a certain point consumers will stop being reactive and will become more flexible with the idea, in the same way that we’re fine walking around with devices in our pockets that can track our movements, he says.

“That seems to be the way we’ve come to relate to our product-platforms in general, at least for now: they are a bit mysterious, and do cool things, and sometimes they do something creepy or harmful that reminds us that we don’t know how or what they are doing most of the time, and then there’s a bit of a PR scramble,” he says. “But it’s more episodic than anything else.”

Take the 2015 Volkswagen emissions scandal. In this case, VW was surreptitiously using software to hide how some of its cars were dirtier than advertised, and it suffered backlash when that truth came to light. People were angry, and heads rolled. But by the end of 2017, sales were way back up.

Customers becoming familiar with, or simply accepting of, “mysterious” products doesn’t mean Tesla is bulletproof, Rinesi says. After all, it’s still a company that makes and sells cars, which are inherently dangerous objects that require a huge personal investment. And he says Tesla is particularly vulnerable because the company hangs so much of its reputation on the idea of “new technology.”

“That’s how Musk wants it, because that’s what allows him to raise money the way he does, but it leaves the company socially exposed,” Rinesi writes. While more traditional auto industry companies get things wrong — like when Toyota’s braking software caused a scandal, or how Goodyear ignored problems with its RV tires — they largely get a pass because they’ve spent far more time lobbying for the idea that death or danger is part of the deal when it comes to cars, Rinesi says.

Even though Tesla might face more scrutiny, the company has made a long list of improvements to its cars over the six years that it’s been shipping OTA updates. That’s another reason customers will roll with whatever uncertainty might pop up now — they see it as a better option than the alternative of going back to a world where the kinds of improvements Tesla makes simply aren’t possible without waiting at a dealer or paying out of pocket, says Karl Brauer, the executive publisher for Autotrader and Kelley Blue Book

“For technology geeks the concept of improving their car’s performance, or just addressing a recall, without ever leaving their garage is pretty cool,” he says. “Over-the-air updates can literally change a car overnight, removing the need to take them to get serviced or swapped for a loaner vehicle.”

And where iPhone users have the choice of switching to phones made by Samsung or Google if they’re not happy with what Apple’s doing, there’s no one offering the same kind of experience that Tesla sells when it comes to the idea of an upgradeable car. Other companies are trying, but they’re iterating slowly and making far more mistakes.

One way Tesla could put these customers’ fears to rest is by being transparent, Brauer says. If Tesla tells its customers specifically what they can’t — or won’t — alter, in a more comprehensive way than they do in the release notes, some of these owners’ worries may evaporate. But that’s not likely.

“In a perfect world car companies would provide customers with a comprehensive log covering any and every alteration made through OTA updates,” Bruaer says. “However, a desire to keep some changes from going public might preclude that level of transparency. This is where OTA’s convenience could take a darker turn.”

Again, even if those fears fester a while, and even if we’re talking about changes (or perceived changes) to critical systems like brakes or acceleration, it still might not matter in the long run for consumers. As Rinesi puts it, “once a culture (or an economy) has gotten used to a way of doing things, it can coexist with very high levels of occasional dread without forcing changes.”