Snowulf - Vitriol

How To: Unfuck (restore) Firefox 3.6 tab opening order

nospam@example.com (Jon) — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:00:00 -0800

If you're a regular user of Firefox (as I have been since way back before 1.0), or ANY OTHER piece of software that has tabs in it, you know that when you open a new tab, it opens all the way at the fucking end (on the right). As of Firefox 3.6 they changed this behavior. I figured that if they made the change a default, they must think that this is a "better" way of doing things, ok, I can adapt and try it out. I've been using Firefox for years, so it'll take me some time to get used to it, no big deal.

Well. Fuck. That. Noise. Today, I've officially become sick and tired of this new features since it is a piece of shit for any serious work. The first problem is that is hard to predict. Say you are on Tab A (For the sake of argument, say this is for instructions on how to install something) and open some links into new tab (Ex: Software you need to install in order), say B, C and D. You go check on something in tab B real quick then go back to tab A. Now open another few links from tab A, they are E & F. What tab order would you expect to have? A, B, C, D, E, F. But is that the order your tabs are in? Nope, because they are relative to the tab you are on. Your tab order is A, E, F, B, C, D. This is a fairly simple example, but even an idiot could see how it might be a problem if you have to... say... FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS IN ORDER.

How do you turn off the bat shit features?

Goto about:config
Accept the anti-idiot warning
Find browser.tabs.insertRelatedAfterCurrent (You can just type in 'related' and hit enter)
Right click on it, and hit Toggle (This will change it from 'false' to 'true')

Open some tabs, rejoice to lord Jesus that they open in a a logical manner again. Translation: New tabs open on the RIGHT and always on the RIGHT and not wandering through the middle of your tabs like a drunk looking for the shitter.

Dear FedEx, LEARN TO F***ING KNOCK

nospam@example.com (Jon) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:00:00 -0800

Dear FedEx Delivery Guy,
I know that this might be a hard concept to fathom, but just because you are delivering packages to a home during the work day, does NOT mean that no one is home. So, let me put this the nicest way I possibly can, when you deliver a package, KNOCK ON THE GOD DAMN FUCKING DOOR. I realize that there is not a large percentage of people who work from home basically every day like I do, but more and more people are working from home on a regular basis. On top of that, there are such things as stay at home moms (and dads).

FedEx plays "let's hide the Blu Ray's"

Let me put it this way, I'm sitting here at my desk, working away this morning. I happen to be expecting a number of packages today, so I've got all the FedEx and UPS tracking information up on screen. Now, since all the packages are "Out for Delivery", refreshing the pages really does me no good. Unfortunately I'm one of those people that presses the crosswalk button repeatedly in the vain hope that it'll go faster, same with refreshing the tracking pages. Low and behold, one of them now has the status of "Delivered" and says "Left at front door. Package delivered to recipient address - release authorized", dated 10 minutes previous. That is... odd, I've been here all morning and I didn't hear anything. The only place I've been for the last hour is at my desk (20 feet from the door) or the kitchen (directly next to the front door). Unless FedEx is knocking with a fucking feather, I would have heard it.

Additionally, would you please stop playing "hide the package" with the doormat. This is some of the dumbest shit I've ever seen. You know it's bad when I've got SEVERAL pictures, in my flickr stream of your dumb shit to choose from. More importantly, this morning's delivery was 2 Blu-Rays, which aren't very thick. Now they're under a doormat which you unceremoniously toss over it... If I, or a guest, wasn't paying attention, they could have easily stepped on the BD's under the welcome mat. Then you'd not only be out the cost of delivering the package, the cost of delivering the second package, and replacing the contents.

In conclusion. FedEx, please just put the packages in front of the door and ring the doorbell or knock. Two raps on the door are more than sufficient and everyone is happy. Hell, you don't even have to stick around. I assure you, it takes much less effort to simply leave the package ON the damn doormat, and knock, than it does to play hide and go fuck yourself.

Sincerely yours,
Jon

INVERTED CONTROLS - DO YOU SPEAK IT?!

nospam@example.com (Jon) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:00:00 -0700

Dear Game Design Companies,

Have you heard of inverted controls?

I'm sure you have, you put the option into all of your games. NOW PUT IT INTO YOUR GOD DAMN MOTHER FUCKING GAME DEMOS YOU STUPID FUCKS. It's one god damn fucking option, it really isn't that hard. I was raised on flight sims, and similar games that had inverted controls. In order for me to be able to play any video game, I MUST invert the Y axis. I, like many others, have it hard coded to "Pull Up". Recently, it was suggested to me that I try out the demo for WET. I couldn't get through THE FUCKING TUTORIAL. Why? Because the "Options" Screen for controls is A FUCKING JOKE. You tell me what buttons to hit on the controller, but don't let me change anything. Seriously, how hard could it be to throw in 1 token option for the demo; you could even throw in a few extras for fun. I know that programming up to equal down isn't difficult, I could write it in half a dozen languages right now. So because you fucks are so god damn lazy and can't put one fucking option into your demos, you won't have my money. I threw down the controller in frustration after trying to play WET after all of 3 minutes, I'm not going to re-write the way I play for your shitty ass demo. So instead of getting my money, how about I shove an Xbox controller up your ass.

Signed -
- Someone who's NEVER going to be your customer.

StarCraft 2: From Day One Purchase to Piracy

nospam@example.com (Jon) — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:00:00 -0700

I think it is safe to say that Starcraft (the original) was one of my all time favorite games. It is one of those few rare games that I kept going back to playing time and time again (much like Planetside). If I didn't have it installed, inevitably it would be installed at the next LAN party. StarCraft was a mainstay of our college's video gaming experience events. We still had StarCraft tournaments, and I'm not afraid to say that we all lost to the Asian high school kids, but we had fun. Now that I think about it though, it's been a few years since I've played it. It's gotten dated, plus John and I replaced it with C&C:Generals Zero Hour, as our RTS of choice. For a LAN party, I wouldn't mind going back, if nothing else so I could set up my walls of photon cannons to piss people off with. Ahhh... good times... good times.

Then... there was StarCraft 2, and great excitement. Obviously with how much I loved StarCraft 1, StarCraft 2 was an immediate pre-order. Or... it was... until Blizzard decided to release some news about it.

Continue reading "StarCraft 2: From Day One Purchase to Piracy"

Hasteno is a Scam

nospam@example.com (Jon) — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:00:00 -0700

I just want to preface this posting with the obvious: This is my personal investigation of the site. I could be wrong, though I don't think I am. If you've got more information on this website, I'm all ears.

Hateno.com. Is. A. Scam. I thought I'd make it really simple for everyone as to what point I'm trying to convey here. Hasteno is an attempt to be another one of those "Micro auction" sites like Swoopo (as has been previously covered, twice). I'll admit, the site looks fairly good. They've got a fair bit of design work, JavaScript and even flash adverts. I personally wouldn't theme my site pink & black, but I'm sure its a matter of personal taste. Regardless, I spent a fair amount of time hunting down information on this site and I will share it with you, in detail.

Continue reading "Hasteno is a Scam"

BART costs $300 million a mile to build?! WTF?!

nospam@example.com (Jon) — Mon, 04 May 2009 10:00:00 -0700

As a resident of the San Francisco Bay Area I ride BART from time to time. I know many people who ride it every working day as their sole mode of transport to/from the office. I luck out in not having that sort of commute, but it is still a great mass transit system in my opinion. I'm always hopeful that they'll extend it more (680 corridor or San Jose), but said expansion is generally a very slow process. So I was very excited when I received last week's "myBART weekly" newsletter and read the following:

BART moves forward with $1 billion in extension projects
The BART Board of Directors has just moved forward with bringing Bay Area residents $1 billion in transit expansion projects. Board members voted to construct a 10-mile extension into eastern Contra Costa County and approved two significant elements of the funding plan for the Oakland Airport Connector. Watch this BARTtv feature on the Contra Costa County extension.

This extension doesn't help me at all, but any extension makes me happy. After some digging around I finally found the eBART website with more details. That's when things went from happy to yelling.

The second sentence on the front page reads: "The eBART Proposed Project would extend the BART system in the median of Highway 4 approximately 10 miles". That's pretty much where I came to a screaming halt. It doesn't take a a comp sci major to do that math. $1 billion / 10 miles = ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS A MILE. What. The. Fuck... are they building that costs $100 mil a mile? They better be installing fucking gold plated tracks for that cost. I realize they are building two stations, but even if those stations cost some fucking asinine number like $250million a piece, you're still talking about track that costs $50mil a mile to build. What. The. Fuck.

We're talking about land in Pittsburgh, Antioch, & the median of Highway 4. The last of which is not exactly highly desirable land. Frankly the cities in the area aren't terribly expensive by Bay Area standards. With all that, the cost can't possibly be in the land. While I'm no train expert, I am fairly sure that the transcontinental rail road didn't cost $100 million a mile, nor do modern rail roads. I know the track gauge of BART is specialty stuff and expensive to build equipment for, with recent track resurfacer engines costing $1 million each. We're not talking about ordering a thousand engines though, nor is this project even standard BART. They are using DMU's instead, which aren't compilable with the rest of the system. I could probably find some numbers somewhere in their hundreds of pages of documents, but I enjoy ranting more than researching. So where in the fuck is $1 BILLION dollars going?!

BART Map

That brings me to my final point, and the subject of this post. On the Project Facts page it states "Conventional BART trains would require special engineering for tracks and hardware, with a cost three times that of the eBART solution.". If standard BART would have cost 3x as much, that means it would have cost THREE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS A MILE. Jesus. Fucking. Christ. What. The. Fuck. To put that in perspective, BART currently has 104 miles of track. Or at the going rate of $300mil a mile, it would cost $31.2 BILLION dollars.

==Brain Expodes...Transmission ends==

MP-FUCKING-THREE

nospam@example.com (Jon) — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:00:00 -0700

This is one of those topics that truly make me angry. I don't know why the record labels don't get it, but all you have to do is sell your products at a reasonable price and with reasonable ease and consumers will buy it. Of course, all the big record labels are fucking retards. So let me make it really simple: SELL YOUR MUSIC IN MP3 FORMAT AS SINGLE TRACKS. None of this DRM crap, none of this "album only" crap. Don't fuck with us and we'll GIVE you money for your music.

Why does this come up? I recently went hunting for some songs that caught my fancy for one reason or another. It was stupid what I had to go through to actually get the songs. But I recorded what I found and where to make a point. Below is a list of the songs and where I found them (FOUND them only. Remember kids "Piracy" is "wrong").

Kid Rock - All Summer Long
Found it on on Amazon MP3 but in "album only" and costs $8.99. Fuck. You. I'm not going to spend $9 for one damn track. Found the track on The Pirate Bay.

Kevin Rudolf - Let it Rock
Not on Amazon. Actually found this song on iTunes. It was the first purchase I've made on iTunes in a long time. Ever since Amazon MP3 grew to contain a reasonable collection of music, I've refuses to use iTunes on the grounds of DRM. I figured it was a good time to test iTunes now since their library is supposed to be "DRM-free". This song was indeed DRM-less but in stupid .m4a format, I know I can convert it, but seriously - no one fucking uses m4a. MP-FUCKING-THREE.

September - Can't get over you
Not on Amazon or iTunes. Found it on Mininova.

Daddy DJ - Daddy DJ
Not on Amazon or iTunes, but it is an older song so I'm less surprised I didn't find it there. Found it on Mininova.

DJ Sammy - Follow my Star
Not on Amazon or iTunes. Found it on The Pirate Bay.

Just for fun I pulled out Limewire and gave it a try. It is completely useless now and filled with crap. It doesn't surprise me that the music companies are flooding it with shit, but P2P like Limewire hasn't been popular or useful for many many years. It was on my machine though so I figured I'd give it a shot and see how badly flooded the network was.

The one thing that really surprised me was that not a single track above is available on Amazon MP3 (as a single). But this is this most perfect example of why the record labels are losing out. I'm willing to throw down $1 per song, that's $5 for the tracks I mentioned. Not a lot, but multiplied by millions of fans... it adds up (which is the whole point of the $1-a-song business model). Instead, how much money did the record labels make off of me? $1. Yup... not much. Could have made 500% more money, but no... they've got to be money grubbing whores. But that's ok. The music industry will be the next to bankrupt and everyone will celebrate. There ain't gonna be a bail out for you fuckers.

ComputerWorld / TechWorld / Researchers - All freaking idiots

nospam@example.com (Jon) — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 23:00:00 -0800

I saw a Tweet not too long ago that caught my eye. It links to the article: "Amazon cloud could be hijacked to harvest BitTorrent files, researcher says". The synopsis of which is that researchers have "discovered" a way to use Amazon's EC2 service as a way to BitTorrent, through the use of software called TorrentFlux.

WOW. WHAT A FUCKING REVELATION. YOU CAN USE A COMPUTER TO BITTORRENT FILES. OMG. THIS IS THE BIGGEST NEWS SINCE SLICED BREAD. You (ComputerWorld) fucking morons. Of course you can fucking use Amazon EC2 service for BitTorrent. IT'S A FUCKING COMPUTER. Just because it is in the "Cloud" or actually a virtual machine, doesn't make it any different than any other computer in the world. I, personally, use TorrentFlux on my home network. I have it setup on my router/firewall/server machine because it makes more sense to be on the network edge. Plus, that machine runs 24/7, where as my desktops or laptops might not. And yes, I can administrate what I'm downloading and uploading remotely. It is just a PHP application that is an overlay for standard Linux based torrent software.

"It's not clear that O'Connor's clever work-out represents anything new in principle". No, it's very fucking clear, you fucking morons. There is nothing new here. People have been doing this for YEARS with dedicated servers & VPSs alike. The cloud is not different. Except for the fact that it is a shit load more expensive to do it through EC2 than it is to use a VPS, from say... TekTonic.

"This means, says Hobson, that hackers and other interested parties can simply use a prepaid (and anonymous) debit card to pay the $75 a month fee to Amazon and harvest BitTorrent applications at high speed with little or no chance of detection". Well first off, they _can_ detect you. Amazon controls the network, they can watch the port usage and the traffic. If Comcast can clamp down on Torrents using Sandvine, I'm fairly sure Amazon can do the same. More importantly. YOU FUCKING FAIL AT MATH YOU FUCKING RETARDS.. Let's take a quick look at the EC2 Pricing sheet. Small Instance, $0.10/hr ** 732 hours/mo = $73.20 . Ok, We're right at their number already... but oh wait... you gotta pay for bandwidth. Oops, must have fucking forgot that... let's say you transfer in 200GB (I can use more than that personally, but we'll use it) ** $0.10 GB/in = $20. Now we've got to assume you're seeding something else - otherwise you won't get anything - with a fair number being 50% of your download. So 100GB out ** $0.17 GB/out = $17. Then you want to actually get the files you've downloaded. So that's the full 200GB ** $0.17 GB/out = $34. Total that all up: $144.50 - ComputerWorld is off by almost 100%! Now those numbers don't even include the fact that the small EC2 instance only has 160GB of storage. So we'll pretend that you've offloaded and deleted some of your downloads mid-month. But what if you didn't? You'd need to use EBS. 200GB ** $0.10 GB/Mo-Provisioned = $20. Plus $0.10 per 1 million I/O requests. I won't bother estimating that, but you get the picture.

Yes. You can use Amazon EC2 to Torrent. You can use any internet connected computer to Torrent, YES, remotely. TorrentFlux does it great for Linux machines, but uTorrent has a web server feature and it runs on Windows & Mac. Oh, and one last thing ComputerWorld/TechWorld - why don't you fucking mention the LEGAL uses of BitTorrent. Companies use it to distribute software & patches (Blizzard). The entire Linux community uses it to get out ISOs of their distributions. I could just as easily use an EC2 instance to setup a Torrent seeder specifically for legitimate software distribution. Yes, I'd be paying for the upload bandwidth, but that could be much cheaper (and faster) than using a CDN like Akami or CloudFront, especially for larger crowds or larger files.

Dealing with stupid people while shopping

nospam@example.com (Jon) — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:58:00 -0800

I hate most people, I really do. Not because they are "bad", but because they are stupid and irritating. They miss the most basic common sense. This becomes amazingly apparent when driving and, possibly even more so, while shopping. The worst? Parking lots of shopping areas. Why does this come up? I made the mistake of going to Target this afternoon... Holiday shoppers... Ughhh

When I'm shopping on my own, generally I am a very typical male. I have something I need, I know where I'm going, I know exactly what I want, and I want to get out of there as fast as possible. I do understand that some people aren't as focused, but as long as you can keep yourself out of trouble (and more importantly, out of my way) I don't mind. But, as usual, most of the humanity I encounter makes me want to cut off their head, put it on a spike in the imperial garden and wave at it just like this*...

Anyways, I was at Target, I'm doing a reasonable speed down one of the main drags (not super fast, just fast enough to obviously have a purpose). While I'm doing this I'm reading my Kindle (I'm more than capable of reading and walking at the same time). Then out of one of the blind alleys (shoes section to be exact) a lady and her daughter just walk out right in front of me. Not "in front" like 10 feet away, they were not more than 3 feet in front of me. Luckily for them, I can read, walk, and still pay the fuck attention to the world around me, enough so that I don't run them over. Though thinking back, I wish I had run them down. Would have taught that woman TO LOOK BOTH WAYS BEFORE ENTERING TRAFFIC. Or either way... as I know she didn't.

Normally, these kind of people really get my blood boiling, but today I thought of something that helps me calm. What is it? It is the knowledge that if people drove like they walked, they'd already be fucking dead.

* (Points to anyone who recognizes this semi-quote)

LUDDITES!!!

nospam@example.com (Jon) — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 00:01:00 -0800

Recently there was an article on slashdot about US Net Growth Stalling. It was a pointer to a Business Week article titled "Why The Web Is Hitting A Wall". The simple answer is luddites. You read the article and they say ""If you're spending all your time on e-mail, you're not listening and reading," says Rogers". Now, thats a contradiction right there. He wont use email because your not reading? I hate to tell you buddy, but if your using email or the internet - YOUR FREAKING READING. Just like I used the internet TO READ THIS NEWS ARTICLE. There are alot of valid reasons not to use have the internet, as the article points out - but they started with the excuse that he likes to read. Thats one crap way to start an argument about a medium composed of TEXT.

Anyways, I'll give it to the people that dont have internet because they are fine with it at work. Or they dont have a computer and any knowledge how to use on. You have to feel sorry for the people that are far out in the boonies and can't get net access. Regardless of all these facts, the net will continue to permeate our lives. Hell, look at TV ads. 10 years ago all TV ads had were 800 numbers, rairly did you see a URL included because the internet wasn't that widely recived. Now, in 2006, I see comercials all the time that only have a URL's, they dont even give you a phone number.

I have to say I like the articles argument about other consumer electonics. Its stated "Other consumer electronics gear is much more widely adopted: Nearly 100% of U.S. households have a TV, 83% have a DVD player, and 78% have a cell phone.". Lets take a quick look at thoes devices and their history. Television was invented in in the 1900's and introduced in the 1960's - which means its been around for 45+ years. DVD, or its ancestor VHS was first released in 1976 - again its been around for 30 years. Cell phones, or its ancestor the telephone has a history dating back to 1849 - over 157 years. Now the computer has been around a good long while also, but the first "home" PC wasn't introduced till the 1970's and even then it wasn't marketed for the masses - it was for the technical. It hasnt been till the last 10 years that computer have been marketed for "Everyone".

Long post ending quickly - if you can have the internet and don't - its probably because your a luddite. The awesome part about the internet is I can make broad statements like this insulting millions of americans - and they'll never know because they are terrified of computers. Computers WHICH RUN THEIR FRIGGING LIVES - EVEN IF THEY ARENT ON THE NET.