Transferred from paxdora.blogspot.com [LINK]
Original Post Date: 7/12/11

I sort of wish I had created a blog before the last episode of Mentalist's Season 3. I had thought it was obvious that Craig O'Laughlin was working for Red John since he was brought into the show just before Todd Johnson was burned in that holding cell and then it was fully confirmed when he demonstrated no care for Grace's safety. There's still a lot left to theorize about though. :)

There are three things that stood out in the final season.

* The first is that things are getting really weird for J.J. LaRoche. He acts all suspicious, it appears that he hands off the cuff-keys (or a pick lock) to that terrorist (Gupta), then he acts all nervous like he's going to do something bad, and then suddenly Gupta is killed in the backseat of the car. LaRoche says, "He tried to escape, he went for a gun, I had no choice." Even though he never moved in the car, and the only closest gun was on the police officer sitting next to him. His holster, however, was on the right side of his body meaning that Gupta would have had to lean on top of him, reach over to the other side of the car, and try to unholster the gun.. but he never actually moved. I don't know how they could have made this more obvious that LaRoche didn't want him questioned about his connection to Red John.

I guess it makes sense that the writers rushed this so soon. If Gupta had suddenly been killed in Season 4 in another holding cell, then everyone would know that R.J. is still alive. But, they want everyone to think RJ is dead since he'll be making a "surprise return" later in Season 4.

The writers are trying to do too many things though, and they're just confusing the plot. It's really just getting silly now too; LaRoche frames Hightower, Hightower goes into hiding, suddenly RJ and all of this friends want Hightower killed even though she doesn't know anything. Now that Craig is dead and revealed to be the mole, I guess Hightower doesn't need to be in hiding any more and LaRoche presumably won't be suspected to be the mole anymore.

* The second thing that stood out is the "red shirt guy" in the final scene between Patrick Jane (PJ) and Red John (RJ).

Here's a video link to the scene I'm talking about: [LINK]

What's interesting about this is the scene where PJ stands up. The "red shirt guy" stands up and walks away at the same time. There is also a lot of strange hesitance when first standing up (gets up and down then up) as though we was waiting for the exact moment to stand up. Almost as if the director instructed him specifically what to do.

Second, watch all of the extras. It always fun just to watch all of the extras instead of the main actors. They walk back and forth and keep circling in the mall (before RJ shows up) and the scene over and over. Throughout the entire episode, the "red shirt guy" only makes this one appearance and he's not reused anywhere else. How very odd..

Third, the entire scene was built around the proximity of "red shirt guy" to RJ. "Red shirt guy" first entered the scene and sat down before RJ. Now, either the scene was initially setup wrong or the "red shirt guy" was added last minute. The two tables between the "red shirt guy" and RJ were moved very close together for that one shot and it's purpose was not to get a cleaner picture. Even their chairs were accidentally setup wrong during the relocation. "Red shirt guy" went from 2 chairs to 3 chairs space totally different, and RJ went from 3 chairs to 2 chairs.

I might be over analyzing this, but it appears that the scene was intentionally setup to bring the two guys very close together and the "red shirt guy" received special instructions from the director.

Since there was no need to ever move him in the first place, he's either there with purpose (another friend of Red John), he's a red herring (which means they have plans for more RJ in the future) or he's just a really bad extra.

* The third and final thing that stood out was the conversation between PJ and RJ.

This was an example of another contrived and unrealistic situation created by the writers. PJ is supposed to be a smart man, and yet he never actually ask for real proof proof that this man indeed RJ.

PJ would have asked a very specific question that only RJ would know. Instead, he just says "I don't know that you really are Red John" and then he provides information that the real RJ could have told him to say, just like everything else he's said until this point.

Red John is retired and he's all about manipulating people from a distance, never being directly involved or following people, and having them do his dirty work for him. Many of the "newer" Red John cases are probably just his friends following very specific instructions.

In order to receive real proof, PJ would have asked something specific. "That's all well and good, but what were they wearing? What music was playing? Oh, so you remember every smell with great detail.. but you don't remember what they were wearing or anything else?"

Seeing as how everything was very rushed in this episode, it's no surprise that the writers screwed the pooch on this scene and ended up with lazy and unimaginative writing. They practically screamed that this guy was not RJ.

I wonder if they'll remember to fully investigate the deceased (fake RJ) in the next season. The first couple episodes might just focus on PJ in jail awaiting trial (maybe even solving crimes while in prison), but RJ did have a gun after all and even though there were security cameras in the mall, PJ could have easily walked into a blind spot and just claim that RJ pulled a gun on him first and he simply acted in self defense. There are a ton of ways non-clever writers can write him out of his predicament.

Transferred from paxdora.blogspot.com [LINK]
Original Post Date: 7/7/11

I hate that word.. a "game changer."

This next episode is a game-changer. Writer C explains why his episode is a game changer. This will be a TRUE game changer.

Seriously, STFU. Nothing ever changes, the stories remain stale and derivative, and there is never any character or real plot development. It's just another newly rushed plot that will carry you to the end of the season.

I see that the Doctor Who writers and promoters use this word in great excess.

To be honest, I've watched every single episode but I've never actually liked the new series. Strange isn't it? I think it's because I'm just waiting for those rare episodes that are actually pretty good. I much preferred the pre-2005 Doctor Who episodes and I wish they had taken a ST:TNG approach to the new series. That is, kept it as a serious science fiction with occasional humor like the original. Instead, they turned it into a silly parody and incoherent mess but with really great special effects. The actors who have played the Doctor's are brilliant however, but the rest of the supporting cast can suck it.

They're taking a break now because they have no idea where the show is going and have run out of more elaborate science-fictioney ideas.

What's most disappointing is that they've become a plot-factory pumping as many different far fetching ideas as possible, but with no clear plans of the future or understanding of the past. They rush something together, throw in a word or phrase (like "the darkness", "the void", "the silence", "the bad wolf", etc.) to be "explained" at a later date, and the writers just say "Well, we'll just figure it out later." Every episode is just becoming a chain reaction to the previous episode, which was written by someone else.

One thing that's consistent with Doctor Who though is that every character stays the exact same, there's never any character development, and they never learn or change.

Transferred from paxdora.blogspot.com [LINK]
Original Post Date: 7/4/11

It's funny how people draw a line on what constitutes piracy. If you pirate 20 video games per month for example, you're a pirate. But, if you only pirated a couple cheap games a few years ago.. well, you're not a pirate.

Many will only associate pirating with video games or applications, but conveniently ignore music, movies, art, or written material. The definition of piracy also varies from country to country. Piracy in one country might be perfectly legal in another. What piracy is can also become a moral or ethics debate, but here's roughly what the universally accepted definition of pirating means: the unauthorized use, appropriation, or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material or ideas.

Since it's safe to assume that if you're murdered once, you would still be labeled as a murderer, it would also be accurate that if you've ever pirated (even once) you're still a pirate. You might be a reformed pirate or a remorseful pirate.. but you're still a pirate.

Knowing this, try to examine your own life:

* Have you ever downloaded or used a copyrighted song, game, or application?
* Have you ever downloaded or used a copyrighted picture, photograph, clip art, logo, book, comic, or other piece of art?
* Have you ever recorded a TV show, movie or commercial using a tape recorder, VHS/Beta, or digital recorder?
* Have you ever recorded a song off the radio?
* Have you ever photocopied a book or any kind of copyrighted text?
* Have you ever watched an unlicensed video on YouTube? Listened to a song?

If you answer yes (or even a "sort of") to any of these questions then you're a pirate.

Things can get even more complicated:

* Have you ever watched an online or streaming video? Are you 100% positive it was licensed for your viewing?
* Ever listened to music online?
* Did you take a screenshot of a video game or webpage and save it?
* Is your desktop wallpaper licensed for your use?
* How much do you know about the software on your own PC?
* Do you use Windows? Then you're a pirate. Why you ask? I take it you weren't aware that Microsoft software contained patented code owned by other companies... they've lost legal cases for pirating code, but you were still technically using their code, and it was unauthorized for your use.
* Almost ever major software/hardware corporation is embroiled in unlicensed patent cases and you've been a party to them all. Have you ever owned a cell phone? Chances are it contained patents & copyrighted material that were owned by another company and unlicensed.
* Have you ever taken excerpts from a book or any kind of text online? How was it used, do you know what the Fair Use limitations are?
* Your PC downloads unlicensed video, audio, graphics all the time from web sites, and they are all copied to your computer and stored in cache.
* Do you have any shareware, demo software or browser plugins with expired licenses?
* Do you have any open source software in which you accidentally deleted the wrong .txt file which was required for its authorized use?
* Have you ever copied a friend's drawing or homework? Are you sure they didn't copyright it? It doesn't take much to copy protect your work or ideas.
* Have you ever used the old MP3.COM "music locker" service? (As you recall, the case was won in favor of the record labels.)
* MP3tunes allowed users to purchase music through their service and store in music lockers as well. The record labels viewed this as copyright infringement as well.
* Are you 100% positive that all of the software you use at work (installed by others) is fully licensed?
* Are you 100% positive that you don't have any software on your PC that has been sharing files, music, or videos on the internet?
* Have you ever downloaded free software without knowing you were only allowed to use it for 15 or 30 days?
* Have you ever used sound effects, logos, graphic materials or clip art without receiving a license directly from it's owner? How do you now the website you purchased the clip art from was licensed themselves to sell the art?
* Have you used Amazon or Google's cloud players? They're unlicensed.
* YouTube is a really big offender of copy protected material. It's saturated daily with unlicensed and illegal videos, songs, and other forms of art and material.

I love to hear the classic excuses for this type of thing too:
"YouTube? Well, I asked Yahoo Answers and everyone said it was legal. So it must be legal."
"If you delete your cache, the cops won't find anything. So yes, it's legal."
"Well, officer.. I didn't know is was copyrighted material!"
"I thought was legal. There wasn't any kind of notification telling me it wasn't."
"I'm just a kid, I didn't know it was illegal."
"I thought I could trust the website.. it looks official."

When you think about it, it's extremely difficult if not impossible NOT to pirate or unintentionally use patented material. A person (or website) may tell you one thing, but the record labels or entertainment industry might view it as the complete opposite. And just because a court case hasn't set a new legal precedent, that doesn't mean it's not piracy or wrong.

So, please don't complain about pirates.. after all, you're one of them. If you surf the internet, it's impossible for you not to be one. Unintentional pirates are still pirates.

If you complain about piracy, that makes you a hypocrit.. and a filthy pirate. If you didn't even know about your own crimes, then you're an filthy and incredibly ignorant pirate.

If you absolutely MUST complain, just complain about how they're a bigger pirate then you. It's a lot more honest.

And if you're still looking for some kind of loop hole, argument of oversimplification, or justification that you're not a pirate, then there's something I should tell you: Everything I posted on this blog is Copyright Me. You're not authorized to copy this, but I see that you have already in your active system memory and hard drive cache without my authorization. So, by reading this you've just confirmed that you're a pirate.

Welcome to the family. Arrrr.

Transferred from paxdora.blogspot.com [LINK]
Original Post Date: 6/28/11

I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but the definition of a troll has changed. Here's the old definition; [LINK]

Basically, it was a method of self-entertainment by deliberately starting an argument by antagonizing a user or users. Rather than calling them Internet Trolls, however, they are simply referred to as Trolls now. The reason for this is because you can "troll" in real life, and it's not just limited to the internet or message boards any more.

Definitions are always constantly changing and evolving. You could even say that people who use the more "updated versions" of words are more progressive.. or daresay, evolved than those still using the old definition.

Consider the film "Idiocracy". The English language completely changed. To you, they would be considered less intelligent, but it was the next evolution and progression of the language. But consider that the you speak now would be considered foolish or less intelligent by your own forefathers.

Even individual definitions of words have completely changed. This was demonstrated very well in "The F Word" episode of Southpark; [LINK]

The term troll (and trolling) has reached a new level of progression. I think it happened about 6-12 months ago in fact.

The definition of a trolling is now something said or done to provoke any kind of emotional response (most commonly laughter) or any kind of matter not to be taken seriously.

If you make a joke or amusing anecdote, you're trolling. If you play a practical joke whether it causes laughter or anger, you're trolling. If something is amusing or ridiculous, it's a troll attempt. The troll will fail, however, if it's not funny or effective. Even farting on someone or farting in general is now considered trolling.

So yes, whether you like it or not the definition of a troll (and trolling) has radically changed. Although you could still relate trolling to it's previous definition incarnation, but just remember that it makes you less progressive than everyone else.

If someone plays a practical joke or posts something that gets an emotional (or serious) response, don't get angry at them and accuse them of not understanding what a troll is. Chances are, you're wrong and have just proved that you're less progressive (and evolved) than the others who understand the new and true definition.

You might as well get angry at people for not using the term gay as being happy and glad.. you primitive ape you.