Mindwebs.

Recently I received a zip-file. As I went on to extract the file therein contained, I found out that the archive was password-protected. I checked my source — nothing hinted at any password protection. Hmpf. What now?

I am pretty that zip-file passwords are not the most secure protection around, so I searched for a "password recovery" program. I found, to no surprise, heaps. I downloaded the first that was free, but before even balking at the time it would need to brute-force a possibly decent password, the program gave up: It didn't recognize the file format. (Even though my system says it's a plain vanilla zip-file…)

A bit flustered, I remembered that the file I was handling should have been quite wide-spread on the internet — so I googled it. In fact, within the ten top hits for "<filename>.zip password" already the google summary revealed what appeared to be a promising password. First try, success!

And I know that the title I chose for this post is quite the mouthful; still, my first reaction as a computer scientist to a "forgotten" password was something along the lines of "I can recover it". But my approach was evidently completely wrong — even if the password cracking program would have worked, it probably would have taken a lot of time. If it would have found the passwort at all. Had the program worked. Lots of ifs. Though the "social engineering" of a simple (much more simple, I might add, than searching, downloading, intsalling, and using a dedicated program) google search revealed the solution. In a handful of seconds.

I found a user whose photos on flickr, the photo-sharing site (now owned by Yahoo) I really like. After discovering a little batch of his pictures, I realized that he had a ton more online — soon I longed to check them out. On my terms.

That requirement encompasses a set of necessities: The short version being that I needed them on my PC. Understand that I am not trying to steal or modify the photos in any way: I just want to have the freedom to view them as I please, not as how flickr allows or dictates me to do. Since I love the photos I truly revere their author; the last thing I want to do is any harm to that person!

Anyway, as one can imagine, flickr doesn't like you to download its pictures in batch. Particularly if they are copyrighted. In fact, there are a lot of hurdles to overcome were you trying to do so. Which is, in a way, understandable. But I, being a computer scientist who means no harm, know that if there is a way to view the photos on your screen, you can save them on your hard drive. Scripting such a task, on the other hand, might be a little more difficult. The hurdles I was talking about also hinder you doing such a thing.

So I started looking around for tools which do just that. Uploading is not an issue. As isn't downloading your own pictures. After searching around a bit, one can find tools which — after having linked the program with your account — through flickr's APIs can even download photos marked as openly accessible.

Funny thing is, several of the tools I found (and tried) were very ccreatively named: "flickr downloadr" is the name to at least a dozen programs doing the exact same thing (more or less successfully)… You can be glad if you find such a tool with a different name: At least you could tell them apart!

But, alas, of course I chose the more difficult option.

My chosen photographer of choices marked his photos as "copyrighted", which means the just mentioned tools wouldn't work. The API will not allow that. Even more, since one photo contained some (extremely mild) nudity (as I later discovered), the whole account was marked as "R-rated" or something, since it asked me a couple of times if I were sure I wanted to watch the photos or "return to the kittens" (no kidding: that's what the warning said). So I was afraid that even if I found an "illegal" tool that downloaded a bunch of photos marked as copyrighted, it would fail (probably miserably) because of this further restriction.

I digged deeper into Google, and found several workarounds/scripts/apps that promised to do just that — but apparently flickr is working just as hard fighting those. As a matter of fact, most of the tools I found were quite outdated (as far back as 2007, IIRC). It must have been easier to circumvent flickr's safeguards that far back. Finally, I found a more "modern" tool which caught my eye because its last update wasn't even a week away: Saleen Flickr Downloader (note that it seems that even the developers haven't quite figured out a unified way to name their product…). I had struck gold!

This program has one extremely clever and ingenious — and yet simple, as for most elegant solutions to a problem — feature that made it everything I was searching for (even though I didn't know it beforehand): It basically is a simple web browser. A browser exclusive to flickr.

Just like that, the program can preempt flickr's any and all warning. Basically, you use this "sub-browser" to log into flickr, surf to the desired photos/user/set, answer every question flickr might pose (like the "R-rated" thing) and then starts doing its work. Remember how I said if you could view it on your screen, you could save it on your hard drive? Well that's exactly what it does. By being a browser, the program inserts itself on the last possible step before delivering the picture to your screen, while still working its magic way after any checks that flickr might have built in. It's so effective, it's perfection. Incredible.

So, after logging in, locating the user in question, and making flickr happy with all its requests, warnings, and whatnots, I advised the program to start downloading all the pictures. And finally, after way longer than anticipated, I could enjoy those beautiful pictures.

For the first time in my life, while watching a TV seriese — it was "Lie to Me", S02E04 — I saw some realism in an acted scene. The sort of realism like "Why doesn't anybody ever use the restroom?" or "Why isn't anybody ever hungry? It is a well known truth that, in filmmaking and acting in general, "frivolities" such as using the bathroom or eating (just to mention the two introduced above) are included exclusively when they serve some purpose or action to advance the plot.

Being a movie-lover (and thus, at least to some extent, drama as a whole), you can imagine my utter surprise when something completely unnecessary to the plot and even to the character development happened while watching a trivial TV series. To tell you the truth, it was very subtle. But still scripted; I mean, it couldn't possibly have been the actor (or, in this case, actress) ad-libbing it. There was circumstantial evidence to prove it. (OK, so "circumstancial evidence" and "proof" in the same sentence maybe isn't the best of choices; but bear with me for a second and I'll explain what I mean.)

The character danced. She danced.

Well, more accurately, she "moved to the rythm", she bobs her head. The character, Ria Torres (portrayed by Monica Raymund), sits in her car listening to music, drives up to some house, but, before getting out, needs to check something in a folder (the folder lying in her car actually does serve a function in the plot; so the whole scene has its purpose). And after having stopped the car, while checking the folder, she sways to the music blasting out of the radio.

The diegetic music coming out of the car's stereo is actually the "evidence" that the whole thing must have been planned: The scene would have worked just as well without any music at all. So what other reasons could be behind her enjoying the music? There is no direct reference to the music in the episode. A character trait? Possibly; the character displays youngness, some sort of freshness compared to the quite some years older other (main) characters. She is the youngster, protege of the series' protagonist Dr. Lightman. Her young age was actually a crucial aspect right in the previous episode (S02E03). That appears like a pretty weak selling point for her moves, but still a plausible explanation. Later in the episode, the character blames herself for not locking the car in that particular instance referred to in the scene in question. So maybe the music (and her obvious being distracted, almost beleaguered by it since she is even responding physically to it) does indeed play a central role in the episode? Even this theory seems like quite a stretch, though it appears more believable since more directly connected to the action than the depiction of a character's trait.

Anyway, whatever the reason: I was thoroughly astonished by that couple of seconds. It's been a while since a simple scene carried me away so completely as to inducing me to write a 3000 character "essay" about it.

So even TV can have an effect on me…

Somehow, only quite recently — a couple of years, compared to the fact he's been doing it for decades — I realized Eastwood was directing movies. I took him for granted as an actor, it surprises me how many movies he also directed. Anyway, "Invictus": Quentin Tarantino declared, while going through his top ten movies of 2009, he hadn't seen it, but greatly anticipated it. Having loved "Million Dollar Baby" (which, by the way, I was about to mention in my previous post, now that I think of it, but thought better not to), I expected quite something. Thus, I should have been ready for a slow start (especially after noticing the over two-hour runtime!). But to be truthful, the pace just kept picking up throughout the whole movie. Like the previous movie I reviewed, only one single word falls to mind: solid.

What I did like was the shift from Mandela biopic to epic sports-victory movie. The emotions felt real, and I sure hope they haven't botched the South African dialect; unfortunately, I cannot tell myself. The "bodyguards meeting", "tea with the president", as well as the "kid with police in front of the stadium" scenes were all quite strong and heartfelt. I enjoyed those a lot.

In hindsight, Eastwood's "Changeling" was quite something; maybe my bar is set too high? Anyway, I will have to watch "Gran Torino" as soon as possible — it has been reccomended to me twice already; once a good friend of mine declared it would become my new favourite movie. Let's hope my expectations aren't out of reach this time around!

I don't know, my attention span hasn't been, for the last couple of months, long enough to calmly sit through any one movie. That said, Kathryn Bigelow's newest movie is a solid one. Just like one would expect.

As I mentioned, I must admit that I probably interrupted the movie way too many times as to enjoy it 100%. Maybe that's the reason I've been watching solely crappy action movies in recent times; they don't require as much attention. Although the two-hour runtime goes by fairly quickly because of all the back-to-back action-sequences, somehow it didn't grip me like Bigelow's previous movie, "K-19: The Widowmaker". That one impressed me so much, it was one of the reasons I yearned to see "The Hurt Locker". On the plus side, the movie appears extremely realistic, and I liked the camera work — the more action, the steadier the camera, the less action (but more emotional turmoil), the broader the movements. Like in the shower scene, right after Eldridge gets shot: It's as if during the military-action scene, where discipline and rigor trump, a straight and clear camera work is king. But in the soldier's personal time and in their private spaces, when emotions are allowed to break the surface, also the camera is looser, easier, more mobile.

I didn't recognize Evangeline Lilly the first time she appeared; so I was pleasantly surprised when she appeared in the final scenes (even if her role is rather short). I must say, I greatly appreciated those final scenes and the ending in particular. I truly loved the cereal-scene! What a great crescendo for the ending!

As I said, Bigelow doesn't fail to deliver. A good, solid movie.

And as a last note: How come there are so few famous female directors? I mean, right now, besides Bigelow herself, I can only think of Sofia Coppola. Maybe Asia Argento (although her movies aren't by far as famous)? Who else?