While researching oscilloscope art — more on that tomorrow — I stumbled on the MovieTone Digital Archive, an incredible and underrated online resource for vintage British newsreel footage from the 1930s to the late 1970s.

Amazingly, it seems virtually unknown on the web, linked seven times on Del.icio.us and only 33 links in Google’s index. It’s almost certainly because of the registration wall, with no clear insight into what’s hiding behind the curtain. But once you register (for free), you get access to full access to the entire video archive in high-quality Quicktime or Windows Media.

Funny enough, I noticed that their Quicktime previews are viewable outside of their site. So, as long as it lasts, here’s a small sampling of my favorites from the 48,500+ reels in the British MovieTone News archive.

Continue reading “Highlights from the British MovieTone Darkweb” →

Just received word moments ago that Consumating, the niche dating community acquired by CNET in December 2005, will be shutting down next month. In the wake of the sale of Webshots to American Greetings, it appears that CNET couldn’t find a buyer for the site and is no longer interested in maintaining it.

Founders Ben Brown and Adam Mathes are no longer affiliated with Consumating, but they were the first to break the news two hours ago. “Just got word of the plan to turn off Consumating,” Ben wrote on Twitter. Adam replied, “Beginning my long mourning period over the end of Consumating.”

After Ben Brown left CNET in Spring 2007, Jesse Keyes took over managing the site. This morning, he posted a revealing Question of the Week on Consumating: “What will you do when it all comes grinding to a halt?” Jesse’s own response was, “Pack it up and call it a day…”

Rumors of its demise have been swirling for the last two weeks, so most of the community didn’t seem surprised in the active discussions. A week ago, Consumating users set up an off-site message board to ease the transition and keep friendships alive, in the event of a closure.

Though there hasn’t been an official statement from CNET on the matter, sources close to the company confirmed that the shutdown date will be March 15. Users will be able to download a data dump of their questions, answers, and other social activity as a comma-separated file.

Even though Consumating never found a huge audience or revenue, it’s worth noting that it still has a dedicated following that loves the site, uses it every day, and formed offline relationships because of it. It’s unfortunate that CNET couldn’t find a way to keep the site online, even if that meant handing it back to the users that made it special. Since online communities are built on top of user’s contributions and social interactions, it raises the question: are companies responsible for keeping community website alive, even after they cease to be strategically desirable?

Well, maybe the Consumating founders did find a way to preserve it after shutdown. Shortly before Ben Brown left, he pushed CNET to open source the Consumating code base. That project, Clonesumating, is available on Google Code. After it’s burned to the ground, maybe an open version of Consumating will rise from the ashes.

February 14 Update: Yesterday, Jesse Keyes gave the official announcement. “We know you want and deserve a site that is vibrant and fresh, and we don’t think it’s fair to you to keep an unsupported site live. And so, we’ll be shutting Consumating.com down on March 15th,” he wrote. “In a couple weeks we’ll have a way available for you to download a file with most of your profile data, which could theoretically be imported into a similar site. Details will come when we’re ready to release the exporter.”

According to this thread, the private messaging feature recently stopped working and nobody’s around to fix it. How depressing.

I’m working on redesigning Waxy today, so no huge article. Instead, a roundup of brand new updates to posts from my first week of full-time blogging.

Colin’s Bear Animation

Colin emailed to let me know that his inadequate former professor no longer works at the school. “They’ve hired a new professor this semester and he actually works at Alias,” he wrote. “In only two weeks it has become very clear that we now have someone worth our parents’ hard-earned cash.”

Also, by request, I found a full-length copy of the song from the video. Here’s an MP3 of Funky Monkey Dance from the Mother 3 soundtrack. (The good part starts at 1:20.)

Personal Ads of the Digerati

Surprisingly, the only people that seemed to care about Dave’s personal ad were Valleywag, Eye on Winer (the newest in a long line of obsessive Dave Winer watchdog sites), and Dave Winer himself. He commented on it a few times on his Twitter account, but that was about it. (Related, Eye on Winer posted this Knight-Ridder article from 1986 about American bachelors, with Dave Winer in the lead story.)

Many more people took note of the bit about Richard Stallman’s extremely unusual web browsing habits, culled from this post I dug up from a discussion list late last year. That link ended up on Zawodny’s blog and, later, the top of Reddit. I emailed RMS some questions, to ask him more about this, leading to the shortest interview ever:

I’m fascinated with a message I read about how you read the web with a wget demon. Could you elaborate on it?

It is a program that runs wget and mails me back the result.

Do you then convert the HTML to plain text and read it by email, or do you load the retrieved file in a browser? (If so, which browser?)

I can do either one.

Finally, is it free software, or something that you’d be willing to release?

I did not write it, but our sysadmins say it is kludgy.

Thanks for that elaborate explanation, Richard! As Philipp told me, “He answers like a programmer. If you stopped him on the street to ask, ‘Do you know the time?’ he’d say ‘Yes’ and leave.”

The Times (UK) Spamming Social Sites

As I noted last week, The Times and Sitelynx both absolved themselves of responsibility. The Times claimed they weren’t aware that social media spamming was going on, which I tend to believe, and Sitelynx blamed Piotr completely for promoting articles on social sites — not because that’s a practice Sitelynx opposes, but because he wasn’t “properly trained” to do it and that’s not what he wasn’t hired to do. He was removed from The Times account.

Another Sitelynx employee, Sibylle Bernardakis, modified her StumbleUpon profile the day after the story broke to disclose her affiliation with The Sun, another Sitelynx client. I asked Graham Hansell, founder of Sitelynx, about this last week:

Graham responded, “She has followed our policy for submissions — Disclaimers where possible, latest news only, direct linking (no redirect) to valuable content, no hidden links or promotional content.” I pointed out that it appeared Sibylle never disclosed her affiliations before she modified her profiles earlier today. Graham replied, “That I am not aware of and will investigate. I don’t believe that to be true and we are obviously reviewing our internal policy for greater transparency.”

Some commenters noted that Chris Deary and Ilana Fox at The Sun also use Delicious extensively for promoting their articles. This doesn’t seem problematic because their affiliation with The Sun is transparent and disclosed, while Piotr and Sybille were not.

Brent Spiner’s Ol’ Yellow Eyes is Back

I just found out that a couple days before my post, Brent Spiner launched his new personal site and released a video on YouTube about his long-awaited concept album, Dreamland. Inspired by Broadway musicals and old-fashioned radio shows, the album is available for pre-order on Brent’s site. Did I mention it features the voice acting of Mark Hamill?

By request of Waxy reader Logan Ingalls, I spent most of the day tracking down the origins of the Plane On A Treadmill physics puzzle/meme. I figured this would be simple, but six hours later, I’ve combed through archives of the web, Usenet, magazines, academic journal, physics websites, and hundreds of discussion forums looking for the source.

There have been a couple thought experiments that came close, but still different enough that they can’t be considered the source. Jason Scott found this Usenet post from September 1990, which sounded promising:

There is nothing special about the ground as a reference plane! Consider a large flatbed truck moving at 80 mph from east to west. Does the truck’s velocity have ANY effect on the airplane’s ability to fly? Now try to land on the truck….the velocity of the truck becomes *real* important!

O.K., I’ll carry my reductio-ad-absurdum one step more. I mount the entire state of california on a conveyor belt. Initially my conveyor belt is at rest. I take off, climb to some high altitude, and then key my mike 4 times which sets the ground into motion. Does my plane suddenly stop flying?

Very similar, but key differences in the question (and a five-year-gap before it caught on) suggest that this didn’t inspire the puzzle.

So, where did it come from? The earliest reference to it that I can find is this post to the PhysOrg Forums, dated July 19, 2005. It seems unlikely that some random poster on a physics message board would have invented it, but as far as I can tell, this is the case. Update: Its appearance online goes back to a Russian discussion forum in 2003. Read the updates at the bottom of the post for more.

I’ve tried to contact “dirak” through the PhysOrg site to get a decisive answer, but since he hasn’t posted a new message since July 2006, I think I’m out of luck. Looking for his username turns up some Slashdot submissions, all anonymous, and that’s about it. I’d even tried to contact the PhysOrg forum creators, but they’re extremely protective about their own privacy, too. As a desperate measure to locate the PhysOrg folks, I then tried to track down the freelance writers that wrote for PhysOrg (through Myspace and Facebook), and am waiting for those leads to respond. Update: Dirak responded! Read the updates below.

There’s no reference to the puzzle anywhere before July 2005, and no reference to it again until October 2005, suggesting that the rapidly-expanding PhysOrg thread led to users cross-posting it to other forums to get advice.

One of the earliest references is from November 15, 2005 on this discussion thread from Flightinfo.com, a popular aviation forum for serious pilots. Often cited in other messages from 2005, the Flightinfo thread was eventually removed from the site entirely in late 2006. On November 27, it spread further when an AVWeb columnist wrote a long article (also now offline) about how the controversy was spreading in the pilot community.

At this point, it was appearing on several message boards, inspiring heated debate everywhere it went. In December 2005, the question was posed to the Straight Dope discussion forum with no clear answers. A few weeks later, Cecil Adams himself addressed the question in his February 3, 2006 column. Cecil’s syndicated column broke the question into the mainstream. A few days later, Jason Kottke started his obsession with the question and the rest is history. Mythbusters’ elaborate tests were intended to answer the question for good, but it seems to have only strengthened the resolve of its detractors.

So until I hear back from “dirak,” or manage to contact PhysOrg, I’m going to consider this case closed. (Needless to say, if you can find an earlier reference or have any other information, please let me know.)

Updated February 7: Unbelievably, “Dirak” (his real name’s Andrew) responded to my private message through the PhysOrg forums! He says, “Yes, I’m sure I was the first who brought this topic to the English-speaking internet. However, I wasn’t the one who invented this question. I’m half-Russian and I read about it on one of Russian forums back in 2005.”

He continues, “I looked for that thread for you, here it is (it’s in Russian). The first guy (shipwreck) wrote about it in 2003 and in his first post he says that they were arguing about it in his college. shipwreck is an unregistered user on that board, so I’m not sure if it’s possible to contact him at all. Hope this helps you.”

Incredible. So, this brings its appearance online back to August 4, 2003. Any Russians out there want to carry on the search? Trying to contact “Shipwreck” would be the next step.

Also: Want me to research another meme? Email or IM me and I’ll give it a shot. Whee!

Yesterday, I released six years of piracy data for your bemusement and data munging. But what does it all mean? Well, let’s start with a couple questions.

1. Is the MPAA doing a better job at preventing screeners from leaking online?

It’s hard to say. There are a couple weeks left, but so far, less than half of the 32 Academy screeners have leaked online. But yet, all but four three of the 34 nominated films are available in DVD quality right now, either as a screener or retail DVD. (Lars and the Real Girl, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, and The Savages are the only films that haven’t leaked online in any form.)

If you look at the chart, it doesn’t seem like much has changed in the time it takes for films to leak online.

So what’s really going on here?

2. Is the MPAA preventing overall piracy of Oscar films?

No. 148 out of 151 of Oscar-nominated films from 2003 to 2007 were available in DVD quality (either leaked retail or screener DVDs) by Oscar night. The films are getting leaked just as quickly as ever, but apparently not through Academy screeners. This could be because watermarks and recent court cases are acting as an effective deterrent, but I think it’s attributable to two other reasons, which I mentioned in my post yesterday.

First, the gap between theatrical releases to retail DVD is getting shorter. (Note: I’m going to use the date the retail DVD was leaked as an approximation of the official DVD release date.) In the last five years, it’s gone from an average of about four months to about three months, and continuing to shrink.

Second, the rise of Region 5 DVD transfers from overseas. These DVDs transferred directly from the film source were intended to help them compete with pirates by providing high-quality retail copies of films at the time of the film’s release. Instead, it’s created a huge new method of acquiring films before screeners are even released. (Read more about R5s at Afterdawn.)

Screeners aren’t leaking as often, not because the MPAA’s protecting them better, but because they’ve made the whole process moot by providing higher-quality, easier-to-acquire copies before screeners are released, in the form of R5 and retail DVDs.

Find anything else interesting in the data? Please, comment or send it to me and I’ll add it to this entry.

February 11 Update: The Lars and the Real Girl screener was released. I updated the data.