Mission Impossible III – the secret of the rabbit’s foot NOT REVEALED HERE!


Though NOT to be confused with the superb TV series which had a sophistication and charm notoriously lacking in all 3 Mission films, MI III is fun and fairly clever with one excellent plot twist I won't reveal here.

Calling it "action packed" would be an understatement. It's a (PG 13!) orgy of torture, murders, extrajudicial killings, bombings, explosions, implanted head detonators, defibrillators, and …..  Katie Holmes/Tom Cruise marriage references.

I could certainly believe Seymour Hoffman as an evil international bad guy, and Lawrence Fishburn as IMF spymaster, and even Tom Cruise as super spy, but what was HARD TO BELIEVE was how close Tom's real life beau Katie Holmes looks to his movie beau Michelle Monaghan.
katieORmichelle.JPG

Scary, right?

Which brings me back to the film. Outtakes have revealed that the China made "Rabbits Foot" which was the subject of great interest to bad and good guys alike is a super sensitive biometric identification device that can help Tom determine if the girl he's with is actually Katie or Michelle. Without it Tom's pending marriage would be at risk. Given the multi billion success of the Cruise film empire palimony is incredibly expensive, helping to set the Rabbit's Foot's price tag, which WAS mentioned in the film, at $680 million.

Money well spent I'd say.

Web comes full circle, developers doing better stuff but making less money?


Pardon my somewhate randomized ramblings……

Significant changes keep swirling online as the internet becomes the key mainstream content vehicle, oceans of content continue to flow online, and mashups empower developers to flesh out even the most extravagant ideas with powerful tools reaching far into the rich data stores all over the web. Even market makers like Google, Yahoo, MSN don’t know how it’ll all shake out, and they are supporting many excellent mashups and APIs and developers to make sure bases are covered as the “real” battles for all that online spending heat up.

Where content was king it’s now just a pawn, and creating (large) communities in addition to a large content collection seems the best way to keep a web based company afloat in the stormy and rising online sea of sea changes.

*Unlike the gravy days of soaking up adsense revenues with auto-generated content, it appears online content providers need something “extra” es that will distinguish them from the other sites doing similar things.

The Internet in many ways, has done a partial circle back to quality stuff.

In early days it was non-competitive and fun and info focused.

Then came powerful commercial focus and info bias and heavy SEO for profitable terms.

I think the “new” transition is focusing on people/information, and rewarding those who create communities and bring *people* into contact with *people*. (e.g. Flickr, Myspace, Facebook, etc, etc). Increasingly, NON commerical sites like Wikipedia and DMOZ are taking on the roles that for a few years were provided by a plethora of auto generated, information poor – category rich sites that provided obscure topic details in a bland format.

Deal or No Deal TV show reporting odds …. correctly


howie.jpg

UPDATE: Ann's clever simulations indicate the odds are as stated on the show.

The TV Show "Deal or No Deal" appears to be a complex variation on the Monty Hall problem, but it's NOT.  I'm deleting my earlier *failed logic* which was wrong.

Apparently Monty's intentions matter in the 3 door game as follows:

Contestant picks door – this door will NOT be opened.

THUS there are 3 possible ways for the remaining 2 doors to be opened:

Empty, Empty
Empty, Prize
Prize, Empty

In Monty Hall, he KNOWS where the prize is and always uncovers an empty door.    However in a game where the host does NOT know and thus the prize CAN be uncovered, the game universe will EXCLUDE the Prize, Empty option.   This exclusion changes the odds, with each remaining option having a 1/3 chance of happening = equal odds whether you switch or not.