Firefox supports animated gif "favicons"
If you browse to this image:erik-rock.gif (GIF Image, 48x48 pixels) Firefox will use it as your "favicon", including animation. Wow, it sure is annoying!
O'Reilly and Colbert talk the talk
It's hard to believe, but O'Reilly appeared on the Colbert Report. (And Colbert was on the O'Reilly factor). Bill had nothing to gain from this; why did he do it? Unfortunately it wasn't nearly as funny as it could have been. And frankly, the bit when Colbert microwaved the DVD recording of the entire thing at the end of his show disturbed me. Colbert is successful precisely because he is not mean spirited, and in many ways really does pay homage to O'Reilly. Being hateful just ruins the whole thing.
How does Colbert pay homage? He uses some of the tropes of the O'Reilly factor that make it so watchable. These things generally give it the air of snappiness, decisiveness, and clarity. The show is incredibly well organized, and into "bite sized" pieces. Colbert is never doubtful, always decisive. His presentation is polished and neat. He certainly has a charismatic flare. This last is even more potent in Colbert because his goal is to amuse not to outrage. Colbert emulates one of the greatest qualities people demand in a relationship: predictability. He has clearly stated his outlook, he is internally consistent, and even if you disagree he's still easy to deal with.
Superior organization and personal confidence has been the hallmark of recent Republican success. John Kerry ran a terrible campaign, and he really was quite flimsy in his views. I have read that the Bush White House reports to work every day in shirt and tie at 7am, and is exceedingly well organized. I bet The O'Reilly Factor (and the Colbert Report) are run in similar fashion.
One could hope that these genuinely positive qualities of Bush and O'Reilly could be emulated by *everyone*, regardless of their specific political stance. I have considerable sympathy for the left-wing (or rather, antipathy for many of the things Bush has done) but by golly it's true - the left consistently comes across as less put together, less organized, and with a fuzzier message.
O'Reilly wants "traditional values". That's easy to understand, at least. What does Al Franken want? It's much harder to define. Primarily because liberals these days are largely protesting the changes that conservatives are trying to make. (Which is odd considering that "conservative" usually implies not changing things). Unfortunately, people with agendas are more entertaining. The only really entertaining way to thwart that agenda is the way Colbert is doing it. God bless his French-Canadian heart.
O'Reilly and Colbert talk the talk - USATODAY.com
How does Colbert pay homage? He uses some of the tropes of the O'Reilly factor that make it so watchable. These things generally give it the air of snappiness, decisiveness, and clarity. The show is incredibly well organized, and into "bite sized" pieces. Colbert is never doubtful, always decisive. His presentation is polished and neat. He certainly has a charismatic flare. This last is even more potent in Colbert because his goal is to amuse not to outrage. Colbert emulates one of the greatest qualities people demand in a relationship: predictability. He has clearly stated his outlook, he is internally consistent, and even if you disagree he's still easy to deal with.
Superior organization and personal confidence has been the hallmark of recent Republican success. John Kerry ran a terrible campaign, and he really was quite flimsy in his views. I have read that the Bush White House reports to work every day in shirt and tie at 7am, and is exceedingly well organized. I bet The O'Reilly Factor (and the Colbert Report) are run in similar fashion.
One could hope that these genuinely positive qualities of Bush and O'Reilly could be emulated by *everyone*, regardless of their specific political stance. I have considerable sympathy for the left-wing (or rather, antipathy for many of the things Bush has done) but by golly it's true - the left consistently comes across as less put together, less organized, and with a fuzzier message.
O'Reilly wants "traditional values". That's easy to understand, at least. What does Al Franken want? It's much harder to define. Primarily because liberals these days are largely protesting the changes that conservatives are trying to make. (Which is odd considering that "conservative" usually implies not changing things). Unfortunately, people with agendas are more entertaining. The only really entertaining way to thwart that agenda is the way Colbert is doing it. God bless his French-Canadian heart.
O'Reilly and Colbert talk the talk - USATODAY.com
Nintendo Wii Dissassembled
I very much want one to connect to the projector, but stores still can't keep them in stock and I find myself balking at the $100 premium craigslisters are charging. To satisfy my craving, I found this excellent photo essay: Cracking open the Nintendo Wii. That and it's sister article (documenting the assembled Wii in great detail) are quite enjoyable.
'The Diamond Age' - a miniseries!
George Clooney is going to produce The Diamond Age for the Sci Fi channel. Neil Stephenson (the books original author) will adapt for the small screen.
This is exciting for several reasons. First, it's good to know that some Hollywood stars (Clooney) have good taste in story telling. Second, The Diamond Age is hard-SF at it's finest, and anything that increases it's exposure is a great thing. Third, the story has a lot of wonderful ideas in it that deserve wider exposure.
Read the story. at zap2it.com.
This is exciting for several reasons. First, it's good to know that some Hollywood stars (Clooney) have good taste in story telling. Second, The Diamond Age is hard-SF at it's finest, and anything that increases it's exposure is a great thing. Third, the story has a lot of wonderful ideas in it that deserve wider exposure.
Read the story. at zap2it.com.
Fun Ajax programs (Lemmings!)
I'm learning a bit about Ajax (via the excellent "Ajax Design Patterns") and have found a few really fun sites through my studies. Here are two sites that demonstrate drag-n-drop and sprites:
The latter is particularly impressive and fun.
The latter is particularly impressive and fun.
An an unusual assasination attempt
In a recent article about Hamas softening it's stance on Israel it was revealed: "...Israel tried to assassinate [Hamas leader Mr Meshaal] in 1997 by injecting poison into his ear..."
Hmm? Why would you inject poison into somebody's ear? Wouldn't a nice vein, or even a flabby area of fat do nicely?
Or perhaps Mossad tried to drive the man insane with Yoko Ono and Culture Club records?
Hmm? Why would you inject poison into somebody's ear? Wouldn't a nice vein, or even a flabby area of fat do nicely?
Or perhaps Mossad tried to drive the man insane with Yoko Ono and Culture Club records?
Wag of the Finger: Newly elected democrats
If the democrats even think about increasing troop levels, just go ahead and dissolve the Democratic party. These people were elected because of frustration with the war - to commit even further resources is sheer folly. We screwed the pooch on this one: let's leave.
We should be hearing very loud noises (of the "no way") sort from the Dems. The silence is incredibly disheartening. Wag of the finger to you!!!
Plan for troop 'surge' in Iraq gathers force | csmonitor.com
We should be hearing very loud noises (of the "no way") sort from the Dems. The silence is incredibly disheartening. Wag of the finger to you!!!
Plan for troop 'surge' in Iraq gathers force | csmonitor.com
Unusual names: St.Martin in the Fields
St.Martin in the Fields is a famous London church. It is associated with a well-known musical group The Academy of Saint Martin in the Fields, which is how I heard of the church.
I have to admit that it took me a while to figure out the noun-ness of "Saint Martin in the fields". Or, spelled more correctly: Saint Martin-in-the-fields. This leads to the question: why was the church named so oddly? Did it need to distinguish itself from other churches named "Saint Martin-riding-on-horseback" or "Saint Martin-rowing-a-boat-on-the-Thames"? Are there other churches similarly named? "Saint Paul-on-the-lake" has a nice ring to it.
One cannot help but admire the ingeniousness of such a naming scheme. Indeed, it's like a Medieval DNS! But it only has two parts, the Saint Name, and the (preposition, natural feature) pair.
It is fun to make your own using a list of Saint names, a list of prepositions, and a list of natural features (another list is here).
Some possible church names:
(And during my search for a good list of geographical terms like "butte" and "steppe" I ran across this wikipedia "List of Unusual Geographic Names". I hope St. Martin-in-the-fields made one of those lists.)
I have to admit that it took me a while to figure out the noun-ness of "Saint Martin in the fields". Or, spelled more correctly: Saint Martin-in-the-fields. This leads to the question: why was the church named so oddly? Did it need to distinguish itself from other churches named "Saint Martin-riding-on-horseback" or "Saint Martin-rowing-a-boat-on-the-Thames"? Are there other churches similarly named? "Saint Paul-on-the-lake" has a nice ring to it.
One cannot help but admire the ingeniousness of such a naming scheme. Indeed, it's like a Medieval DNS! But it only has two parts, the Saint Name, and the (preposition, natural feature) pair.
It is fun to make your own using a list of Saint names, a list of prepositions, and a list of natural features (another list is here).
Some possible church names:
- Saint Augustine-atop-the-escarpment
- Saint Jarlath-beside-the-mesa
- Saint Raucho-among-the-gullies
(And during my search for a good list of geographical terms like "butte" and "steppe" I ran across this wikipedia "List of Unusual Geographic Names". I hope St. Martin-in-the-fields made one of those lists.)
Movie Review: The Pursuit of Happyness (2006)
The Pursuit of Happyness (2006) is a well intentioned but utterly boring attempt to inspire.
Will Smith plays Chris Gardner, a man on the edge of total collapse. He is out of money, has no income, his wife leaves him, and he has a small child to take care of in the harsh city lights of a (curiously muted) San Franscisco. He does have one source of income though, and Chris shown running and/or lugging around that income (a big white piece of medical equipment) for most of the movie. It is this grating, boring visual that most clearly defines this movie. The film is about Chris's struggle to complete the 6 month *unpaid* internship despite being jailed, evicted, and, worst of all, having to use public transportation, but really it's about him lugging around a big white box.
Attempting a "man vs his environment" kind of drama, the central question of the movie is: will Chris Gardener make it? His setbacks, both large and small, are documented in excruciating detail, and yet I found myself not really caring. Chris's character is likable enough, so why do I find myself not caring? First, Chris is likable but not sympathetic. Secondly, the pacing of the film is thrown way off by a misguided attempt to show off Will Smith's real-life-son's acting talent. Third, this is just banal filmmaking.
One is tempted to describe the movie's style as "understated" but in the end it just feels lazy. This is a movie that chooses to announces in voice over: "This is the part of my life I call...running." Because Will Smith's character is running. Or "This part of my life I call...internship." Because he's about to start an internship. Get it? Or perhaps this filmmaking that has another motive...
...like introducing the (passable) talent of Will Smith's real-life son, who gets more-than-his-fair-share of screen time. The son in this sort of movie should get only enough screen time to establish the attachment and relationship with his father - to underscore to the audience how much the father has to lose. But young Jaden Smith's portion goes far beyond that, to the detriment of the film. Ironically, this could also be to the detriment of young Jaden's career, as this much exposure cries out "you just got the part because of daddy!" Let the kid stand on his own two feet, Will!
Thandie Newton (who was the sexually assaulted black woman in "Crash", the conniving Necromonger wife in "Chronicles of Riddick", and Dr. Carter's African wife on "ER") was totally wasted in this film. She is gorgeous and smart, and she can act (which is rare enough these days). As such she is a precious resource, not to be wasted. She got a chance to emote a little bit in this film, but her character is so quickly dismissed by Will Smith's character that whatever sizzle she conjures just sputters and dies. That's too bad. It didn't help that her character's arc goes from "marriage on the skids; bitter; anxious about the future" to "permanently off camera".
My final problem with the film is the message (or glaring lack of an important part of the message) which makes Chris Gardner's character so unsympathetic. Likable, yes. Sympathetic, no. While I understand the kind of struggle Chris was going through, it all seemed highly preventable. The first mistake was taking such a huge risk on those medical devices. The second mistake was a profound lack of planning once sales started to drop. His wife should never have had to start working double-shifts. She was right to be angry with him for just filing extensions on the tax bill. And to place all the blame on her (as the movie does) for not "having faith" in him and sticking with him isn't exactly fair. Because, if he didn't get the internship (which he does) he still didn't have plan B. And if he didn't get the job from the internship, he also didn't have a plan B. Sure, Mr. Gardner had to learn an important lesson about believing in himself, and going after his dream, and finding work that plays to his strengths. But the movie never shows Mr. Gardner learning a third and very important lesson: don't take stupid risks. Especially when you have a family to support.
Gardner is portrayed as a victim (who weathers this abuse stoically) throughout the movie. Here are some specifics:
1. his landlord kicks him out for not paying rent.
2. his wife leaves him.
3. the IRS confiscates back taxes from his checking account, leaving him penniless.
4. the police arrest him for not paying a huge sheaf of parking tickets
5. some hippie girl steals the expensive equipment he leaves with her when he goes in for a job interview
6. a taxi driver chases after him when he ditches a fair that his prospective employer should have paid.
In every instance these problems were preventable. This movie chronicles a man heroically struggling out of a deep pit. But the movie ignores the fact that he dug his own pit. Chris failed to plan. Chris took huge financial risks and was blindsided by his eventual failure. Chris put his wife in the unenviable position of supporting him and his son. Chris got in the taxi with his future boss, and traded the risk he might have to pay the fare for additional face time with his boss (which paid off). Chris ignored the IRS until it was too late. He ignored the police until they arrested him. He trusted a hippie girl with his financial life. Chris is a man who ignores things and hopes that they will go away, and that lesson doesn't ever appear to be unlearned. If anything, it's reinforced by the message of this movie.
To really be a victim you either need a capricious universe or a villain. The only person victimizing Chris was Chris. The lack of victimhood is death to sympathy. The death of sympathy is the death of drama. Bravo on getting out of a jam, Mr. Gardner, and admiring Thomas Jefferson. But there's another founding father worth looking into, the one who said:
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
Will Smith plays Chris Gardner, a man on the edge of total collapse. He is out of money, has no income, his wife leaves him, and he has a small child to take care of in the harsh city lights of a (curiously muted) San Franscisco. He does have one source of income though, and Chris shown running and/or lugging around that income (a big white piece of medical equipment) for most of the movie. It is this grating, boring visual that most clearly defines this movie. The film is about Chris's struggle to complete the 6 month *unpaid* internship despite being jailed, evicted, and, worst of all, having to use public transportation, but really it's about him lugging around a big white box.
Attempting a "man vs his environment" kind of drama, the central question of the movie is: will Chris Gardener make it? His setbacks, both large and small, are documented in excruciating detail, and yet I found myself not really caring. Chris's character is likable enough, so why do I find myself not caring? First, Chris is likable but not sympathetic. Secondly, the pacing of the film is thrown way off by a misguided attempt to show off Will Smith's real-life-son's acting talent. Third, this is just banal filmmaking.
One is tempted to describe the movie's style as "understated" but in the end it just feels lazy. This is a movie that chooses to announces in voice over: "This is the part of my life I call...running." Because Will Smith's character is running. Or "This part of my life I call...internship." Because he's about to start an internship. Get it? Or perhaps this filmmaking that has another motive...
...like introducing the (passable) talent of Will Smith's real-life son, who gets more-than-his-fair-share of screen time. The son in this sort of movie should get only enough screen time to establish the attachment and relationship with his father - to underscore to the audience how much the father has to lose. But young Jaden Smith's portion goes far beyond that, to the detriment of the film. Ironically, this could also be to the detriment of young Jaden's career, as this much exposure cries out "you just got the part because of daddy!" Let the kid stand on his own two feet, Will!
Thandie Newton (who was the sexually assaulted black woman in "Crash", the conniving Necromonger wife in "Chronicles of Riddick", and Dr. Carter's African wife on "ER") was totally wasted in this film. She is gorgeous and smart, and she can act (which is rare enough these days). As such she is a precious resource, not to be wasted. She got a chance to emote a little bit in this film, but her character is so quickly dismissed by Will Smith's character that whatever sizzle she conjures just sputters and dies. That's too bad. It didn't help that her character's arc goes from "marriage on the skids; bitter; anxious about the future" to "permanently off camera".
My final problem with the film is the message (or glaring lack of an important part of the message) which makes Chris Gardner's character so unsympathetic. Likable, yes. Sympathetic, no. While I understand the kind of struggle Chris was going through, it all seemed highly preventable. The first mistake was taking such a huge risk on those medical devices. The second mistake was a profound lack of planning once sales started to drop. His wife should never have had to start working double-shifts. She was right to be angry with him for just filing extensions on the tax bill. And to place all the blame on her (as the movie does) for not "having faith" in him and sticking with him isn't exactly fair. Because, if he didn't get the internship (which he does) he still didn't have plan B. And if he didn't get the job from the internship, he also didn't have a plan B. Sure, Mr. Gardner had to learn an important lesson about believing in himself, and going after his dream, and finding work that plays to his strengths. But the movie never shows Mr. Gardner learning a third and very important lesson: don't take stupid risks. Especially when you have a family to support.
Gardner is portrayed as a victim (who weathers this abuse stoically) throughout the movie. Here are some specifics:
1. his landlord kicks him out for not paying rent.
2. his wife leaves him.
3. the IRS confiscates back taxes from his checking account, leaving him penniless.
4. the police arrest him for not paying a huge sheaf of parking tickets
5. some hippie girl steals the expensive equipment he leaves with her when he goes in for a job interview
6. a taxi driver chases after him when he ditches a fair that his prospective employer should have paid.
In every instance these problems were preventable. This movie chronicles a man heroically struggling out of a deep pit. But the movie ignores the fact that he dug his own pit. Chris failed to plan. Chris took huge financial risks and was blindsided by his eventual failure. Chris put his wife in the unenviable position of supporting him and his son. Chris got in the taxi with his future boss, and traded the risk he might have to pay the fare for additional face time with his boss (which paid off). Chris ignored the IRS until it was too late. He ignored the police until they arrested him. He trusted a hippie girl with his financial life. Chris is a man who ignores things and hopes that they will go away, and that lesson doesn't ever appear to be unlearned. If anything, it's reinforced by the message of this movie.
To really be a victim you either need a capricious universe or a villain. The only person victimizing Chris was Chris. The lack of victimhood is death to sympathy. The death of sympathy is the death of drama. Bravo on getting out of a jam, Mr. Gardner, and admiring Thomas Jefferson. But there's another founding father worth looking into, the one who said:
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)