White Noise (2005) may be the worst movie ever. But really, even that distinction is too much credit. I found it literally unwatchable, and tuned in only infrequently primarily because I wanted to know what the punchline was.
So what's the payoff after watching Michael Keaton (continuing his long, slow, post-"Mr. Mom" decline) stare at white noise? It turns out that his wife is actually dead, and her ghost is trying to help save the latest victim of demonically inspired torture.
How did this movie ever get the green light? Didn't someone question at some point the entertainment value of showing white noise for a large chunk of screen time? Or the fact that the resolution is completely ridiculous and uninteresting (although partly moving - Keaton's character sacrafices himself to save a strange woman)?
Unlike Flightplan, who's plot could have been tweaked a bit, keeping the bulk of the film intact, there was nothing to salvage here, save perhaps a bit of mood. Even the set design was noticably jarring (too clever for it's own good).
Michael Keaton is one of my least favorite lead actors, primarily because of the hasty way in which he speaks. He seems to stumple over his words, and that conveys an aggravating sense of unreliability that is death to the success of any dramatic leading man.
Worst of all, there is literally nothing to learn from this movie, either about the human condition or about the art of movie-making itself (aalthough it is an excellent tutorial on how NOT to do set-design). A man's wife goes missing. The man is sad. The man notices strange electronic things. He hears and sees her in white noise. He gets a little obsessed with watching white noise. The dead wife tells him he has to do something, urgently, cryptically. He figures it out, does the deed, and dies. End movie.
The only message I could think of is, if you're loved one is dead, let them go. If they're coming back to haunt you, it's either an elaborate con, or they mean you no good. Death is a very useful tool for teaching wisdom, and any skirting around that is actually a disservice to the living. Something tells me this is not what the filmmakers wanted to say!
Movie Review: Miami Vice
Stephen Hunter at the Washington Post writes about Miami Vice: "The worst news about Miami Vice is that Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx, replacing Don Johnson and Philip Michael Thomas in the key roles, don't hold a candle, a flashlight, a freakin' match to the original guys."
I find this very easy to believe, although I haven't seen the movie (yet). There's an almost cliche quality about TV stars that works quite well in police shows. Modern movie stars have to be subtle actors, humble with the cast and crew, and "real". This sort of role doesn't lend itself to those traditional strengths.
I find this very easy to believe, although I haven't seen the movie (yet). There's an almost cliche quality about TV stars that works quite well in police shows. Modern movie stars have to be subtle actors, humble with the cast and crew, and "real". This sort of role doesn't lend itself to those traditional strengths.
Movie Review: Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (2005)
Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (2005) is the best G-rated movie I've ever seen. It's endearing, funny, and beautiful to watch. Some of the visual humor is quite adult, and quite clever because there is no way a small child could get it (such as when Wallace ends up naked with only an empty box of cheese around his waste - the box has "May contain nuts" printed on it).
As usual, Gromit is the scene stealer. How body language and eyebrows can say so much is a testament to the ability of the animators. The relationship he has with Wallace is unique and lovely.
Ralph Feinnes as the mostly evil Victor Quartermaine is also to be watched. Who knew that an aristocratic nincumpoop could be boiled down to a dour, turned down lip, puffy purple eyelids, and the haughtiest English accent you've ever in your life heard.
I can't but help but note with approval that this is essentially vegetarian, at least by omission. Even the veg ravaging rabbits that Wallace and Gromit catch are 'stored' in cages rather than killed. (In fact, dealing with the ever-increasing storage problem is a central plot-feature of the movie.)
It need not be mentioned that the animation is top-notch. I can only imagine how much work it took to animate some parts of this movie, such as when Wallace & Gromit's "Anti-Pesto" truck is pulled beneath the earth in a giant rabit hole, getting covered in hundreds if not thousands of individual pieces of mud. AFAIK this was a fully claymation movie, and such a feat could not have been easy.
As usual, Gromit is the scene stealer. How body language and eyebrows can say so much is a testament to the ability of the animators. The relationship he has with Wallace is unique and lovely.
Ralph Feinnes as the mostly evil Victor Quartermaine is also to be watched. Who knew that an aristocratic nincumpoop could be boiled down to a dour, turned down lip, puffy purple eyelids, and the haughtiest English accent you've ever in your life heard.
I can't but help but note with approval that this is essentially vegetarian, at least by omission. Even the veg ravaging rabbits that Wallace and Gromit catch are 'stored' in cages rather than killed. (In fact, dealing with the ever-increasing storage problem is a central plot-feature of the movie.)
It need not be mentioned that the animation is top-notch. I can only imagine how much work it took to animate some parts of this movie, such as when Wallace & Gromit's "Anti-Pesto" truck is pulled beneath the earth in a giant rabit hole, getting covered in hundreds if not thousands of individual pieces of mud. AFAIK this was a fully claymation movie, and such a feat could not have been easy.
Movie Review: Flightplan (2005)
Flightplan (2005) was nothing very special. I really like Jodie Foster and Peter Saarsgard, but they couldn't save this movie from two huge problems: first, the plot is totally impossible to accept, and second, there's a jarring transition when "everything is finally revealed".
SPOILERS to follow.
The opening sequence sets a wonderfully moody tone. It's disoriented and dark, presumably just like Kyle Pratt's mind at the time. Her husband has just died, apparently having jumped off the roof of their Berlin home. She's preparing to take her daughter Julia and her husband's body back to New York.
The trailers set you up for watching the kid especially carefully during the opening sequences - you know that at some point people are going to question whether the kid ever got on the plane, so you watch it carefully. People notice cute little kids, so it's kind of wierd that this one disappears so easily. Of course, they don't show the actual moment Kyle boards the plane with here daughter Julia. This was annoying to me. The movie is careful to establish that Julia is scared, withdrawn, and so not likely to make spontaneous friends on the plane.
Despite this, Julia goes missing about 3 hours into the flight, Kyle is distraught, and the skeptical but professionally kind crew (led by the wonderful Sean Bean, who doesn't get enough good guy roles IMHO) search the ship. In addition, one of the crew phones the departure point and says Julia never got on board. In the final straw, the manifest reads that both her husband and daughter died in Berlin.
So far, this is good stuff. As the viewer, you can't be sure that you've just watched an hallucination (a la "The Sixth Sense"). So my critical watching was split into "look for clues that she's really crazy" and "look for clues as to who is setting her up and why".
The latter was pretty easy to do - the crew member who checked with departure for the manifest would obviously have to be in on it. The one who saw Kyle and Julia board could be in on it. The captain was offered as an obvious red herring. I thought that Saarsgard was an obvious choice too, since he as an air marshal surely would have seen the kid if she was really there. I dismissed that as too obvious. Silly me.
Which only left the issue of motive out of the equation. Why make Jodie Foster feel crazy? The only motive that made sense was to provide an excuse to access parts of the plane.
Turns out that it was all a complex hijacking plan involving Saarsgard and a flight-attendant (the one who called the departure gate and the one who checked a particular part of the plane for the girl - ha! I knew it!). It also turns out that Kyle's husband was murdered, and not a suicide. To top it all off Kyle was going to be framed for the hijacking, at least long enough for the real bad guys to abscond with the dough.
This plan is so hairbrained that any viewer can be forgiven for not seeing it. First of all, how did Saarsgard guarantee that the kid wasn't seen by anyone else boarding the plan and on the plane? Admittedly, perhaps that was just an added bonus that he captialized on. Ok. If so, why risk it all to have your cohort lie about the departure terminal's records? Why did they change the manifest to show 2 bodies in the hold? How did they finagle it so that only their people checked the section the kid was stashed in? Why didn't Saarsgard kill the kid rather than just sedating her (there was no outcome where the kid would have been left alive)? Why did they even need an engineer for their scheme (if anything, this was more risky since she was more able than the averadge joe to actually find the kid)? Surely the abduction of any kid would trigger a search, which would allow access to parts of the plane. How was the explosive smuggled in on the coffin? Sure, they don't X-ray 'em but they sure do sniff 'em for explosives. If he could successfully smuggle C4 onboard, why not just detonate it in the coffin?
The plot is ridiculous. It would have been a much better movie if the bad guy (no longer an air marshal) had spiked Foster's drink with a psychoactive drug at some point, and *really* made her doubt her sanity. And perhaps his motive could be to steal trade secrets off of the plane. Or steal a doodad from the hold, which only an altered, maleable Foster could get access to. Remove the bit about the husband being murdered, and just say that the bad guy saw an oppurtunity and took it. Or maybe to lure the captain out of the flight deck to slip him the secret command that had been hidden in his psyche for years.
Here's another idea - turn Saarsgard into a good guy trying to rescue a prisoner being transported in Kyle's husband's casket in an attempt to uncover an ongoing program used by the CIA to move prisoners around the world unnoticed in other people's coffins. He's been waiting for an oppurtunity, and Kylie was it. But he couldn't risk telling her the truth, so he created the kid crisis. Partly this would be useful in uncovering the (evil) CIA operatives on board willing to stop the coffin from being opened with their lives. Heck, he could still have the help. Add a few more precautions (like a private cabin for the greiving family?) and you have yourself a believable movie.
*That* story would really use the strengths of Flightplan, as well as introduce a few more juicy twists (in particular that Saarsgard would look like a good guy turned bad guy turned good guy - and then, depending on your opinion of how far the CIA should be allowed to go in the war on terror, into a bad guy again).
SPOILERS to follow.
The opening sequence sets a wonderfully moody tone. It's disoriented and dark, presumably just like Kyle Pratt's mind at the time. Her husband has just died, apparently having jumped off the roof of their Berlin home. She's preparing to take her daughter Julia and her husband's body back to New York.
The trailers set you up for watching the kid especially carefully during the opening sequences - you know that at some point people are going to question whether the kid ever got on the plane, so you watch it carefully. People notice cute little kids, so it's kind of wierd that this one disappears so easily. Of course, they don't show the actual moment Kyle boards the plane with here daughter Julia. This was annoying to me. The movie is careful to establish that Julia is scared, withdrawn, and so not likely to make spontaneous friends on the plane.
Despite this, Julia goes missing about 3 hours into the flight, Kyle is distraught, and the skeptical but professionally kind crew (led by the wonderful Sean Bean, who doesn't get enough good guy roles IMHO) search the ship. In addition, one of the crew phones the departure point and says Julia never got on board. In the final straw, the manifest reads that both her husband and daughter died in Berlin.
So far, this is good stuff. As the viewer, you can't be sure that you've just watched an hallucination (a la "The Sixth Sense"). So my critical watching was split into "look for clues that she's really crazy" and "look for clues as to who is setting her up and why".
The latter was pretty easy to do - the crew member who checked with departure for the manifest would obviously have to be in on it. The one who saw Kyle and Julia board could be in on it. The captain was offered as an obvious red herring. I thought that Saarsgard was an obvious choice too, since he as an air marshal surely would have seen the kid if she was really there. I dismissed that as too obvious. Silly me.
Which only left the issue of motive out of the equation. Why make Jodie Foster feel crazy? The only motive that made sense was to provide an excuse to access parts of the plane.
Turns out that it was all a complex hijacking plan involving Saarsgard and a flight-attendant (the one who called the departure gate and the one who checked a particular part of the plane for the girl - ha! I knew it!). It also turns out that Kyle's husband was murdered, and not a suicide. To top it all off Kyle was going to be framed for the hijacking, at least long enough for the real bad guys to abscond with the dough.
This plan is so hairbrained that any viewer can be forgiven for not seeing it. First of all, how did Saarsgard guarantee that the kid wasn't seen by anyone else boarding the plan and on the plane? Admittedly, perhaps that was just an added bonus that he captialized on. Ok. If so, why risk it all to have your cohort lie about the departure terminal's records? Why did they change the manifest to show 2 bodies in the hold? How did they finagle it so that only their people checked the section the kid was stashed in? Why didn't Saarsgard kill the kid rather than just sedating her (there was no outcome where the kid would have been left alive)? Why did they even need an engineer for their scheme (if anything, this was more risky since she was more able than the averadge joe to actually find the kid)? Surely the abduction of any kid would trigger a search, which would allow access to parts of the plane. How was the explosive smuggled in on the coffin? Sure, they don't X-ray 'em but they sure do sniff 'em for explosives. If he could successfully smuggle C4 onboard, why not just detonate it in the coffin?
The plot is ridiculous. It would have been a much better movie if the bad guy (no longer an air marshal) had spiked Foster's drink with a psychoactive drug at some point, and *really* made her doubt her sanity. And perhaps his motive could be to steal trade secrets off of the plane. Or steal a doodad from the hold, which only an altered, maleable Foster could get access to. Remove the bit about the husband being murdered, and just say that the bad guy saw an oppurtunity and took it. Or maybe to lure the captain out of the flight deck to slip him the secret command that had been hidden in his psyche for years.
Here's another idea - turn Saarsgard into a good guy trying to rescue a prisoner being transported in Kyle's husband's casket in an attempt to uncover an ongoing program used by the CIA to move prisoners around the world unnoticed in other people's coffins. He's been waiting for an oppurtunity, and Kylie was it. But he couldn't risk telling her the truth, so he created the kid crisis. Partly this would be useful in uncovering the (evil) CIA operatives on board willing to stop the coffin from being opened with their lives. Heck, he could still have the help. Add a few more precautions (like a private cabin for the greiving family?) and you have yourself a believable movie.
*That* story would really use the strengths of Flightplan, as well as introduce a few more juicy twists (in particular that Saarsgard would look like a good guy turned bad guy turned good guy - and then, depending on your opinion of how far the CIA should be allowed to go in the war on terror, into a bad guy again).
Tomorrow's Headlines
Tomorrows headlines:
1. Shias and Sunnis throughout the world make peace with each other. The US begins complete withdrawl from Iraq.
2. Israel withdraws from southern Lebanon. Lebanon agrees to an international peacekeeping force to prevent future Hezbolla incursions.
3. Researchers discover a new type of solar cell that can power electrical vehicles practically.
4. Gas prices drop to $1.59/gallon
5. Federal funding for stem cell research is granted.
1. Shias and Sunnis throughout the world make peace with each other. The US begins complete withdrawl from Iraq.
2. Israel withdraws from southern Lebanon. Lebanon agrees to an international peacekeeping force to prevent future Hezbolla incursions.
3. Researchers discover a new type of solar cell that can power electrical vehicles practically.
4. Gas prices drop to $1.59/gallon
5. Federal funding for stem cell research is granted.
Thus Spoke Zarathustra & Mein Kampf
I've recently set the Wikipedia Main Page as my home page. It generally has a lot of random, useful, useless, but always fascinating articles.
For example, this is the anniversary of the publication of Hitler's Mein Kampf. It also turns out that Nietzche's sister (Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche) was a fierce antisemite, knew Hitler. The Mein Kampf article has a link to Thus Spoke Zarathustra, as well as making some interesting points.
First, Thus Spoke Zarathustra "Nietzsche himself described the work as 'the deepest ever written'."
The deepest ever written? Unlikely. But it does present an interesting question of "what is meant by 'deep'"? My instinct tells me that the deepest thing one can write is a contradiction. Then one can spend lots of time explaining why it's not.
Eventually I want to read Zarathustra.
Mein Kampf accepts "propaganda as an adequate rational technique to control the seemingly irrational behaviour of crowds". Wow. Why did Hitler have so much popular support if he declared outright that he'd manipulate the public?
For example, this is the anniversary of the publication of Hitler's Mein Kampf. It also turns out that Nietzche's sister (Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche) was a fierce antisemite, knew Hitler. The Mein Kampf article has a link to Thus Spoke Zarathustra, as well as making some interesting points.
First, Thus Spoke Zarathustra "Nietzsche himself described the work as 'the deepest ever written'."
The deepest ever written? Unlikely. But it does present an interesting question of "what is meant by 'deep'"? My instinct tells me that the deepest thing one can write is a contradiction. Then one can spend lots of time explaining why it's not.
Eventually I want to read Zarathustra.
Mein Kampf accepts "propaganda as an adequate rational technique to control the seemingly irrational behaviour of crowds". Wow. Why did Hitler have so much popular support if he declared outright that he'd manipulate the public?
The story of my strange Flickr URL 'jaakel'
Some of you might notice the strange, perhaps even disturbing, flickr URL 'jaakel'. The story behind this goes back to the first month I recieved a pro flickr account from fellow meditator Eric Case.
To make a long story short, I gave my sister access to my account so she could upload some photos. I didn't realize that there was any configuration left to do on the account, and she selected "jaakel". Unfortunately this cannot be changed once it is set.
What does it mean? It is the first letter of her family: John, Andrea, Alex, Kylie, Emma, Lauren.
To make a long story short, I gave my sister access to my account so she could upload some photos. I didn't realize that there was any configuration left to do on the account, and she selected "jaakel". Unfortunately this cannot be changed once it is set.
What does it mean? It is the first letter of her family: John, Andrea, Alex, Kylie, Emma, Lauren.
Music: Mary Lorson & Saint Low
I discovered Madder Rose by accident in a used CD store near my college in 1995 or so. It was the album "Bring it Down". I liked it a lot (esp the title track) but it didn't rock my world. There was something there, but it was not for me (more of a Sunday's fan at that point).
The other night, purely by accident, I grabbed "Bring it Down" when heading out to a get-together. When I arrived I was suprised at what I had picked up, I played it not having heard it for a while. "Who is that?" another guest asked with distinct interest.
Curious about Madder Rose's status these days, I went to the glowing allmusic.com review. I discovered all the not-so-sordid history (the band broke up amicably in 1999), and found a glowing review of "Realistic" (a 2005 album released by Mary Lorson and Saint Low). I hopped on Amazon, bought a copy, and I've been listening to it for two days now.
It's really good. Much better than "Bring it Down", IMO. The same voice, but somehow my understanding of it has changed over these 10 years. It is not a traditional voice. Flavorful but not substantial. Sweet but not sacharin. Mary neither lapses into too-self-aware over-lyricised talkiness, nor into earnest straining. Hers is a voice like the thinnest china, almost translucent and quite rewarding to examine with care. I can almost see the VH1 "Behind the Music" interview with the classical voice coach that turned her down for Juliard (or whereever) and shaking his head at the success she has achieved..
I'm not a big lyrics person, so I can't comment on that aspect of the album. It sometimes takes me years to actually hear what the singer is actually saying - occasionally it comes as something of a shock, "That song is about WHAT?!" At most I'll enjoy the confluence of a musical and a specific linguistic phrase. And I have never, ever enjoyed a song more after I understood the lyrics. Ever. That said, one lyric did stand out on Realistic, "I've got a thunderbolt in me" repeated in the chorus of the first song. It's kind of a quirky lyric that goes with the tune; I like it!
Korg - Triton Extreme EX 61-Key Music Workstation/Sampler - [Sam Ash]
There are a few things I'm unhappy about regarding my piano (Yamaha P-140), so I'm looking for a replacement.
Things I don't like:
Things that I like:
Oddly, the P140 was recently discontinued. The replacement is very close to what I want, the CP33. It doesn't have built-in speakers, but I've come to understand that this is not necessarily a bad thing, since the built-in speakers on pianos tend to be so bad anyway. It also has an external power supply. It's got the same action, and some really nice sounds (the piano is slightly better, there are some great bass and organ sounds).
Another option is a Korg Triton Extreme that was listed at a cheap price ($1000) on craigslist (street price is $1700). The big drawback to this keyboard is simply that it has 61 unwieghted keys. It's been a LONG time since I've played on a keyboard like that. The cool thing about this one is that it's a self-contained music workstation with sampling, recording, sequencing, etc all built in with a touchscreen to boot. One very cool thing is a built-in MIDI USB adapter, obviating the need for a device like the tascam US-122. This last option is less of an option if I do all-audio recording.
There are other problems with the Triton. I don't like the way it looks. It's blue (I prefer black), and it's got a gimmicky 'tube' window on the upper left. I have some issues with the whole concept of having a keyboard do so much work, when a PC with good software can do a lot more than a keyboard-bound specialty computer. OTOH it's nice to have a specialized peice of equipment that does one thing well.
I played with the CP33 on a Roland KC-60 amp at Sam Ash for a good long while. If the CP33 had an internal power supply and built in USB MIDI, it would be an easy decision.
OH, just found the Roland RD300SX ($1400)- it has USB MIDI but an external power supply. Ooh and it's only 35 pounds! I might have found a winner. What's up with these external supplies?
Things I don't like:
- It has no 1/4" jacks for output,
- the built-in speakers are weak and crackly and have no bass,
- the headphone jack is 1/8" and noisy,
- there aren't enough sounds,
- there is an external power supply, and
- it's really heavy.
Things that I like:
- 88 key weighted action.
- very nice piano sounds (when listend through headphones)
- it's more portable than a digipiano with built in stand.
- built-in speakers (although this is a double-edged sword)
Oddly, the P140 was recently discontinued. The replacement is very close to what I want, the CP33. It doesn't have built-in speakers, but I've come to understand that this is not necessarily a bad thing, since the built-in speakers on pianos tend to be so bad anyway. It also has an external power supply. It's got the same action, and some really nice sounds (the piano is slightly better, there are some great bass and organ sounds).
Another option is a Korg Triton Extreme that was listed at a cheap price ($1000) on craigslist (street price is $1700). The big drawback to this keyboard is simply that it has 61 unwieghted keys. It's been a LONG time since I've played on a keyboard like that. The cool thing about this one is that it's a self-contained music workstation with sampling, recording, sequencing, etc all built in with a touchscreen to boot. One very cool thing is a built-in MIDI USB adapter, obviating the need for a device like the tascam US-122. This last option is less of an option if I do all-audio recording.
There are other problems with the Triton. I don't like the way it looks. It's blue (I prefer black), and it's got a gimmicky 'tube' window on the upper left. I have some issues with the whole concept of having a keyboard do so much work, when a PC with good software can do a lot more than a keyboard-bound specialty computer. OTOH it's nice to have a specialized peice of equipment that does one thing well.
I played with the CP33 on a Roland KC-60 amp at Sam Ash for a good long while. If the CP33 had an internal power supply and built in USB MIDI, it would be an easy decision.
OH, just found the Roland RD300SX ($1400)- it has USB MIDI but an external power supply. Ooh and it's only 35 pounds! I might have found a winner. What's up with these external supplies?
Comments reenabled
I just reenabled comments, and changed the site look a bit. Comments can be depressing when noone writes them, so I'm hoping to see some activity here. In addition I added a "recent posts" list to the navbar. Ideally I'd like more "recent post links" but that may take some javascript magic.
Don't care about aliens? Crunch protiens instead
Folding@Home is a protien folding analaysis system designed to run on your desktop and to use ordinarily unused CPU cycles.
It's an easy way to do some good.
It's an easy way to do some good.
How can you not like astronaughts?
The NASA pic of the day shows some very nice looking astronauts (specifically Stephanie D. Wilson and Lisa M. Nowak). I'm sorry, but if our space program hasn't done *that* particular experiment in micro-gravity, then I consider our tax dollars wasted.
Joni Mitchell got it wrong about Beach Tar
The wind is in from Africa
Last night I couldn't sleep
Oh, you know it sure is hard to leave here Carey
But it's really not my home
My fingernails are filthy, I got beach tar on my feet
And I miss my clean white linen and my fancy French cologne
(Joni Mitchell, "Carey" - Blue, 1971)
The way Joni Mitchell sings it, beach tar on the feet sounds kind of fun and romantic if a bit scruffy. But beach tar is no joke, let me tell you! It took 15 minutes of scrubbing with every possible solvent to get this tar off my feet!
Beach tar = bad!
(Where does it come from anyway?)
Ready in 3 minutes
There is something so alluring about this photo. The contrast between the rather nice pair of legs and the cartoonish title fits perfectly with the wide angle perspective. The anonymity of it, the humanness of being in a photo booth - it really catches the imagination.
One of the best photos I've seen in a very long time.
One of the best photos I've seen in a very long time.
Gaming software for business.
The World of Warcraft is a fascinating...phenomena. It is a game, a piece of software, but it is also a culture and a community. Indeed, it is an entire universe with it's own geography, history, language, economy, etc.
But I have never played it.
What I have learned today comes from the deeply impressive official WoW website. It is beautiful, comprehensive, usable, and I don't know of any business software that works as well or looks as good.
Why can't we create business software with that gaming feel? Not with a game's frivolity, but with it's crispness and vigor and fun. The clarity of statements and descriptions of game concepts, the ready encapsulation of information and partitioning of world information is quite alluring. Who wouldn't want to work in a company who's products, culture, roles, and history was as lovingly and completely described as in this game?
Perhaps we can go the other way and say that the only sort of business we are interested in are those that tend to look like games. And why not? Just looking at the WoW website, ignoring the game itself (which, BTW I've never seen except in screenshots) we see all of the elements required by a vibrant business community: background information on the game, terminology, howtos, forums (diced in various ways), tech support, events, etc. It may be that we'll end up with franchise McBusinesses, but at least they'll be fun!
But this is necessary but not sufficient software to run a business. Where does the customer fit in? We have a general way for people to share information, but how do they collaborate to create value and sell a product? What is the 'work' done in WoW and can we map game work into real work? Can the customer service department win their customer encounters using the analogue of magic spells, weapons, and powerful potions?
In WoW, players are primarily concerned about improving their character. This involves learning all sorts of complex rules about how characters function (and how they fit in the world - if there is a shortage in a Realm, etc), and making difficult choices during the lifetime of that character. Essentially everything else that is done in-game is done because of a general desire to improve the character. Characters enter into conflict, alone or in groups, risk their avatar's lives (which amounts to time), and get certain rewards.
What motivates a worker? How can a worker's experience be described? Would business be better served if the worker was embedded into the world of the business?
The proper place to apply the technology is not the one business, but to all businesses. Consider the business as a guild. Will there eventually be universal business software that would remain largely the same across the board but with certain tweaks per vertical? Would it allow workers in the same capacity in different companies to compare notes?
Technically, I don't think the usage pattern or the compute-requirements are very different. A worker might login and stay connected to the 'business system' all day. (Of course, in most cases there is no such thing as a monolithic business system). Most of the compute-resources used are messaging other workers. One big difference is in storage. A given worker needs access to more data than a WoW player, and combined in many different abstract ways: if one's inventory is in the millions of units of thoussands of different items, it would be foolish to represent that in VR. Or at least, in VR with no magical helper to help you find things.
Employees differ from customers and partners in two ways. First, the degree to which their own well-being is aligned with the company. Second, the messages that they send are generally better defined than external messages. Employees are more loyal and more disciplined.
I don't know the answers to these questions, but they are interesting to ponder. Last but not least, I'll note that it's interesting to me that games are so often about war. What is so fun about conflict?
UPDATE: You can buy WoW in-game gold for about 15 cents US per gold piece. The price varies per realm and faction. https://www.wowmine.com/buy-cheap-wholesale-wow-gold.php. In addition, you can hire people to play your character for you to level it up. That is SOOOO insane.
But I have never played it.
What I have learned today comes from the deeply impressive official WoW website. It is beautiful, comprehensive, usable, and I don't know of any business software that works as well or looks as good.
Why can't we create business software with that gaming feel? Not with a game's frivolity, but with it's crispness and vigor and fun. The clarity of statements and descriptions of game concepts, the ready encapsulation of information and partitioning of world information is quite alluring. Who wouldn't want to work in a company who's products, culture, roles, and history was as lovingly and completely described as in this game?
Perhaps we can go the other way and say that the only sort of business we are interested in are those that tend to look like games. And why not? Just looking at the WoW website, ignoring the game itself (which, BTW I've never seen except in screenshots) we see all of the elements required by a vibrant business community: background information on the game, terminology, howtos, forums (diced in various ways), tech support, events, etc. It may be that we'll end up with franchise McBusinesses, but at least they'll be fun!
But this is necessary but not sufficient software to run a business. Where does the customer fit in? We have a general way for people to share information, but how do they collaborate to create value and sell a product? What is the 'work' done in WoW and can we map game work into real work? Can the customer service department win their customer encounters using the analogue of magic spells, weapons, and powerful potions?
In WoW, players are primarily concerned about improving their character. This involves learning all sorts of complex rules about how characters function (and how they fit in the world - if there is a shortage in a Realm, etc), and making difficult choices during the lifetime of that character. Essentially everything else that is done in-game is done because of a general desire to improve the character. Characters enter into conflict, alone or in groups, risk their avatar's lives (which amounts to time), and get certain rewards.
What motivates a worker? How can a worker's experience be described? Would business be better served if the worker was embedded into the world of the business?
The proper place to apply the technology is not the one business, but to all businesses. Consider the business as a guild. Will there eventually be universal business software that would remain largely the same across the board but with certain tweaks per vertical? Would it allow workers in the same capacity in different companies to compare notes?
Technically, I don't think the usage pattern or the compute-requirements are very different. A worker might login and stay connected to the 'business system' all day. (Of course, in most cases there is no such thing as a monolithic business system). Most of the compute-resources used are messaging other workers. One big difference is in storage. A given worker needs access to more data than a WoW player, and combined in many different abstract ways: if one's inventory is in the millions of units of thoussands of different items, it would be foolish to represent that in VR. Or at least, in VR with no magical helper to help you find things.
Employees differ from customers and partners in two ways. First, the degree to which their own well-being is aligned with the company. Second, the messages that they send are generally better defined than external messages. Employees are more loyal and more disciplined.
I don't know the answers to these questions, but they are interesting to ponder. Last but not least, I'll note that it's interesting to me that games are so often about war. What is so fun about conflict?
UPDATE: You can buy WoW in-game gold for about 15 cents US per gold piece. The price varies per realm and faction. https://www.wowmine.com/buy-cheap-wholesale-wow-gold.php. In addition, you can hire people to play your character for you to level it up. That is SOOOO insane.
Chickens - how cute!
Chickens
UPDATE: I don't think wikipedia appreciates me hotlinking their images. I uploaded a copy to blogger.
Geological Doubt
While eating lunch I was reading an article about synapsids (a reptilian precursor to mammals with distinctive temporal openings) when I got to thinking about doubt, specifically about evolution. Which got me thinking about other sorts of religiously driven doubt, such as that of creationism.
One objection that is sometimes raised against the theory of evolution is that 'benefitial mutation has never been observed'. This would appear to be a false assertion, but never mind. Another objection is that speciation has never been observed.
It seems that there are a slew of objections about things that occur over geological time. And for good reason: any statement made about very slow processes should be taken with a huge grain of salt (or more than a grain).
Two statements can (and should) be made about this: first, the impossibility of direct observation doesn't mean that we can't come up with theories to describe these phenomena. Recall that scientific theories are fundamentally pragmatic in nature: they are articulated by scientists who see patterns in their observations. A good theory can go far beyond the initial observations that inspired it, and that is a theory's fundamental utility.
It seems to me that any faith that forces the believer to close their eyes to the world is a poor one. If it helps, consider the existance of the world prior to whatever creation-point-in-time you choose to be 'the mind of God' as it existed 'prior to His Creation'. In this way, one can interpret phrases like '5 billion years ago the Earth formed from the cooling debris of stars' as 'prior to the Creation, the mind of God, blessed be He, contained in it the Wonderful and Miraculous formation that would Become the Earth in His final Act of Creation.'
Using this geological-time-to-God's-mind mapping, evena creationist can do good science, er, I mean exploration of the His Mind Prior to the Creation.
One objection that is sometimes raised against the theory of evolution is that 'benefitial mutation has never been observed'. This would appear to be a false assertion, but never mind. Another objection is that speciation has never been observed.
It seems that there are a slew of objections about things that occur over geological time. And for good reason: any statement made about very slow processes should be taken with a huge grain of salt (or more than a grain).
Two statements can (and should) be made about this: first, the impossibility of direct observation doesn't mean that we can't come up with theories to describe these phenomena. Recall that scientific theories are fundamentally pragmatic in nature: they are articulated by scientists who see patterns in their observations. A good theory can go far beyond the initial observations that inspired it, and that is a theory's fundamental utility.
It seems to me that any faith that forces the believer to close their eyes to the world is a poor one. If it helps, consider the existance of the world prior to whatever creation-point-in-time you choose to be 'the mind of God' as it existed 'prior to His Creation'. In this way, one can interpret phrases like '5 billion years ago the Earth formed from the cooling debris of stars' as 'prior to the Creation, the mind of God, blessed be He, contained in it the Wonderful and Miraculous formation that would Become the Earth in His final Act of Creation.'
Using this geological-time-to-God's-mind mapping, evena creationist can do good science, er, I mean exploration of the His Mind Prior to the Creation.
The Anxiety Driven Knee-Jerk Framework Debate
Ray Tayek of the OCJUG posted a link to a TSS discussion about an article Drinking the Java EE Kool-aid. It's worth commenting on because this sort of article seems to float around now and then, eliciting strong commentary on all sides. I call it the The Anxiety Driven Knee-Jerk Framework Debate and it is ongoing.
It seems that there is an unusual amount of angst in the Java community, specifically surrounding the web framework landscape. A superficial glance at Java programmers on the web would imply to a dispassionate observer that either Java programmers don't know how to write programs, or if they do, they aren't happy with the work that they must do to actually create a working program.
This is unfortunate. But while I give little credence to the conclusions arrived at by the anxious one must address the simple fact that anxiety exists, albeit in a smaller fraction of the programmer community than a cursory survey would suggest. Anxiety is bad. How to prevent it?
To those who know how to program and don't enjoy it (loudly) I say: Sure there's drudgery involved in writing programs. But so what? Why are we special in not having to experience some boredom, some busywork, some unnecessary painstakingly repetitive valueless work? 95% of humanity earns a living like that.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't attempt to make things better. But to react with indignity or anger to the fact that some programming tasks are inelegant or inefficient strikes me as unproductive at best, and counter-productive at worst. We have an unfortunate situation where knee-jerk reactions cause good programmers to write knee-jerk frameworks, and then other programmers react to the preponderance of frameworks to create new frameworks...and pretty soon there's a lot of frameworks floating around of little use to anyone.
If we stop getting angry, take a deep breath and really look at what we have, I think there's no option but to be really pleased. Indeed, one finds not only that there is a lot of pleasent software floating around, but a lot of cool things to learn about.
To those who don't know how to make a working program I say: One may also discover that a lot of the anxiety is caused by simple ignorance. Part of the problem is that programmers don't stick with a process long enough to get good with it. By skipping from one process to another a programmer ensures that he is never good at any of them. Many framework critics ignore the simple fact that one should be an expert in a framework before one criticizes it. One should be an expert in more than one framework before creating a new one! (And should also be expert in the history of software!) Know your limits and be humble with your criticisms. Note: it helps to know about other successful projects using your technology.
To both types of programmers my advice is simply this: let others get worked up in their endless framework arguments. Understand your own practical needs and over time patiently, open-mindedly add to your simple toolbox those things that have proven value. Leave out those tools which don't justify their cost. If, over a period of years there are still missing features, or even an entire approach which is missing, then write your own framework! But please introduce your work with the joy of someone creating something for its own sake, not as a slap-in-the-face to those who went before you.
It seems that there is an unusual amount of angst in the Java community, specifically surrounding the web framework landscape. A superficial glance at Java programmers on the web would imply to a dispassionate observer that either Java programmers don't know how to write programs, or if they do, they aren't happy with the work that they must do to actually create a working program.
This is unfortunate. But while I give little credence to the conclusions arrived at by the anxious one must address the simple fact that anxiety exists, albeit in a smaller fraction of the programmer community than a cursory survey would suggest. Anxiety is bad. How to prevent it?
To those who know how to program and don't enjoy it (loudly) I say: Sure there's drudgery involved in writing programs. But so what? Why are we special in not having to experience some boredom, some busywork, some unnecessary painstakingly repetitive valueless work? 95% of humanity earns a living like that.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't attempt to make things better. But to react with indignity or anger to the fact that some programming tasks are inelegant or inefficient strikes me as unproductive at best, and counter-productive at worst. We have an unfortunate situation where knee-jerk reactions cause good programmers to write knee-jerk frameworks, and then other programmers react to the preponderance of frameworks to create new frameworks...and pretty soon there's a lot of frameworks floating around of little use to anyone.
If we stop getting angry, take a deep breath and really look at what we have, I think there's no option but to be really pleased. Indeed, one finds not only that there is a lot of pleasent software floating around, but a lot of cool things to learn about.
To those who don't know how to make a working program I say: One may also discover that a lot of the anxiety is caused by simple ignorance. Part of the problem is that programmers don't stick with a process long enough to get good with it. By skipping from one process to another a programmer ensures that he is never good at any of them. Many framework critics ignore the simple fact that one should be an expert in a framework before one criticizes it. One should be an expert in more than one framework before creating a new one! (And should also be expert in the history of software!) Know your limits and be humble with your criticisms. Note: it helps to know about other successful projects using your technology.
To both types of programmers my advice is simply this: let others get worked up in their endless framework arguments. Understand your own practical needs and over time patiently, open-mindedly add to your simple toolbox those things that have proven value. Leave out those tools which don't justify their cost. If, over a period of years there are still missing features, or even an entire approach which is missing, then write your own framework! But please introduce your work with the joy of someone creating something for its own sake, not as a slap-in-the-face to those who went before you.
Idea: Fellowship of the Ring Hike
So I got to thinking: wouldn't it be a cool vacation to do a LOTR (Lord of the Rings) hike? I mean, pick spots around the world that look like the Shire, the old forest, Bree, Rivendale, Rohan, even Mordor. Travel along them at approximately the same distance pace as in the book. Simulating wargs and ringwraiths optional.
Most of the environments are readily accessible right here in north America. The most difficult locale to simulate would be, of course, the Mines of Moria. In the novel, the Mines are excavated caves going under a mountain and are about 40 miles long.
I don't know of any man-made underground structure like that, with the possibility of NORAD. But even if it were unnoccupied, it would be far too small. Consider this description from a government website:
"The main entrance to the complex is approximately one-third of a mile from the North Portal via a tunnel which leads to a pair of steel Blast Doors each weighing 25 tons. Behind the 25-ton blast doors is a steel building complex built within a 4.5 acre grid of excavated chambers and tunnels and surrounded by 2,000 feet of granite. The main excavation consists of three chambers 45 feet wide, 60 feet high, and 588 feet long, intersected by four chambers 32 feet wide, 56 feet high and 335 feet long. Fifteen buildings, freestanding without contact with the rock walls or roofs and joined by flexible vestibule connections, make up the inner complex. Twelve of these buildings are three stories tall; the others are one and two stories."
Well, it won't do - it's only half a mile long! more to the point, it doesn't go all the way under the mountain. However, it does have a nifty analogue to the Hollin Gate, those 25 ton blast doors. I wonder if the password "mellon" opens them?
One could make due with natural caves. I found this wonderful resource which lists US and World caves by length. Unfortunately, it seems that most of these caves are protected by environmental advocates. Furthermore, many of them don't go under any mountains.
One last possibility exists, and it is most promising: abandoned transit tunnels. Train tunnels in the mountains would have the right naturalistic feel to them, but also abandoned subway tunnels under major cities (like the 8 mile abandoned subway line under Cincinnati). While one abandons the naturalistic element, one does get the added bonus of the possibile encounter with 'orcs' (street punks) or even a Balrog (use your imagination!).
Personally, I would hope that there are some good abandoned rail tunnels in the Rockies.
Mordor is particularly interesting to find an analogue. My vote is for the city of Wilmington. But again, you loose the naturalistic feel of the book. Besides, there should be an active volcano around there somewhere.
Most of the environments are readily accessible right here in north America. The most difficult locale to simulate would be, of course, the Mines of Moria. In the novel, the Mines are excavated caves going under a mountain and are about 40 miles long.
I don't know of any man-made underground structure like that, with the possibility of NORAD. But even if it were unnoccupied, it would be far too small. Consider this description from a government website:
"The main entrance to the complex is approximately one-third of a mile from the North Portal via a tunnel which leads to a pair of steel Blast Doors each weighing 25 tons. Behind the 25-ton blast doors is a steel building complex built within a 4.5 acre grid of excavated chambers and tunnels and surrounded by 2,000 feet of granite. The main excavation consists of three chambers 45 feet wide, 60 feet high, and 588 feet long, intersected by four chambers 32 feet wide, 56 feet high and 335 feet long. Fifteen buildings, freestanding without contact with the rock walls or roofs and joined by flexible vestibule connections, make up the inner complex. Twelve of these buildings are three stories tall; the others are one and two stories."
Well, it won't do - it's only half a mile long! more to the point, it doesn't go all the way under the mountain. However, it does have a nifty analogue to the Hollin Gate, those 25 ton blast doors. I wonder if the password "mellon" opens them?
One could make due with natural caves. I found this wonderful resource which lists US and World caves by length. Unfortunately, it seems that most of these caves are protected by environmental advocates. Furthermore, many of them don't go under any mountains.
One last possibility exists, and it is most promising: abandoned transit tunnels. Train tunnels in the mountains would have the right naturalistic feel to them, but also abandoned subway tunnels under major cities (like the 8 mile abandoned subway line under Cincinnati). While one abandons the naturalistic element, one does get the added bonus of the possibile encounter with 'orcs' (street punks) or even a Balrog (use your imagination!).
Personally, I would hope that there are some good abandoned rail tunnels in the Rockies.
Mordor is particularly interesting to find an analogue. My vote is for the city of Wilmington. But again, you loose the naturalistic feel of the book. Besides, there should be an active volcano around there somewhere.
Elightenment in a pill?
According to the article Neuroscientists find God in mushrooms - 12 Jul 2006 - Technology & Science, one "can safely and fairly reliably occasion what's called a primary mystical experience that may lead to positive changes in a person."
If one believes that all of our thoughts are indeed a result of electro-chemical interactions occuring in the brain, can it not be said that enlightenment is then a specific configuration of the brain? And could you not go further to say that it may be possible to induce that configuration through physical means?
If possible, this would be wonderful. The traditional path to enlightenment is an arduous one. If it is made easier, then more people would become enlightened and the world would be a better place.
What if the state of enlightenment requires that great effort be expended?
If one believes that all of our thoughts are indeed a result of electro-chemical interactions occuring in the brain, can it not be said that enlightenment is then a specific configuration of the brain? And could you not go further to say that it may be possible to induce that configuration through physical means?
If possible, this would be wonderful. The traditional path to enlightenment is an arduous one. If it is made easier, then more people would become enlightened and the world would be a better place.
What if the state of enlightenment requires that great effort be expended?
This American Life
This is the show I heard on Saturday that reminded me of the previous Swiss cow-fighting post:
KCRW: This American Life: "When Ralph and Sandra's pet bull Chance died, science brought him back in the form of a genetically identical clone. Ralph and Sandra called the new bull Second Chance and at first they thought he was a reincarnation of Chance. But science, and Second Chance himself, seemed to disagree."
It is quite a touching story. The depth of forgiveness that Ralph displays is quite astounding.
KCRW: This American Life: "When Ralph and Sandra's pet bull Chance died, science brought him back in the form of a genetically identical clone. Ralph and Sandra called the new bull Second Chance and at first they thought he was a reincarnation of Chance. But science, and Second Chance himself, seemed to disagree."
It is quite a touching story. The depth of forgiveness that Ralph displays is quite astounding.
Swiss Cow Fighting
Cow Fighting: "If a cow refuses to fight when challenged, retreats or just doesn't have the stomachs for it, she is eliminated."
Add this to the list of things I must see.
Add this to the list of things I must see.
Zinedine Zidane and World Cup 2006
Zinedine Zidane is a great footballer. I feel a great boatload of compassion for the guy, because I know exactly how it feels to allow someone to get under your skin, react to it with anger, and then realize that you've just blown it.
Although I have to admit, I've never blown it as big or as publically as Zidane did. His little slip-up (head-butting Italian midfielder Materazzi in the chest, hard enough to land the Italian on the grass) arguably cost not only himself, his team, and his country the world championship in the world's most popular sport, but it was watched on TV by over a billion human beings.
Whoah!
It's easy to be angry with Zidane if you're French. But remember, he got you into the final to begin with. He made the French team sparkle the entire game (which, IMHO, was dominated by the French for most of the second half). Zidane giveth, Zidane taketh away.
I for one was at first angered by him. I felt that he had disparaged soccer with his antics. But on further reflection, that was not the case. Soccer would have suffered if referee Horacio Elizondo (who looked and acted the consumate professional referee) gave Zidane a red-card and asked to leave the game. Soccer showed it's class and it's spirit by handling the outburt properly. Indeed, I was gratified to see good sportsmanship throughout the remainder of over-time between French and Italian players. Everyone was a little embarassed by the whole thing, and I think it's fair to say that even the Italians would have preferred to win with Zidane on the field (but of course a win's a win!).
I am extraordinarily grateful to Zinedine Zidane. I thought I was the only one capable ruining lots of goodwill with one slip of self-control. Zidane was a playmaker, and a teammaker. And yet, in the end, he turned out to be flawed, human. That's gratifying.
Although I have to admit, I've never blown it as big or as publically as Zidane did. His little slip-up (head-butting Italian midfielder Materazzi in the chest, hard enough to land the Italian on the grass) arguably cost not only himself, his team, and his country the world championship in the world's most popular sport, but it was watched on TV by over a billion human beings.
Whoah!
It's easy to be angry with Zidane if you're French. But remember, he got you into the final to begin with. He made the French team sparkle the entire game (which, IMHO, was dominated by the French for most of the second half). Zidane giveth, Zidane taketh away.
I for one was at first angered by him. I felt that he had disparaged soccer with his antics. But on further reflection, that was not the case. Soccer would have suffered if referee Horacio Elizondo (who looked and acted the consumate professional referee) gave Zidane a red-card and asked to leave the game. Soccer showed it's class and it's spirit by handling the outburt properly. Indeed, I was gratified to see good sportsmanship throughout the remainder of over-time between French and Italian players. Everyone was a little embarassed by the whole thing, and I think it's fair to say that even the Italians would have preferred to win with Zidane on the field (but of course a win's a win!).
I am extraordinarily grateful to Zinedine Zidane. I thought I was the only one capable ruining lots of goodwill with one slip of self-control. Zidane was a playmaker, and a teammaker. And yet, in the end, he turned out to be flawed, human. That's gratifying.
Day Of Defeat - Impressions
Valve Entertainment had a Day Of Defeat weekend, where you can play the game for free for a weekend. The game itself is not that interesting, but the promotion itself highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the Steam software distribution platform (and others like it). I think Steam is rather innovative, so it's worth commenting on.
[FYI: Day of Defeat is a squad-based, first person shooter for Windows based on the Half-Life 2 'Source' engine that is a WWII era capture the flag style game.]
Steam shows its strength first through the fact that this promotion exists at all. The steam interface makes it very easy to download and install new software, so users are more likely to try out demos and other software that isn't necessarily going to stay on the machine. Steam is a built in marketing tool for valve to direct-market games to gamers. It's safe to say that such a promo could have happened before Steam, but it wouldn't have been as convenient for users, and hence penetration wouldn't have been as deep.
Along with this innovation comes a drawback. Primarily this is due to the multiplayer, cooperative nature of a game like DoD. The pool of players grows quickly, but the quality diminishes. Player quality diminishes in two respects: first, game play knowledge density decreases. This means that a smaller fraction of players really knows how to play, making it hard to get a coherent game going. Second, transient play seems to decrease maturity density as well. Because players have no intention of sticking around, they mic spam, cuss, TK and do all kinds of nasty stuff.
Question: does making the demo easier to install decrease the quality of play? Wouldn't it be ironic if it turned out Steam increased promo penetration by 50% but users disgusted with the experience bought 50% fewere licenses?
I think so.
[FYI: Day of Defeat is a squad-based, first person shooter for Windows based on the Half-Life 2 'Source' engine that is a WWII era capture the flag style game.]
Steam shows its strength first through the fact that this promotion exists at all. The steam interface makes it very easy to download and install new software, so users are more likely to try out demos and other software that isn't necessarily going to stay on the machine. Steam is a built in marketing tool for valve to direct-market games to gamers. It's safe to say that such a promo could have happened before Steam, but it wouldn't have been as convenient for users, and hence penetration wouldn't have been as deep.
Along with this innovation comes a drawback. Primarily this is due to the multiplayer, cooperative nature of a game like DoD. The pool of players grows quickly, but the quality diminishes. Player quality diminishes in two respects: first, game play knowledge density decreases. This means that a smaller fraction of players really knows how to play, making it hard to get a coherent game going. Second, transient play seems to decrease maturity density as well. Because players have no intention of sticking around, they mic spam, cuss, TK and do all kinds of nasty stuff.
Question: does making the demo easier to install decrease the quality of play? Wouldn't it be ironic if it turned out Steam increased promo penetration by 50% but users disgusted with the experience bought 50% fewere licenses?
I think so.
Fixing the internet by avoiding artifical scarcity.
PBS | I, Cringely . June 29, 2006 - If we build it they will come: "To Bob the issues surrounding Net Neutrality come down to billability and infrastructure. While saying they are doing us favors, ISPs are really offering us services they can bill for. Nothing is aimed at helping us, while everything is aimed at creating a billable event. Take WiFi hotspots, for example. Why should the telephone or cable company care about who connects to my WiFi access point? They are my bits, not the ISP's. I paid for them. If I can download gigabytes of pornography why can't I share my hotspot with someone walking down the street wanting to check his e-mail? Frankston's analogy for this is accusing someone of stealing your porch light by using it to read a street sign."
Picasa - unable to submit bug reports.
Picasa Support doesn't include any way for me to post bugs. Picasa isn't free software, but I do feel appreciative and would like to help it get better. I suggest that Picasa provide such a facility.
UPDATE: you can submit...something.
UPDATE: you can submit...something.
Fourth of July on Walker Lee Drive, 2006
I took photos (and 2 movies) of the block party held on my childhood block. Not shown were some good conversations with Tiffany about photography, and with Jason about motorcycling. There were lots more games (including an egg toss, balloon toss, and a paper sack race).
(Click on the image to see more photos)
(Click on the image to see more photos)
The silent trauma
I was just sharing with someone traumatic memories of being face cleaned by Mom - you know, when your mom licks her finger or a napkin and then rubs your face. Eventually I got old enough to make a face and prevent this gross practice. Not suprisingly, this trauma has been experienced by many. And yet there are no resources online for dealing with the harsh psychological ramifications.
There really is nothing as gross as someone elses dried spit on your own skin. It feels and smells terribly. Mom's get away with it because kids don't realize their being traumatized at the time. The irony is that Mom's have apparently forgotten their own experiences, and so keep the wheel of spit-trauma rotating.
There really is nothing as gross as someone elses dried spit on your own skin. It feels and smells terribly. Mom's get away with it because kids don't realize their being traumatized at the time. The irony is that Mom's have apparently forgotten their own experiences, and so keep the wheel of spit-trauma rotating.
Jugglers and the ridiculously talented Human Race
Google video has some footage of a juggler named Chris Bliss:
First of all, this is an amazing performance, an interpretation of the Beatle's "Golden Slumbers" and "Carry that Weight" from Abbey Road. The music is itself wonderful, but the skill with which Mr. Bliss moves those white spheres through space definitely adds to the (already considerable) magic of the music.
But almost as importantly, this clip serves as yet another stunning example of the incredibly talented Human Race, which, thanks to the internet (and specifically resources like YouTube and Google Video) are only now getting widespread acclaim. To a certain degree, blogging has already highlighted the fiercely creative and talented writers floating around, and has eaten a little bit of traditional publishing's lunch. Now, the same thing is poised to happen with performance art, thanks to high-speed internet access.
What is wonderful about this evolution is that traditional media is getting better. A lot better. Pick up a newspaper these days: it's timely, useful, and tightly written. It's also easy to read (physical paper tends to be that way) and highly portable. The unique strengths of traditional media are growing because the things which are universal (raw information dissemination) are now known to be secondary. This can only mean good things for information consumers like you and me.
UPDATE: poking around Mr. Bliss's website, I found that he is no amateur, nor is he a stranger to exposure. Be that as it may, I reckon his exposure will increase dramatically thanks to Google Video.
First of all, this is an amazing performance, an interpretation of the Beatle's "Golden Slumbers" and "Carry that Weight" from Abbey Road. The music is itself wonderful, but the skill with which Mr. Bliss moves those white spheres through space definitely adds to the (already considerable) magic of the music.
But almost as importantly, this clip serves as yet another stunning example of the incredibly talented Human Race, which, thanks to the internet (and specifically resources like YouTube and Google Video) are only now getting widespread acclaim. To a certain degree, blogging has already highlighted the fiercely creative and talented writers floating around, and has eaten a little bit of traditional publishing's lunch. Now, the same thing is poised to happen with performance art, thanks to high-speed internet access.
What is wonderful about this evolution is that traditional media is getting better. A lot better. Pick up a newspaper these days: it's timely, useful, and tightly written. It's also easy to read (physical paper tends to be that way) and highly portable. The unique strengths of traditional media are growing because the things which are universal (raw information dissemination) are now known to be secondary. This can only mean good things for information consumers like you and me.
UPDATE: poking around Mr. Bliss's website, I found that he is no amateur, nor is he a stranger to exposure. Be that as it may, I reckon his exposure will increase dramatically thanks to Google Video.
DHL - our phone number is secret!
Quite remarkably, a DHL 800 number operator refused to give me the phone number of the local DHL shipping station, but would happily give me the address:
2828 Junipero ave. signal hill, ca 90755 - Google Maps
I wasn't here to sign for a shipment, and because tomorrow is a holiday, I really wanted to get the package today. From experience, I know that if you call the local shipping station they can sometimes have the driver swing by again the same day.
"I'm sorry sir, but I can't give you the phone number," the operator said. This was just business as usual. She sounded neither bored, nor sad, nor angry.
"Why can't you give me the phone number?" I asked.
"For security purposes. They will give you a call," reminding me that they had *my* phone number, "and perhaps they will choose to give you their phone number. There's nothing wrong with that. Would you like me to request a local pickup?" She ended. I marvelled at the tacit approval she gave to the local station giving me their own number. As if, without that encouragment, I would be tempted to call her back and 'inform' on the local DHL folks.
I hesitated. Did a quick internet search. Didn't find a number. "Sure," I answered, distracted now with solving this puzzle.
I will go an pick up my package, retrieve this secret number, and post it on my blog for future reference. Businesses can be so silly!
2828 Junipero ave. signal hill, ca 90755 - Google Maps
I wasn't here to sign for a shipment, and because tomorrow is a holiday, I really wanted to get the package today. From experience, I know that if you call the local shipping station they can sometimes have the driver swing by again the same day.
"I'm sorry sir, but I can't give you the phone number," the operator said. This was just business as usual. She sounded neither bored, nor sad, nor angry.
"Why can't you give me the phone number?" I asked.
"For security purposes. They will give you a call," reminding me that they had *my* phone number, "and perhaps they will choose to give you their phone number. There's nothing wrong with that. Would you like me to request a local pickup?" She ended. I marvelled at the tacit approval she gave to the local station giving me their own number. As if, without that encouragment, I would be tempted to call her back and 'inform' on the local DHL folks.
I hesitated. Did a quick internet search. Didn't find a number. "Sure," I answered, distracted now with solving this puzzle.
I will go an pick up my package, retrieve this secret number, and post it on my blog for future reference. Businesses can be so silly!
Idea: an online debate tool
Seems to me that most online debates are sorely repetative. They also tend to get rather heated, and the quality of argument tends to decline with increased heat.
There was a wonderful website that did this for the 'Intelligent Design Debate'. It had arguments and counters on both sides, to an impressive depth. I wish I had the URL!
Here's another debate, that is nominally about the coherence of the so-called 'pro-victory' stance (to be distinguished from 'pro-war'). But really, it's hard to say what this debate is about, but it touches on the Iraq war, George W. Bush, Al-Queda, U.S. foriegn policy, and general matters of personal and civic ethics. Last but not least there are issues of logical fallacy and debating etiquette sprinkled throughout the discussion.
It would be nice to apply the ID-style format to discussions like these, so that people interested can navigate the argument tree, make corrections as they see them, and expand the tree (ideally) until someone confronted with the debate could very quickly discover where they stand and why.
Judging from the quality of online debate, it is likely that even if such a resource existed, it would probably be ignored (or forgotten, as in the case of ID!) Ordinary people do not like being confronted about their beliefs. Many times I've seen people get angry when presented with obvious proof of an inconsistency, and choose to simply ignore the inconsistency and go on believing. Tradition is a powerful force in belief and in debate, and one which cannot be ignored!
Luckily it doesn't require too high of an education to get past this first hurdle. The next big issue is keeping someone's interest. Someone with education, in our society, is probably doing quite well and has a lot of options for how to spend his or her time. Debate is not an option many people choose. Especially not debate where repitition is not encuoraged, and so requires some study before beginning.
The system I envision differs from the static model of the ID site. Let us say that the website hosts debates - call it debates.org or greatdebates.org (as we're only interested in big debates, not little ones). Every debate would have to be defined and begun with a seed, that could be expanded upon by others. Additions to the debate tree, called debate nodes, would be judged according to several criteria. Points would be subtracted for fallacions argument (ad absurdem, ad hominem, ad authortatim, etc), repeating other arguments (adding noise), etc. One might realize that an argument is repetative, but like the way it sounds - in which case one could add an isomorphic node.
Eventually (and probably sooner rather than later) I can see these debate trees starting to touch at their leaves: an argument in favor of one assertion can also be used for another, etc. Indeed, I imagine that most debates held in this matter would follow the same general pattern: an initial rush of very concrete nodes, supported by more general and more abstract nodes. The very tips of the debate tree would inevitably be foundational epistemic questions familiar to philosophers, but rarely considered by anyone else.
Most great debates at this point in history, the nodes of any given important debate tree already exist online. Therefore there is an oppurtunity to gather those resources into a coherent whole.
Last but not least, some debates are heavily influenced by history as it happens. That is, by the news. Every new news item has the potential to influence some debate, even if it is just a single entry in support of a particular point. Users should get some points for doing that sort of work.
Some caution is needed. The ID debate is singular in that it attacks science on it's own turf. Since it is not a political debate, you see a lot of scientists being involved, and a debate tree would appeal to scientists. It's also a special debate in that the question of the debate is simple: is intelligent design true? related questions like "is ID a valid scientific theory" are part of the debate, but not the central issue. It might be harder to pin-down the exact core of the Iraq war debate, or the Guantanamo debate, or the domestic spying debate. If you pin it down too strongly, you risk severe fragmentation down the line, 'severe' in that the debate looses coherence.
All debates fragment. For example, let's say we are debating whether or not it is just to indefinitely detain people from around the world without trial or access to legal counsel. The canonical left response would be "no!" the canonical right response would be "yes!" and a moderate response would be, "yes, but only under the right conditions." Those conditions might include, for example, the duration of a hypothetical war. This brings up the interesting question of how long a "War on Terror" will last, etc.
The experiment is worth doing.
There was a wonderful website that did this for the 'Intelligent Design Debate'. It had arguments and counters on both sides, to an impressive depth. I wish I had the URL!
Here's another debate, that is nominally about the coherence of the so-called 'pro-victory' stance (to be distinguished from 'pro-war'). But really, it's hard to say what this debate is about, but it touches on the Iraq war, George W. Bush, Al-Queda, U.S. foriegn policy, and general matters of personal and civic ethics. Last but not least there are issues of logical fallacy and debating etiquette sprinkled throughout the discussion.
It would be nice to apply the ID-style format to discussions like these, so that people interested can navigate the argument tree, make corrections as they see them, and expand the tree (ideally) until someone confronted with the debate could very quickly discover where they stand and why.
Judging from the quality of online debate, it is likely that even if such a resource existed, it would probably be ignored (or forgotten, as in the case of ID!) Ordinary people do not like being confronted about their beliefs. Many times I've seen people get angry when presented with obvious proof of an inconsistency, and choose to simply ignore the inconsistency and go on believing. Tradition is a powerful force in belief and in debate, and one which cannot be ignored!
Luckily it doesn't require too high of an education to get past this first hurdle. The next big issue is keeping someone's interest. Someone with education, in our society, is probably doing quite well and has a lot of options for how to spend his or her time. Debate is not an option many people choose. Especially not debate where repitition is not encuoraged, and so requires some study before beginning.
The system I envision differs from the static model of the ID site. Let us say that the website hosts debates - call it debates.org or greatdebates.org (as we're only interested in big debates, not little ones). Every debate would have to be defined and begun with a seed, that could be expanded upon by others. Additions to the debate tree, called debate nodes, would be judged according to several criteria. Points would be subtracted for fallacions argument (ad absurdem, ad hominem, ad authortatim, etc), repeating other arguments (adding noise), etc. One might realize that an argument is repetative, but like the way it sounds - in which case one could add an isomorphic node.
Eventually (and probably sooner rather than later) I can see these debate trees starting to touch at their leaves: an argument in favor of one assertion can also be used for another, etc. Indeed, I imagine that most debates held in this matter would follow the same general pattern: an initial rush of very concrete nodes, supported by more general and more abstract nodes. The very tips of the debate tree would inevitably be foundational epistemic questions familiar to philosophers, but rarely considered by anyone else.
Most great debates at this point in history, the nodes of any given important debate tree already exist online. Therefore there is an oppurtunity to gather those resources into a coherent whole.
Last but not least, some debates are heavily influenced by history as it happens. That is, by the news. Every new news item has the potential to influence some debate, even if it is just a single entry in support of a particular point. Users should get some points for doing that sort of work.
Some caution is needed. The ID debate is singular in that it attacks science on it's own turf. Since it is not a political debate, you see a lot of scientists being involved, and a debate tree would appeal to scientists. It's also a special debate in that the question of the debate is simple: is intelligent design true? related questions like "is ID a valid scientific theory" are part of the debate, but not the central issue. It might be harder to pin-down the exact core of the Iraq war debate, or the Guantanamo debate, or the domestic spying debate. If you pin it down too strongly, you risk severe fragmentation down the line, 'severe' in that the debate looses coherence.
All debates fragment. For example, let's say we are debating whether or not it is just to indefinitely detain people from around the world without trial or access to legal counsel. The canonical left response would be "no!" the canonical right response would be "yes!" and a moderate response would be, "yes, but only under the right conditions." Those conditions might include, for example, the duration of a hypothetical war. This brings up the interesting question of how long a "War on Terror" will last, etc.
The experiment is worth doing.
The bright side of Hammas
Despite what you may read in articles like this:
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Israel rejects soldier deadline
Hammas is interesting because their name sounds a lot like a tasty mediterranean dish called "Hummus". Personally, I think everyone would be happier if both the Israelis and Hammas started making Hummus and stopped killing. (Unfortunately, 'Israel' doesn't sound like any tasty dish that I know of).
Here is a good, standard hummus recipe:
http://www.mediterrasian.com/delicious_recipes_hummus.htm
Basically hummus is garbonzo beans (aka chickpeas), tahini (like peanutbutter but made from sunflower seeds - a unique taste!), and other stuff, most important being lemon juice (IMHO). Often roasted pine nuts and olive oil are sprinkled on top, mainly for looks. People have experimented adding other flavors, like peppers of various sorts, but really this is the best.
It is particularly easy to prepare, as all you have to do is blend or food process the whole thing. I wonder how they did it before food processors? I would guess either they used a human-powered form of food processor, or somehow softened up the garbonzos such that they could be easily mashed into a smooth paste.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Israel rejects soldier deadline
Hammas is interesting because their name sounds a lot like a tasty mediterranean dish called "Hummus". Personally, I think everyone would be happier if both the Israelis and Hammas started making Hummus and stopped killing. (Unfortunately, 'Israel' doesn't sound like any tasty dish that I know of).
Here is a good, standard hummus recipe:
http://www.mediterrasian.com/delicious_recipes_hummus.htm
Basically hummus is garbonzo beans (aka chickpeas), tahini (like peanutbutter but made from sunflower seeds - a unique taste!), and other stuff, most important being lemon juice (IMHO). Often roasted pine nuts and olive oil are sprinkled on top, mainly for looks. People have experimented adding other flavors, like peppers of various sorts, but really this is the best.
It is particularly easy to prepare, as all you have to do is blend or food process the whole thing. I wonder how they did it before food processors? I would guess either they used a human-powered form of food processor, or somehow softened up the garbonzos such that they could be easily mashed into a smooth paste.
Can you decide which kind of Buddha you're going to be?
A curious feature of Mahāyāna Buddhism is that it considers itself superior to other schools of Buddhism because it teaches practitioners to aim for the 'highest' kind of Buddha. Consider this from The Wikipedia article about three types of Buddha:
"Mahāyāna, and Vajrayāna traditions consider there to be three types of Buddha:
* Samyaksambuddha (Pāli: Sammāsambuddha), often simply referred to as Buddha)
* Pratyekabuddha (Pāli: Paccekabuddha),
* Śrāvakabuddha (Pāli: Sāvakabuddha), often equated to the more general term Arhat (Pāli: Arahant).
All three types of Buddha achieve Nirvāṇa, and may be called Arhats, or foe destroyers, but within the Mahāyāna tradition some people reserve the term Arhat for Sravaka Buddhas."
Why would Mahāyāna would consider forms 2 and 3 to be 'lesser' - espeically when the historical Buddha almost decided not to teach because it was too subtle. According to legend, Brahmā Sahampati came down from a Celestial Sphere and pleaded with Gotema to teach. Finally, Gotema agreed. (This is not the first time that Gotema Buddha was convinced to do something that he initially didn't want to do - Ananda convinced him to admit women as monastics, despite strong reservations. These episodes are interesting to me as they contrast so strongly with Gotema's other unique and sometimes eyebrow raising qualities.)
Seems to me that it really isn't up to the individual to choose how they'll end up. This applies not only to 'states of enlightenment' but to any future state - can I really choose 'how I will be' tomorrow? Or even today? There are qualities that I have, and qualities that I do not have, and while I can work hard to nuture those qualities that I think are most beneficial, my success is, in some very real sense, out of my hands. Any statment I make about my future state is not binding, and it's hard to understand how Mahāyāna differs from other Buddhist schools except in making such statements.
"Mahāyāna, and Vajrayāna traditions consider there to be three types of Buddha:
* Samyaksambuddha (Pāli: Sammāsambuddha), often simply referred to as Buddha)
* Pratyekabuddha (Pāli: Paccekabuddha),
* Śrāvakabuddha (Pāli: Sāvakabuddha), often equated to the more general term Arhat (Pāli: Arahant).
All three types of Buddha achieve Nirvāṇa, and may be called Arhats, or foe destroyers, but within the Mahāyāna tradition some people reserve the term Arhat for Sravaka Buddhas."
Why would Mahāyāna would consider forms 2 and 3 to be 'lesser' - espeically when the historical Buddha almost decided not to teach because it was too subtle. According to legend, Brahmā Sahampati came down from a Celestial Sphere and pleaded with Gotema to teach. Finally, Gotema agreed. (This is not the first time that Gotema Buddha was convinced to do something that he initially didn't want to do - Ananda convinced him to admit women as monastics, despite strong reservations. These episodes are interesting to me as they contrast so strongly with Gotema's other unique and sometimes eyebrow raising qualities.)
Seems to me that it really isn't up to the individual to choose how they'll end up. This applies not only to 'states of enlightenment' but to any future state - can I really choose 'how I will be' tomorrow? Or even today? There are qualities that I have, and qualities that I do not have, and while I can work hard to nuture those qualities that I think are most beneficial, my success is, in some very real sense, out of my hands. Any statment I make about my future state is not binding, and it's hard to understand how Mahāyāna differs from other Buddhist schools except in making such statements.
Paper Prototyping - not a figment of my imagination!
I recently bid on a software project where I asserted that the best way to design user interfaces was using paper. I think that the committee (yes, I was going to work for a committe, but it was for a good cause!) thought I was a hack, or worse, an amatuer. And yet, paper prototyping is something I've always done, always liked to do. Particularly valuable is its approachability, but also that it sends the user-representative the exact right signal: this is a rough design, it can change an incredible amount, lets have fun! It also helps both parties focus in on what is important and what is not!
Now I find that Neilson (a Sun senior architect and autho r of the psuedo-famous "Anti-mac" paper is selling a DVD describing how to do paper UI prototypes.
Interestingly, I never used colored, seperate pieces of paper for tabbed prototypes but that's a great idea! Thanks Mr. Nielson!
Now I find that Neilson (a Sun senior architect and autho r of the psuedo-famous "Anti-mac" paper is selling a DVD describing how to do paper UI prototypes.
Interestingly, I never used colored, seperate pieces of paper for tabbed prototypes but that's a great idea! Thanks Mr. Nielson!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)