Prince Harry has been fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan! Kudos!! So often you hear the critique that politicians should be willing to send their own children to fight in combat if they favor legislation to bring their country to war. Well here’s the third in line to the throne of England (okay technically not a child of a politician) actually serving in his country’s army and fighting in combat. And he decided to do so on his own accord against the wishes of his family and superior officers. Fantastic, I say. Harry gave up a cushy lifestyle to support his country in doing its hardest work. And he’s even quoted as saving, “I don’t like England much.” It’s refreshing to see a child of privilege act in such a humble and selfless way.
As an old fart in the world of film and video (17 years in the industry) I always find it odd that people say digital film and digital film making when they are really referring to video. Movie film is chemical process. Video is an electronic process. Video used to be strictly analog, now it’s mostly digital. All the arty filmmaker types would never think of using video back in the day. When video cameras were almost exclusively of the analog component type as exhibited in Sony’s ubiquitous BetacamSP product line, film makers would never use it. To them, BetacamSP was for TV news only. Then miniDV came along. MiniDV is a consumer format of digital video that is, in the very best cameras, equivalent in quality to BetacamSP. In most cameras, miniDV produces a lower quality image than BetacamSP. But because it was digital, and because of the hype and the price, it was embraced immediately by arty, indie film makers. It was given the stamp of approval which BetacamSP never got. But it could not be called video, God forbid. Because video was for hacks and film was for artists. The same people that dissed BetacamSP for its lack of imaging resolution and latitude when compared to film wholeheartedly embraced a technology with even less imaging power than film. I always chuckled at this.
When some one would invite me to watch the “digital film” they made, I’d always respond with a smart-assed “you mean your video”. I was surprised at how many confused and dirty looks I would get. It as if the person really did think that the DVD they where about to show me was actual something other than a standard NTSC video signal. As if it was really film in digital form.
To me, for a program to be called a digital film, it needs to have been shot on film and scanned digitally into a computer using a real film scanner (not a telecine film-to-tape transfer method) at either a 2K or 4K file protocol. That’s digital film, as it has never been converted into a video signal, standard, or protocol. But again, I am an old fart, old school moving image purist who sticks to the old nomenclature. I know that the word “film” nowadays means any kind of motion picture, especially a narrative one. I know it’s a semantic issue. But film still is an imaging technology that really has no other name to use for it. A motion picture camera that shoots on actual film, is called a film camera, not a chemical video camera. There is no other term for a film camera other than film camera. So I kinda feel we still have to respect the differences between film and video cameras.
If you shot your motion picture with a video camera, it’s a video. If you shot it with a film camera, it’s a film. In fact, the only true circumstance where you can actually say you are truly watching a film is when you are in a movie theater watching a movie that was shot on film and is being projected with a film projector off a film print. Everything else is video: TV, DVD, HD TV, HD-DVD, Blu-ray, Apple TV, Windows Media, Quicktime, etc., these are all forms of digital video.
I also found it odd that YouTube decided to use the word tube in its name. Tubes have been gone from video cameras since the 1960’s, and new computer displays and TVs have abandoned CRTs. Again, a semantic issue. But nostalgia rarely finds a place in high tech these days. Also, until I actually went to the website for the first time myself, I assumed it was uTube, and still often type it that way.
Anway, this is what is going through my head right now in these early hours of leap year day.
I came across two interesting sites on the web. First is Scroogle, which is described as “An ad-free Google search proxy which prevents the searcher’s data being stored by Google, a Firefox plugin, and tools for webmasters” on their site. Scroogle uses SSL, you’ll see the SSL lock logo on the far right of the url window in your browser. Cool, huh? The next is zml.com which is a movie download service. Each movie is $1.99 to download. It’s kind of like iTunes, only it’s just for movies. And, it’s illegal since all the movies are pirated. Brazen huh?
I just closed both my Facebook and MySpace accounts. Why? Why not. I’ve barely been logging into both places. And I really don’t have anything to promote. My blog now lives here, even if it never gets read. Still have a YouTube channel and a Flickr account. So the social networking experience is over for me. Two less things to check out on the web. Phew.
The Democratic Party debate was great last night. Finally there was a debate where the candidates were allowed to speak at length and were rarely cut off. Real hardball questions were finally asked. It must be MSNBC. None of the CNN debates had the same impact. Maybe it was because NBC newsmen Brian Williams and Tim Russert were asking the questions rather than fielding questions from local press, or worse yet, from YouTube users. I thought CNN had it going on, but MSNBC schooled them on how to put on a debate. At turns out you don’t need a lot, just a few smart people asking a few smart questions. Then you let the candidates do the rest.
The idea that evolution needs to have “the theory of” tagged before it in an attempt reduce its legitimacy is ignorant. The Florida board of education wants to teach evolution in its schools — which it has not been doing — and is voting as to whether calling it “the theory of evolution” will appease those who favor the teaching of creationism in Florida schools. Here’s the thing: evolution is actually called the theory of evolution by scientists already. That Florida’s board of education is not educated enough to know that this is true, and what the true definition of a scientific theory actually is, is down right frightening. It is shameful. There is a vast difference between scientific theory and common theory and one has to be educated in science and the English language to know this. If the people we entrust to teach our kids do not know this, we should no longer allow them to teach our kids. Fire them all and replace them. Creationism is a religious story, it has no place in a science classroom. Also, the US Supreme Court ruled it is illegal to teach creationism in public schools as doing so violates the US Constitution on many levels. Many other lower US courts have ruled similarly. The Florida board of education is ignorant of the scientific method and of US law. This is inexcusable. Ignorance is no defense.
Here’s a refresher course on the scientific method and its definitions of theories and laws; I wrote it a while ago:
If you are too lazy to click and read the above link, here’s the takeaway:
Four Important Definitions Used In The Teaching Of Science:
Working Group on Teaching Evolution, National Academy of Sciences (1998)
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances. Laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.
Hypothesis: A testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations, such as a scientific theory.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
When people argue that evolution should not be taught until it is proven to be 100% accurate as fact, they are wrong. See the above. No scientific theory or law is ever claimed to be 100% factual as theories are refined and improved as new observations and experiments are conducted and new knowledge is gained. Scientists are not dogmatic and closed mined; they seek truth all the time. That’s what learning and education is all about, by the way. Why is it that religious people get the latitude to interpret and refine their views and the teachings of their leaders and gods, and it is considered positive and enlightening, yet when scientists do this in their circles it is written off as abject failure? Any one who does this is not well educated. One of the reasons evolution is taught all around the world is to try to further understand it so more practical applications can be derived from it: like the prevention of birth defects, the creation and refinement of vaccines, antibiotics, and antivirals, the control of pests and parasites, and so many, many other things.
To see evidence of evolution among human beings, all you have to do is look around you. That there are fair skinned Americans and Europeans, dark skinned Africans, and sallow skinned Asians is proof of evolution. If God created us in his own image, then why do some of us have black skin and some of use have white skin? Why do some of us have blue eyes, and some brown eyes? Why do some people have blond hair, some brown, and some red? Evolution is why. (Just what image does God have anyway, with all these variations in humankind???)
Scientists do not believe in theories, they either accept or reject them. Accepted scientific theories include: atomic theory (the basis of modern chemistry), the theory of gravity (a major component in physics), the theory of electricity, germ theory, cell theory, and number theory, to name a few. Evolution has been an accepted theory for over 140 years. The basic ideas of evolution have existed since at least the 6th century BC.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory and is not based on any sort of science whatsoever; scientists categorize it as an “argument of ignorance”. For thousands of years religion has attempted to accurately define the physical world around us and try to improve the health of people. It has by and large failed to do so. True understanding of the the natural world and the advancement of the quality of life amongst humans has only come when people have applied the scientific method. Religion has usually been wrong in its its attempts to explain the physical world around us. Keep in mind The Vatican only recently acknowledged officially that the sun was the center of our solar system in 1992 by Pope John Paul II.
It is accepted and respected that religion and science are two very different things. They use different rules and nomenclature. Floridians need to enter into the world where this is understood. And right quick!
PS: Genesis says man was created from the dust of the earth. Evolution says we are descended from primates. Dust or primates: which would you rather be related too?
It’s interesting that on the one hand Obama wants to ignore the rules that super-delegates can vote for whomever they want as he tries to bully them into voting for him when he is essentially tied with, and will probably remain tied with Clinton. He says the people’s votes need to be counted and respected. But on the other hand, he wants to ignore the votes of the people in Michigan and Florida, almost 2 million votes. The he accuses Clinton of being self-serving. In my view, you can’t have it both ways. The super-delegate system was put in place to deal with close elections like this one. If the DNC decides to leave Michigan and Florida out in the cold, perhaps the super-delegates will cast their votes with the people’s votes of those two states in mind.
All of the major music studios, the RIAA, and Apple Inc. have all announced an agreement on how to prevent music piracy. The idea of digital rights management (DRM) has been dropped entirely. All future mp3 tracks will have no form of DRM whatsoever. Instead, all parties involved have adopted another technology: the play button will be disabled on all digital music tracks. “You’ll be able to download your music to your computer, move it to your iPod, and also copy them to any hard drive you want. You can then share them with anyone. You just won’t be able to play them,” Steve Jobs said. “You’ll still be able to pause, stop, rewind, and fast-forward to your heart’s content,” he continued.
Industry experts expect that music will flourish with this new concept. It’s expected that music downloads will double in the next five years. With the inability to play the downloaded files, music piracy is expected to disappear completely within a few months of adopting the technology. And at the same time, the music industry expects that people will start to share music much more freely, which will spur interest in the the art form and grow the market overall.
But audiophiles are concerned. “I can totally hear the difference between these new mp3’s and the old ones,” said Steve Hirst of Stearling Mastering, an audio production studio in New York City. “They lack the fidelity, the warmth of the old ones,” Hirst said. “It’s like night and day. I’ll tell you one thing, I’m still gonna hold on to my vinyl lp’s, even if I can’t play them on the subway. I honestly prefer them over the non-playable mp3’s.”
“We expect download times of the non-playable mp3’s to be cut in half, if not more,” said Ian Stanfield of AT&T. “The burden on the internet backbone will be reduced tremendously.” It’s expected that the newly available internet bandwidth will be consumed half by bloggers and half by spam. “This is a bright day in the history of the internet,” Stanfield asserted.
“I’ve been waiting this day for a very long time,” said Lars Ulrich of the heavy metal-band Metallica. “A very, very long time.” When asked whether or not he thought the new non-playable mp3’s would affect his listening pleasure of music, he responded by saying, “What? Did you say something? I’m the friggin’ drummer of Metallica, I can barely hear anything anymore.”
McCain has a point that Obama’s speeches have been long on rhetoric and short on specifics. It’s the same critique Hillary proffers. Obama should not be going around saying he looks forward to a great debate with McCain, as Obama has yet to trump even Hillary in a debate. I personally saw Hillary school him twice in Democratic party debates. Just about ever political analyst agrees that Obama is a great speech maker, but not a very good debater. I’m not so sure he has the ability to beat McCain. Look what McCain did to Romey; McCain has skills to fear. Obama better get his facts and figures all lined up before he takes on McCain. His present debating style is insufficient to break McCain’s stride. He needs to add some data to the dramatics.
Clinton & Obama have been taking shots a McCain for weeks, pointing out how they feel they are both uniquely equipped to beat him in a national presidential election. And for weeks McCain has been firing back, talking about how he plans on beating Clinton. But last night he fired at a new target: Obama. With Barak’s recent string of back-to-back wins, McCain took dead aim at Obama for the first time and accused him of having a platform based on “platitudes”. Platitudes!?! Christ, he stole one of MY favorite put downs!!! Shit, are the Democrats doing the right thing here as they move forward to put an inexperienced junior senator up against a man with nothing but experience both professionally and personally? Obama likes to point to his past and his life’s accomplishments as to why he thinks he will make a great president. Well McCain whips his ass on that level. Obama cannot win that debate with McCain, no matter how much he may “welcome” it. It’s simply too nuanced an argument for your average American to comprehend. McCain comes straight out of central casting as your prototypical US President. A couple of good speeches and McCain runs the table when it comes to character; Obama will have to leave his chair, push it in, and walk away. Then Obama will be forced to then put his record up against McCain’s, and it seems he is quiet vulnerable here too, as Clinton loves to point out. Now’s her time to put the screws to Obama on this topic, this is her leverage point that may swing things back in her favor: experience. I think Americans will vote for experience over hope, especially when the debate turns to national security which is where McCain and the GOP will certainly steer things. I mean look what happened when we took a chance on a rather inexperienced governor from Texas? If McCain lays off Obama in the short term, he’ll allow the Democrats to vote him their nominee, then he can fire a full frontal assault on him later. But if he strikes too soon, he may make the Dems rethink Obama and swing to back to Clinton, who’s a harder take down for McCain than Obama. The chess match moves forward, one piece at a time. It’s getting tense.
BTW: this whole “Feed The Pig” ad campaign had me fooled! It took me nearly six viewings of these ads to figure out that the pig is the protagonist, not the antagonist. I thought the pig represented pork barrel spending and earmarks, not a piggy-bank! That’s what happens when the art director makes him all creepy looking — like he stepped off a Slipknot music video set — rather than look cute like a real piggy-bank. Putting the pig in a suit sure doesn’t help him look sympathetic. And he pops up all over town with is hand extended, seemingly extorting money from people. Boy did the creatives on this ad campaign miss the mark. One small line of copy in the last couple of seconds is the only thing that clues you into the fact that the ads are about the value of saving money rather spending it conspicuously. Damn!
Yahoo disses Microsoft and reportedly decides to talk to AOL about merging. Huh? AOL?? Why would anyone want to merge with AOL? Acquire AOL, sure, for AIM, but merge with AOL? AOL is one of the biggest boom-to-bust companies of all time. Surely you gain no management expertise by joining forces with AOL, as AOL has not been a talent-magnet since, oh, maybe 1999. 1997? I’m sure Time Warner is scratching it’s head: “sure take it, you got $100 million in your pocket?”
Can Yahoo really afford to take on AOL’s problems? It’s hottest property, AIM, Yahoo already has a strong alternative to with Yahoo Messenger. So what does Yahoo stand to gain by merging with AOL other than the company of misery? At least Microsoft could infuse Yahoo with cold hard cash and talent, two things Yahoo desperately needs. Of course Yahoo can and may consider a partnership with Google, but that would probably face strong anti-trust scrutiny. Plus, wouldn’t that really be admitting defeat worse than a merger with Microsoft? Despite all it’s fundamental economic shortcomings, Yahoo still has fantastic brand equity and an enviable user base. What they need is some fresh ideas at how to effectively monetize those assets, something AOL cannot deliver. Of course, as we’ve just seen, these negative growth companies tend to overvalue themselves and hold out for more money than anyone is ready to give them. Perhaps Yahoo should simply sit tight and try to right itself on its own. Perhaps trim down a bit and surely bring on board a world-class CEO rather than let Yang continue on. Let’s face it, Yang is way too close to the problem and way too sentimental to face and make Yahoo’s hard choices. Flickr is actually one of the largest social networking sites, and if Yahoo can figure out how to leverage it without diluting its core function as a photo sharing site it stands to gain big time. Maybe Filckr should start allowing users to share video clips as well as photos. Or else expand some of its social networking features. Keep Flickr as it is, and allow users to upgrade to more media sharing and social networking features, right? Seems like a no-brainer to me. Flickr is the the type of asset than neither Microsoft, Google, or AOL have. Yahoo should be making huge profits off it.
Also, why is the focus soley on building a better mouse trap in trying to create a targeted ad system that rivals Google’s? There has to be another way to make money off website traffic other than with ads and data mining. I don’t know what it is, but why not get some smart dudes in a room and force them to think outside the box of the Google business model? Targeted advertising has been around for quite a while, and Google certainly has perfected it. Isn’t there something new we can think up?
In any case, it’s been refreshing to have the tech press obsess about something other than Apple and its tiny laptop!
You gotta love what these Anonymous folks are up to. It’s a great example of cultural jamming. I love the masks. Plus, Project Chanology: great name! And that spooky time-lapse video of clouds on YouTube. These guys have got their shit down. I bet if they tried, they could get (L) Ron Paul elected.
Of course Scientology is an easy target. The Brits pulled their charitable status years ago. Greece outlawed Scientology saying its financial practices were at odds with the country’s public welfare. In 1994 the German Federal Labor Minister said Scientology is a “criminal money-laundering organization which is intent on expanding its delusional ideology worldwide under the pretext of religion and will stop at nothing. It is high time that the big wheels of this human-despising cartel of suppression finally receive our message loud and clear: they are criminal!” And as we all know, the Germans know a few things about this kind of stuff. And then France officially stated it thinks Scientology is a totalitarian organization that violates the dignity of humans. Yes, the French said that, the same people that sold nuclear technology to Iraq.
You gotta look back on the movie “Magnolia” and wonder if P. T. Anderson hadn’t beaten the South Park guys to the punch, as apparently Anderson wrote that part for Tom Cruise upon Cruise requesting to be in the movie. And of course that Cruise video of him laughing like a madman was perhaps the best work he’s done in years. I bet his phone is ringing off the hook with offers. He’s a shoe in for the Joker in the next Batman movie now that Keith Ledger OD’d. Regarding the Ledger OD, I am shocked at the sheer lack of “I wish I new how to quit you” jokes. I mean the dude was caught on tape saying he smoked five joints a day! Come on people, it’s not a stretch here.
In 1971 the United States District Court, District of Columbia stated, “the E-meter has no proven usefulness in the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease, nor is it medically or scientifically capable of improving any bodily function.” What the hell is an E-meter? Why it’s an Hubbard Electrometer, of course. It’s used by Scientologists to brainwash its members. They say it measures electric pulses coming off humans and can cleanse people of troubling thoughts, but it looks like it could tune a guitar a whole lot better. Even Isaac Asimov thought L. Ron was a lunatic. So did his contemporary, the writer Jack Williamson who thought Dianetics “had the look of a wonderfully rewarding scam”. So much so that Williamson became a treasurer for Hubbard. I guess he got worked over good by the E-meter. Or else his own books weren’t selling.
Microsoft is experiencing trouble getting a greater internet presence with its (for now) failed acquisition of Yahoo, but it moves ahead in getting traction in the cellphone OS market. It has agreed to buy Danger, the maker of some of the most user-friendly mobile OS’s, like the one used on the Sidekick. HOPEFULLY Microsoft will use this technology to improve the very clunky Windows Mobile! The iPhone still rules when it comes to ease of use, but it does not let you run Outlook or interface with Exchange Server, two major business applications that most businesses use. I’d like to see the iPhone run Outlook and synch with any Windows PC. And run on 3G networks. Or: I’d like to see the Windows Mobile OS work as easily and fast as the iPhone OS. Why can’t we have the best of both worlds? Units like that would sell like mad!!!!!!
From wikipedia.org regarding Woody Allen’s next film Vicky Christina Barelona:
“This film reportedly features a steamy lesbian sex scene between Penelope Cruz and Scarlett Johannson, as well as a X-Rated threesome between Cruz, Johannson, and Javier Bardem, who plays Cruz’s husband in the film.”
Polaroid has announced that is going to cease production of its instant film. Of course some young whippersnappers will say, “film, instant film, what’s that?” But all the others who had the joy of using Polaroid cameras and film will soon have to live only in a world of instant digital imaging joy. All of us old-schoolers (30-somethings?) owe a certain amount of respect to Edwin Land’s remarkable invention. How many parties have been enhanced by Polaroid film? How many photography lighting classes have relied on the stuff? Maybe someone will invent a digital camera with a built-in mini ink-jet printer that will replicate the capabilities of a loaded Polaroid camera? Maybe it will even be Polaroid themselves?? If so, I want a check!
I was having a conversation with a girl about how common it is to run into celebrities in New York City as opposed to Los Angeles. Having lived in and around NYC for a while, I’ve complied some run-ins:
Leo DiCaprio (at Bowery Bar, Spy, and Moomba), Lenny Kravitz (at Yaffa Cafe & a book release party), Helena Christensen (Bowery Bar), Prince (Spy), Jay Kay (Spy), Debbie Harry (at Image Productions), Chris Stein (Image Productions), Henry Rollins (on the street), John Malkovich (at Lucky Strike), Matt Dillon (at Max Fish), Cathleen Keener (at a film screening), Marisa Tomei (at a party), Ethan Hawke (at Chromavision), Sante D’Orazio (Chromavision), Mark Seliger (book release party), Marilyn Manson (Spy & on the street), Twiggy Ramirez (on the street), Steven Dorff (Spy), Rick Rubin (Spy), David Lee Roth (Spy), John Popper (Wax), Steven Tyler (at Lucky’s Juice Joint), Lou Reed (Lucky’s Juice Joint, at the same time as Steven Tyler, but they were not together, thought they did speak to one another), GG Allin (at Tin Pan Alley Studios), Sean Penn (film screening), Hal Holbrook (film screening), Evan Dando (at a Nancy Boy show), Stevie Wonder (at Manny’s Music), Paul Shaffer (Manny’s Music), Bill Clinton (at Bryant Park), Liv Tyler (Yaffa), Yoko Ono (at Teatown Video), Bob Balaban (Teatown Video), Scott Rosenberg (Bowery Bar), Andy Summers (Image Productions), Paris Hilton (Bowery Bar, Spy, & Wax), Nicki Hilton (Spy & Wax), Maury Povich (in a doctor’s office), Walter Kronkite (Teatown Video), Puff Daddy (Moomba), Oliver Stone (Moomba), Dan Lauria (in an elevator), Marsha Resnick (at Singularity), Emile Hirsch (film screening), Sam Fogarino (at The Lampost in Jersey City), Tom Cruise (on the street), Jeremy Davies (at a party), David Letterman (at a party), Ratboy (at Venus Records), Ben & Mike Kotch (at an audition), Kate Peirson (at a party), Joey Ramone (at Coney Island High), Jesse Malin (Coney Island High), Bono (Sine), Kristy Hume (Bowery Bar), Donovan Leitch (Bowery Bar & on the street), Tim Robbins (at a party), Catherine Hickland (Singularity), Marsha Gay Harding (film screening), Scarlett Johansson (Teatown Video)
With all the new forms of written communication — email, text messages, IM’s, blogs, etc. — it’s amazing to see how ineffective most people are at writing, even by professionals in the business world. Sure we can communicate instantly, but it often seems that the true message is not conveyed accurately. Speed is half the game, accuracy the other. Too often people write so poorly that the speed of communication is irrelevant due to the ambiguity of the message itself. Often many more messages are required between sender and receiver to simply clarify the intents of the first message. Senders routinely ignore basic English language parameters like capitalization and punctuation. People write in fragments and phrases and cliches. Pronouns and not properly qualified, and indefinite pronouns are used in a way that mind reading is necessary to suss out what they refer to. People often use incorrect grammar and then argue “well you know what I meant”. Yet no one would ever type “2+2=5″, then plead “well you know I really meant 4, duh,” and thus blame the receiver for being unsure of the sender’s true meaning. So here’s a tip: don’t be so lazy and spend the extra second or two and get your messages properly written out the first time. Especially if you are the Vice President of Global Communications for a multi-national corporation. Thanks!
