Tom Cruise on Oprah this week.
You could hardly find anybody more different from me than "TC", apart of course from our good looks. I'm the incarnate introvert, he is extroversion personified. But durnit, he is just too sincere and charming to keep hating, I give up.
(I'd like to watch the show where Oprah visits Tom's home. If anybody finds it online, please give notice.)
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Friday, May 09, 2008
The pirates are out to get you
Which anti-piracy propaganda video is more stupid, dishonest, condescending, misleading, pointless, and irritating? This one or this one? (I just can't believe they actually say "the pirates are out to get you" and "don't let the pirates burn a hole in your pocket".)
"Steal This Movie" part II. The information about the history of control of (mass-) communication is fascinating, there is much I had no idea about.
I have to admit, though, that the film is very one-sided. It's not so much a documentary as an argument. I am mostly on the same side as the argument ("information should flow freely"), but I also have some questions. Like "will information and art flow so freely one day that it becomes nearly impossible to make a living from making or selling it?"
For example, it is very expensive to make a good movie or television show. Will the economy of this collapse? That is hard to imagine. But will payment still happen because of some remnant of technological control or herding of customers? Or will it happen because of the power of the honor system, because people want to give a monetary reward out of the goodness of their heart? "If you liked this episode of Eureka, which you got for free over bittorrent, please give a dollar to the studio so they can pay the actors and set builders".
"Steal This Movie" part II. The information about the history of control of (mass-) communication is fascinating, there is much I had no idea about.
I have to admit, though, that the film is very one-sided. It's not so much a documentary as an argument. I am mostly on the same side as the argument ("information should flow freely"), but I also have some questions. Like "will information and art flow so freely one day that it becomes nearly impossible to make a living from making or selling it?"
For example, it is very expensive to make a good movie or television show. Will the economy of this collapse? That is hard to imagine. But will payment still happen because of some remnant of technological control or herding of customers? Or will it happen because of the power of the honor system, because people want to give a monetary reward out of the goodness of their heart? "If you liked this episode of Eureka, which you got for free over bittorrent, please give a dollar to the studio so they can pay the actors and set builders".
More on Miley
"Fury rained down; former fans were suggesting that communities got together to bonfire her merchandise. And finally, she relented, saying: "I feel so embarrassed. I never intended for this to happen and I apologise to my fans." Never mind what a ludicrous system this is that chooses young women for their sex appeal and then expects them to act as role models for the chastity of the rest of the population. It's the insincerity of everyone concerned that really chokes me. Not one person involved can seriously think Miley Cyrus had any kind of influence over this, or any other, image-building decision."
Guardian article
Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange, Red
Painting by Ellsworth Kelly.
Title: "Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange, Red"
1966. Oil on canvas, Five panels, Overall: 60 x 240 inches. Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum.
If it were me, I think I'd have yielded to the temptation to give it the title "Blue, Green, Yellow, Blue, Red".
Popularity of the slut
My friend Richard told me:
I worked with a young college student (a black girl - a native of Ethiopia) who "moonlighted" as an exotic dancer in a town some distance from the city after her shift on the drug and suicide hotline (for which she was a volunteer along with me) was over. She was very modest in her regular role as college student and had very strict morals. When I was first introduced to her, I thought she looked familiar but could not place her. She had been wearing a large Afro wig and tinted contact lenses in her "act". Of course, she recognized me and knew where I had seen her before, but she didn't mention it initially until I had got acquainted with her to some extent and convinced me that she was a person of integrity and devoutly religious. My shift on the hotline was right after hers and I would usually go there a little early and chat as she was very personable and humorous, but one time I was late relieving her and she was a little perturbed and told me she was late for her gig. I asked her if she was a musician, and she then told me that she worked as an exotic dancer to help pay her tuition. I then remembered where I had seen her. She told me that she had seen me there and then told me she preferred that I not go there again on her nights to work and to keep her "occupation" under my hat -- which I did. However, her disclosure had an odd effect -- now that I saw her as an "innocent" my memory of her act was more titillating in retrospect than in had been at the time I witnessed it. As much as I tried to disassociate her role as exotic dancer with her role as innocent college girl and fellow worker, I found myself a little uncomfortable in her company and found myself measuring my words so that she would not think I was "hitting" on her.
Yes, that's an interesting thing. Judging from the number of porn sites on the web advertising their models as "sluts", the loose girl is attractive to many men. I never really got that. I wonder if most men has such a low self-esteem that not even in their imagination will a girl want anything to do with them unless she is a slut?
I worked with a young college student (a black girl - a native of Ethiopia) who "moonlighted" as an exotic dancer in a town some distance from the city after her shift on the drug and suicide hotline (for which she was a volunteer along with me) was over. She was very modest in her regular role as college student and had very strict morals. When I was first introduced to her, I thought she looked familiar but could not place her. She had been wearing a large Afro wig and tinted contact lenses in her "act". Of course, she recognized me and knew where I had seen her before, but she didn't mention it initially until I had got acquainted with her to some extent and convinced me that she was a person of integrity and devoutly religious. My shift on the hotline was right after hers and I would usually go there a little early and chat as she was very personable and humorous, but one time I was late relieving her and she was a little perturbed and told me she was late for her gig. I asked her if she was a musician, and she then told me that she worked as an exotic dancer to help pay her tuition. I then remembered where I had seen her. She told me that she had seen me there and then told me she preferred that I not go there again on her nights to work and to keep her "occupation" under my hat -- which I did. However, her disclosure had an odd effect -- now that I saw her as an "innocent" my memory of her act was more titillating in retrospect than in had been at the time I witnessed it. As much as I tried to disassociate her role as exotic dancer with her role as innocent college girl and fellow worker, I found myself a little uncomfortable in her company and found myself measuring my words so that she would not think I was "hitting" on her.
Yes, that's an interesting thing. Judging from the number of porn sites on the web advertising their models as "sluts", the loose girl is attractive to many men. I never really got that. I wonder if most men has such a low self-esteem that not even in their imagination will a girl want anything to do with them unless she is a slut?
Carlin, Stuff, Children
Apropos of diverse, Eric points to George Carlin on Stuff and on Children.
Couldn't agree more. Also about political correctness and euphemisms.
Couldn't agree more. Also about political correctness and euphemisms.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Knocked Up
(Funny enough, this post is more about "skin", and more about copyright.)
Just watched Knocked Up. At first I was doubtful, but I ended up enjoying it. Beautiful women, great kids, decent story, and often quite funny.
Featured in the film was the famous web site Mr. Skin. It features scenes with actresses in the nude. It's amazing to me for two reasons: 1) apparently the guy has forty people working for him! 2) apparently the film studies leave him alone, despite him ripping all the nude scenes and putting them on a pay site! I'm pretty amazed by that. But I think the key may be that he is claiming the site is a review site, and the clips are put up as per the clause in copyright law which says you can feature bits of copyrighted works in connection with reviews. This would make it reasonably watertight, at least enough to not make it worth contending.
Just watched Knocked Up. At first I was doubtful, but I ended up enjoying it. Beautiful women, great kids, decent story, and often quite funny.
Featured in the film was the famous web site Mr. Skin. It features scenes with actresses in the nude. It's amazing to me for two reasons: 1) apparently the guy has forty people working for him! 2) apparently the film studies leave him alone, despite him ripping all the nude scenes and putting them on a pay site! I'm pretty amazed by that. But I think the key may be that he is claiming the site is a review site, and the clips are put up as per the clause in copyright law which says you can feature bits of copyrighted works in connection with reviews. This would make it reasonably watertight, at least enough to not make it worth contending.
Skins ad turn-off
From a Amazon UK DVD sales page:
"Skins - Series 2 - Complete [2007]
"Channel 4's critically-acclaimed drama follows the angst-ridden lives of its teenage characters, as they grapple with issues of race, religion, sexuality, drugs, and eating disorders. SKINS' portrayal of these characters as poster children of the hedonistic lifestyle is unflinching in its candour. Expect plenty more bitching, backstabbing, and general bad behaviour in this, the complete second series."
Is it just me, or is this the worst ad copy ever? It surely does not get me hot to buy this series.
"Skins - Series 2 - Complete [2007]
"Channel 4's critically-acclaimed drama follows the angst-ridden lives of its teenage characters, as they grapple with issues of race, religion, sexuality, drugs, and eating disorders. SKINS' portrayal of these characters as poster children of the hedonistic lifestyle is unflinching in its candour. Expect plenty more bitching, backstabbing, and general bad behaviour in this, the complete second series."
Is it just me, or is this the worst ad copy ever? It surely does not get me hot to buy this series.
Copyright threat
The "orphan works" copyright legislation proposal is claimed to be a trojan horse. This artist (audio interview) says that nothing at all will be protected if not registered.
I hesitate to report on theses kinds of scary stories, because most of them turn out to be a storm in a glass of water (as the Danes say, I guess the English expression is "tempest in a teacup"). But Brad Holland in the audio interview sounds like he knows what he's talking about.
On the other hand, this article pretty much completely contradicts it. Strange that I got both links from the same newsletter.
So maybe you can just regard this, just like 98% of all those scare stories which seem to be part of the human condition.
Eric injected:
It seems like people are too damn scared about their work being used in ways they won't like. That's the risk you take when you produce something. Art and ideas aren't solely the property of the person that creates them and you're not always going to be given your proper dues when your creations are shared. Creative people stifle themselves when they're always thinking, "what am I gonna get out of this?"
I'm not saying it's right if you produce something, somebody claims the entire work as their own and you never get any credit for it. Artists and writers need to eat too. It's just that so much effort is expended to ensure something can't be "stolen" when really what they're trying to do is prevent the natural process of integrating a piece of art into the mass consciousness. That's something to embrace, not for commercial purposes but because it means another human voice has been immortalized in expressions that go beyond the individual ego.
From what I understand of this potential law is, as has been pointed out, that isn't being finalized by lawmakers and, if it does become a law, the effects aren't going to be as drastic as some would have you believe. My understanding is that when, and only when, the original creator of the work cannot be tracked down but it's been made available to the public it can then be used as we want to use it. That actually seems pretty sensible to me, at least in theory. The next part of the discussion is what constitutes an effort to find the creator, how much effort is enough (How many e-mails need to be sent? How many phone calls need to be made?), and how much time should be allowed between when you attempt to make contact and when the work is freed for use.
"Folks, the world as we know it is not going to end today. Sorry to disappoint you. As consolation we're handing out pictures of dogs in funny hats. There's only enough for half of you so please trample each other on your way to claim them."
I have long said that copyright is one of those things, like love, that you want to hold not too loosely and not too tightly, like an egg or a bird. If you find yourself crippling your production or your works in order they don't get stolen, maybe you're holding too tightly.
In early days of Domai, a lot of the material was found orphaned. Unfortunately some of it was "orphaned". Cough. But this was not because I was unwilling to pay for it, but because in those days there was a dearth of good simple nudes to be found, so I used what I did find. Fortunately after the millennium that situation started to change, and in recent years my problem has been quite the opposite: how to have the heart to reject all the fine work which I can't buy. I think that happy situation happened due to at least two factors: the fame of the site itself and what it expired, and the advent of affordable, quality digital cameras.
I hesitate to report on theses kinds of scary stories, because most of them turn out to be a storm in a glass of water (as the Danes say, I guess the English expression is "tempest in a teacup"). But Brad Holland in the audio interview sounds like he knows what he's talking about.
On the other hand, this article pretty much completely contradicts it. Strange that I got both links from the same newsletter.
So maybe you can just regard this, just like 98% of all those scare stories which seem to be part of the human condition.
Eric injected:
It seems like people are too damn scared about their work being used in ways they won't like. That's the risk you take when you produce something. Art and ideas aren't solely the property of the person that creates them and you're not always going to be given your proper dues when your creations are shared. Creative people stifle themselves when they're always thinking, "what am I gonna get out of this?"
I'm not saying it's right if you produce something, somebody claims the entire work as their own and you never get any credit for it. Artists and writers need to eat too. It's just that so much effort is expended to ensure something can't be "stolen" when really what they're trying to do is prevent the natural process of integrating a piece of art into the mass consciousness. That's something to embrace, not for commercial purposes but because it means another human voice has been immortalized in expressions that go beyond the individual ego.
From what I understand of this potential law is, as has been pointed out, that isn't being finalized by lawmakers and, if it does become a law, the effects aren't going to be as drastic as some would have you believe. My understanding is that when, and only when, the original creator of the work cannot be tracked down but it's been made available to the public it can then be used as we want to use it. That actually seems pretty sensible to me, at least in theory. The next part of the discussion is what constitutes an effort to find the creator, how much effort is enough (How many e-mails need to be sent? How many phone calls need to be made?), and how much time should be allowed between when you attempt to make contact and when the work is freed for use.
"Folks, the world as we know it is not going to end today. Sorry to disappoint you. As consolation we're handing out pictures of dogs in funny hats. There's only enough for half of you so please trample each other on your way to claim them."
I have long said that copyright is one of those things, like love, that you want to hold not too loosely and not too tightly, like an egg or a bird. If you find yourself crippling your production or your works in order they don't get stolen, maybe you're holding too tightly.
In early days of Domai, a lot of the material was found orphaned. Unfortunately some of it was "orphaned". Cough. But this was not because I was unwilling to pay for it, but because in those days there was a dearth of good simple nudes to be found, so I used what I did find. Fortunately after the millennium that situation started to change, and in recent years my problem has been quite the opposite: how to have the heart to reject all the fine work which I can't buy. I think that happy situation happened due to at least two factors: the fame of the site itself and what it expired, and the advent of affordable, quality digital cameras.
Passenger 'moons' at speed camera
Passenger 'moons' at speed camera.
"Not only is it disrespectful, but distasteful and offensive, particularly to children who may have been exposed to this nonsense."
"Not only is it disrespectful, but distasteful and offensive, particularly to children who may have been exposed to this nonsense."
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Automotive?
This must be the strangest email I've ever gotten from Amazon.
To the best of my recall, I've never ordered anything for a car (assuming that's what "automotive" means in this context), or anything related to solar power.
And by the way, I had no idea solar power technology was in mass market sale like this.
To the best of my recall, I've never ordered anything for a car (assuming that's what "automotive" means in this context), or anything related to solar power.
And by the way, I had no idea solar power technology was in mass market sale like this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)