New York Magazine has an article Why Neoconservative Pundits Love Jon Stewart which explains why his news interviewers aren't just the funniest on television, but the best and most informative.
"'There is genuine intellectual curiosity,' May told New York. 'He's a staunch liberal, but he's a thoughtful liberal, and I respect that.' May isn't the only conservative gushing about Stewart. While the movement professes a disdain for the 'liberal media elite,' it has made an exception for the true-blue 46-year-old comedian. 'He always gives you a chance to answer, which some people don't do,' says John Bolton, President Bush's ambassador to the United Nations and a Fox News contributor, who went on the show last month. 'He's got his perspective, but he's been fair.' Says Bolton: 'In general, a lot of the media, especially on the left, has lost interest in debate and analysis. It has been much more ad hominem. Stewart fundamentally wants to talk about the issues. That's what I want to do.'"
I loved when he went on Crossfire and told them they were hurting America and ultimately got the show cancelled. I'm much more happy he's now leading by example and getting recognized for it. I'm also disappointed the neo-cons interviewed don't acknowledge that it's the conservatives news shows that are the most confrontational.
Monday, August 10, 2009
36 Dishes in Boston, MA
36 Dishes in Boston, MA. "In The New York Times weekly column, 36 Hours, a weekend-long itinerary is given for different cities. AlwaysHungryNY.com, is taking a more culinary-focused, food-challenge approach to weekend travel with a new, occasional feature, 36 Dishes. The goal? To eat and drink a combination of 36 memorable dishes and beverages from significant places in a city during one weekend."
I've eaten at 9 of the places but I don't think I've had any of the dishes he had.
I've eaten at 9 of the places but I don't think I've had any of the dishes he had.
Saturday, August 08, 2009
2.40:1 Movies on 16:9 TV
Steven Soderbergh wrote Format Wars in DGA Quarterly.
"Television operators, the people who buy and produce things for people to watch on TV, are taking the position that films photographed in the 2.40:1 ratio should be blown up or chopped up to fit a 16:9 (1.78:1) ratio. They are taking the position that the viewers of television do not like watching 2.40 films letterboxed to fit their 16:9 screens, and that a film insisting on this is worth significantly less—or even nothing—to them"
MGM, IFC, Sundance, HDNet Movies and FMC get it right. Showtime mostly gets right. HBO and AMC get it wrong.
"Television operators, the people who buy and produce things for people to watch on TV, are taking the position that films photographed in the 2.40:1 ratio should be blown up or chopped up to fit a 16:9 (1.78:1) ratio. They are taking the position that the viewers of television do not like watching 2.40 films letterboxed to fit their 16:9 screens, and that a film insisting on this is worth significantly less—or even nothing—to them"
MGM, IFC, Sundance, HDNet Movies and FMC get it right. Showtime mostly gets right. HBO and AMC get it wrong.
NASA - Kepler Mission Detects Exoplanet Atmosphere
NASA - Kepler Mission Detects Exoplanet Atmosphere
"NASA's new exoplanet-hunting Kepler space telescope has detected the atmosphere of a known giant gas planet, demonstrating the telescope's extraordinary scientific capabilities."
"[Planet] HAT-P-7 was known before Kepler turned its attention to the planet. Kepler's measurements are so precise, however, they show something new: a smooth rise and fall of the light caused by the changing phases of the planet, similar to the phases of our own Moon. Kepler could also see the planet's light vanish completely when it passed behind its parent star"
"NASA's new exoplanet-hunting Kepler space telescope has detected the atmosphere of a known giant gas planet, demonstrating the telescope's extraordinary scientific capabilities."
"[Planet] HAT-P-7 was known before Kepler turned its attention to the planet. Kepler's measurements are so precise, however, they show something new: a smooth rise and fall of the light caused by the changing phases of the planet, similar to the phases of our own Moon. Kepler could also see the planet's light vanish completely when it passed behind its parent star"
Friday, August 07, 2009
The Omnivore’s Delusion: Against the Agri-intellectuals — The American, A Magazine of Ideas
I'm hesitant to link to anything put out by the American Enterprise Institute, but in The American, Blake Hurst takes on Michael Pollan in The Omnivore’s Delusion: Against the Agri-intellectuals. He's a farmer and he has some issues with Pollan's arguments. Like so many things, I don't know which is right, but I found this interesting to read...
"We raised the hogs in a shed, or farrowing (birthing) house. On one side were eight crates of the kind that the good citizens of California have outlawed. On the other were the kind of wooden pens that our critics would have us use, where the sow could turn around, lie down, and presumably act in a natural way. Which included lying down on my 4-H project, killing several piglets, and forcing me to clean up the mess when I did my chores before school. The crates protect the piglets from their mothers. Farmers do not cage their hogs because of sadism, but because dead pigs are a drag on the profit margin, and because being crushed by your mother really is an awful way to go. As is being eaten by your mother, which I've seen sows do to newborn pigs as well."
"In his book, Pollan quotes geographer Vaclav Smil to the effect that 40 percent of the people alive today would not be alive without the ability to artificially synthesize nitrogen. But in his directive on food policy, Pollan damns agriculture's dependence on fossil fuels, and urges the president to encourage agriculture to move away from expensive and declining supplies of natural gas toward the unlimited sunshine that supported life, and agriculture, as recently as the 1940s. Now, why didn't I think of that?"
"The last time I planted a cover crop, the clover provided a perfect habitat in early spring for bugs, bugs that I had to kill with an insecticide. We do not normally apply insecticides, but we did that year. Of course, you can provide nitrogen with legumes by using a longer crop rotation, growing clover one year and corn the next. But that uses twice as much water to produce a corn crop, and takes twice as much land to produce the same number of bushels. We are producing twice the food we did in 1960 on less land, and commercial nitrogen is one of the main reasons why. It may be that we decide we would rather spend land and water than energy, but Pollan never mentions that we are faced with that choice."
"We raised the hogs in a shed, or farrowing (birthing) house. On one side were eight crates of the kind that the good citizens of California have outlawed. On the other were the kind of wooden pens that our critics would have us use, where the sow could turn around, lie down, and presumably act in a natural way. Which included lying down on my 4-H project, killing several piglets, and forcing me to clean up the mess when I did my chores before school. The crates protect the piglets from their mothers. Farmers do not cage their hogs because of sadism, but because dead pigs are a drag on the profit margin, and because being crushed by your mother really is an awful way to go. As is being eaten by your mother, which I've seen sows do to newborn pigs as well."
"In his book, Pollan quotes geographer Vaclav Smil to the effect that 40 percent of the people alive today would not be alive without the ability to artificially synthesize nitrogen. But in his directive on food policy, Pollan damns agriculture's dependence on fossil fuels, and urges the president to encourage agriculture to move away from expensive and declining supplies of natural gas toward the unlimited sunshine that supported life, and agriculture, as recently as the 1940s. Now, why didn't I think of that?"
"The last time I planted a cover crop, the clover provided a perfect habitat in early spring for bugs, bugs that I had to kill with an insecticide. We do not normally apply insecticides, but we did that year. Of course, you can provide nitrogen with legumes by using a longer crop rotation, growing clover one year and corn the next. But that uses twice as much water to produce a corn crop, and takes twice as much land to produce the same number of bushels. We are producing twice the food we did in 1960 on less land, and commercial nitrogen is one of the main reasons why. It may be that we decide we would rather spend land and water than energy, but Pollan never mentions that we are faced with that choice."
Two Good Mad Men Articles
Mad Men Season 3 begins a week from Sunday on AMC. They're showing reruns in the mean time. Here are two good articles: The Women Behind ‘Mad Men’ from the Wall Street Journal and the very long Don and Betty’s Paradise Lost in Vanity Fair.
Hiroshima, 64 Years Ago in Pictures
Yesterday, August 6th was the 64th anniversary of when the Enola Gay dropped Little Boy on Hiroshima. The Boston Globe has some amazing photos in Hiroshima, 64 years ago.
Political Spectrum Quiz Results
My Political Views
I am a center-left social libertarian
Left: 2.33, Libertarian: 4
I had a hard time with some of the questions on this Political Spectrum Quiz. E.g., "A person's morality is between that person and God only. Government should not get involved." Aside from the God part does morality mean murder? I'm in favor of anti-murder laws. I'm not in favor of the state legislating things consenting adults can do which some people treat as immoral.
I am a center-left social libertarian
Left: 2.33, Libertarian: 4
I had a hard time with some of the questions on this Political Spectrum Quiz. E.g., "A person's morality is between that person and God only. Government should not get involved." Aside from the God part does morality mean murder? I'm in favor of anti-murder laws. I'm not in favor of the state legislating things consenting adults can do which some people treat as immoral.
The Town Hall Mobs
Krugman has a good op-ed today The Town Hall Mob.
"Some commentators have tried to play down the mob aspect of these scenes, likening the campaign against health reform to the campaign against Social Security privatization back in 2005. But there’s no comparison. I’ve gone through many news reports from 2005, and while anti-privatization activists were sometimes raucous and rude, I can’t find any examples of congressmen shouted down, congressmen hanged in effigy, congressmen surrounded and followed by taunting crowds. And I can’t find any counterpart to the death threats at least one congressman has received."
"Some commentators have tried to play down the mob aspect of these scenes, likening the campaign against health reform to the campaign against Social Security privatization back in 2005. But there’s no comparison. I’ve gone through many news reports from 2005, and while anti-privatization activists were sometimes raucous and rude, I can’t find any examples of congressmen shouted down, congressmen hanged in effigy, congressmen surrounded and followed by taunting crowds. And I can’t find any counterpart to the death threats at least one congressman has received."
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Movie Review: District 9
I went to a free screening of District 9 tonight. The first trailer had so much promise. An alien ship arrives on earth and seems to be stuck over Johannesburg. Many aliens have come down to the surface and now live in a walled off shanty town. The trailer shows an alien being interrogated and asked how his weapons work. See all the real world parallels this brings up? Fiction used to explore reality? Forget it. The movie doesn't really do anything with it.
There's no explanation for how the humans and aliens understand each other's language. It begins with humans walking around the district handing out eviction notices and expecting the aliens to sign them. Seriously. All the humans are sadists or idiots or usually both. You don't want to root for any of them. The aliens all seem to be worker drones, so they're dumb too and this is why no one is repairing the ship (though you'd expect workers to... never mind).
The film unfolds as a documentary, with cuts between interviews with people and events of the story. But it's not consistent, at times it's showing events not in the documentary even though it's still using the same shaky handheld camera. And some events in the documentary are filmed from too many camera angles. Even though there are 1.8 million aliens in it, this is the least crowded shanty town ever. The characters often make very stupid decisions and the film definitely glorifies the violence as they find more and more ways to make bodies go splatter. Air support shows up in force in one scene and doesn't show up at all in another. No reason given.
There is a plot, but I won't describe it. I suspect it's far more sensible than that of Transformers 2, but I was mostly disappointed in how it developed and what they were ignoring. The real problem is we don't find out enough about the aliens or even how humans reacted to their arrival. There could be a sequel but I doubt it. They had a great premise and obvious parallels to apartheid; but wasted it telling a story only slightly better than Cloverfield's and not having anything more to say about apartheid. As an action movie, it's pretty good, and the special effects are very good; but rewatch that trailer, is it an action movie? Which film would rather see?
*Spoilers*
Ok, I'm completely shocked that Rotten Tomatoes is showing 10 out of 10 favorable reviews for this film. I really wanted to find out more about the aliens and how their arrival changed earth rather than all this Fly-like stuff happening to Wikus. Some of the things that bothered me:
If you're sprayed in the face by alien goo and start feeling ill, you go to a doctor. If you see someone sprayed in the face by alien goo and watch him start getting ill, you suggest to him that he goes to a doctor.
Why did the ship come in the first place? What happened to it? Why did they let the aliens off the ship in the first place? Couldn't the smart aliens have hidden on board? If they were looking through the alien technology to find the fluid, wouldn't there be a ton of it on the ship? Why didn't the smarter aliens ever talk with the humans? Were there more smart aliens? What happened to them? Just what is their relationship to the worker drones?
MNU reminded me of Haliburton but even I think Dick Cheney has more heart than these people. And really, if you have the first specimen with a trait you're interested in, you don't dissect (or vivisect) him immediately. Especially if he's married to your daughter.
If you've setup a shanty town for the aliens and are going to move it and obviously don't care much about their lives, you do not come up with a process that requires getting 1.8 million alien signatures by walking around the town. Instead you bring in buses and say they'll take you to a place with lots of cat food and watch them get on board.
If you have a secret ship hidden underground, why not put your secret lab and stash of fluid in it, rather than in a shanty without a lockable door?
Doesn't everyone know you can be tracked by using your cellphone? Hell, you can be tracked by just having your cellphone, even if it's off (you have to physically remove the battery).
I've seen a few reviews praising the arc that Wikus goes through, starting out as an ass and then feeling so much for him in the final scene. That's not an arc and I don't think he changed too much. First he starts off treating the prawns as dumb sub-humans. A fine parallel to apartheid, but of course in this case it's actually true, the prawns aren't human and are dumb. They are at least sentient and Wikus doesn't seem sensitive to that at all. So then his transformation begins and he starts to panic. There's not character change there, just a new situation to deal with. When he finds Christopher he's surprised he's intelligent and that changes his view of the prawns, but then it should, it's a different kind of prawn. But even still, he's all about his own self-interest and that doesn't change until the very end when all seems lost and he kills many soldiers so Christopher can get away. How cliche is that? Even Christopher saying I will return in 3 years reminded me of Daniel Day Lewis in The Last of the Mohicans, except in that film he did. At the end Wikus turns into a prawn and misses his wife. Awww. I bet a lot of the other people who died in this film had families they loved and miss, but the film doesn't even make an attempt to address that. And given Wikus' initial behavior and how quickly her father gets her to turn against Wikus, how strong do you think that relationship was to begin with? The film didn't do enough to make me care about him.
You have enough fluid for interstellar travel and hand weapons more powerful than anything else on earth. Are there any ships weapons to use before you leave? It's a city-sized ship with 1 million passengers on it, most all of whom are worker drones, wouldn't you expect to need more than two people to pilot it? And really, the humans don't want the drones around, couldn't you at least consider taking them with you? Wouldn't it be an interesting story if the human civilians wanted them to go but MNU wanted them to stay for the weapons? What would they have to negotiate with MNU to let them all go? Maybe leave weapons and hints to develop the tech to use them and what effect would that ultimately have on earth?
There's no explanation for how the humans and aliens understand each other's language. It begins with humans walking around the district handing out eviction notices and expecting the aliens to sign them. Seriously. All the humans are sadists or idiots or usually both. You don't want to root for any of them. The aliens all seem to be worker drones, so they're dumb too and this is why no one is repairing the ship (though you'd expect workers to... never mind).
The film unfolds as a documentary, with cuts between interviews with people and events of the story. But it's not consistent, at times it's showing events not in the documentary even though it's still using the same shaky handheld camera. And some events in the documentary are filmed from too many camera angles. Even though there are 1.8 million aliens in it, this is the least crowded shanty town ever. The characters often make very stupid decisions and the film definitely glorifies the violence as they find more and more ways to make bodies go splatter. Air support shows up in force in one scene and doesn't show up at all in another. No reason given.
There is a plot, but I won't describe it. I suspect it's far more sensible than that of Transformers 2, but I was mostly disappointed in how it developed and what they were ignoring. The real problem is we don't find out enough about the aliens or even how humans reacted to their arrival. There could be a sequel but I doubt it. They had a great premise and obvious parallels to apartheid; but wasted it telling a story only slightly better than Cloverfield's and not having anything more to say about apartheid. As an action movie, it's pretty good, and the special effects are very good; but rewatch that trailer, is it an action movie? Which film would rather see?
*Spoilers*
Ok, I'm completely shocked that Rotten Tomatoes is showing 10 out of 10 favorable reviews for this film. I really wanted to find out more about the aliens and how their arrival changed earth rather than all this Fly-like stuff happening to Wikus. Some of the things that bothered me:
If you're sprayed in the face by alien goo and start feeling ill, you go to a doctor. If you see someone sprayed in the face by alien goo and watch him start getting ill, you suggest to him that he goes to a doctor.
Why did the ship come in the first place? What happened to it? Why did they let the aliens off the ship in the first place? Couldn't the smart aliens have hidden on board? If they were looking through the alien technology to find the fluid, wouldn't there be a ton of it on the ship? Why didn't the smarter aliens ever talk with the humans? Were there more smart aliens? What happened to them? Just what is their relationship to the worker drones?
MNU reminded me of Haliburton but even I think Dick Cheney has more heart than these people. And really, if you have the first specimen with a trait you're interested in, you don't dissect (or vivisect) him immediately. Especially if he's married to your daughter.
If you've setup a shanty town for the aliens and are going to move it and obviously don't care much about their lives, you do not come up with a process that requires getting 1.8 million alien signatures by walking around the town. Instead you bring in buses and say they'll take you to a place with lots of cat food and watch them get on board.
If you have a secret ship hidden underground, why not put your secret lab and stash of fluid in it, rather than in a shanty without a lockable door?
Doesn't everyone know you can be tracked by using your cellphone? Hell, you can be tracked by just having your cellphone, even if it's off (you have to physically remove the battery).
I've seen a few reviews praising the arc that Wikus goes through, starting out as an ass and then feeling so much for him in the final scene. That's not an arc and I don't think he changed too much. First he starts off treating the prawns as dumb sub-humans. A fine parallel to apartheid, but of course in this case it's actually true, the prawns aren't human and are dumb. They are at least sentient and Wikus doesn't seem sensitive to that at all. So then his transformation begins and he starts to panic. There's not character change there, just a new situation to deal with. When he finds Christopher he's surprised he's intelligent and that changes his view of the prawns, but then it should, it's a different kind of prawn. But even still, he's all about his own self-interest and that doesn't change until the very end when all seems lost and he kills many soldiers so Christopher can get away. How cliche is that? Even Christopher saying I will return in 3 years reminded me of Daniel Day Lewis in The Last of the Mohicans, except in that film he did. At the end Wikus turns into a prawn and misses his wife. Awww. I bet a lot of the other people who died in this film had families they loved and miss, but the film doesn't even make an attempt to address that. And given Wikus' initial behavior and how quickly her father gets her to turn against Wikus, how strong do you think that relationship was to begin with? The film didn't do enough to make me care about him.
You have enough fluid for interstellar travel and hand weapons more powerful than anything else on earth. Are there any ships weapons to use before you leave? It's a city-sized ship with 1 million passengers on it, most all of whom are worker drones, wouldn't you expect to need more than two people to pilot it? And really, the humans don't want the drones around, couldn't you at least consider taking them with you? Wouldn't it be an interesting story if the human civilians wanted them to go but MNU wanted them to stay for the weapons? What would they have to negotiate with MNU to let them all go? Maybe leave weapons and hints to develop the tech to use them and what effect would that ultimately have on earth?
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Quicksilver Solves Emacs vs vi
This will get geeky. First some background. Way before word processors, computers had text editors and two in particular came to prominence. Both vi and Emacs were written in 1976 and I think vi vs. Emacs really was the first Internet flamewar and it's still going on.
This was long before menus and mice so both text and editing commands had to be entered via the keyboard and it was even before arrow keys. But since you need to be able to type all the letters, numbers and punctuation, where do you put the commands like uppercase word and move forward a sentence? This was even before arrow keys so there wasn't that solution either. And both of these editors have a lot of commands (though I think it's fair to say Emacs has many more and vi users see that as a detriment).
In Emacs, commands have names like forward-word which moves the cursor forward a word. You can execute it by typing M-x which stands for hit the meta key and then x and typing forward-word. (Keyboards used to have a meta key, now usually the alt key stands in its stead or you can hit esc and then x.) Or for the more common commands (and even many uncommon ones) they are bound to a keystroke, in this case M-f. Emacs is famous for binding commands to crazy keystrokes like C-M-s (search forward for a regular expression pattern) or C-x C-s for save (type x while holding down control then type s while holding down control). You really do get used to it, and you can learn commands at your own rate but it's easier if you turn your caps lock into a control key.
vi is different, it has two modes: a command mode and an edit (aka insert) mode. In edit mode you type and the letters go into the document. In command mode, the various letters stand for commands. Famously (as many games still use this), the h, j, k, and l keys stand in for the arrow keys as left, down, up and right. $ is the end of the line and ^ is the beginning of a line. Type these and the cursor moves as commanded. w moves to the beginning of the next word, e to the end of it. 4w moves to the beginning of the 4th word following the cursor. etc. /string searches for "string" in the file. vi users are really good at switching between modes.
So real programmers use either vi or emacs. I've been using emacs since 1983. My friend Sean uses vi. I long ago got over the flamewars. An editor is only as good as you know it. If you're proficient at emacs you can be just as efficient as someone proficient at vi. But the flamewars continue.
When I switched to the mac I discovered the program Quicksilver. It quickly became my favorite program of all time, even more so than emacs. It's easy to use but not obvious and it's unfortunately very difficult to describe just how powerful it is. And I've tried, I wrote a 120 page manual for it and a one page quick reference sheet. This tutorial is a good intro, but basically it's a launcher. No matter what you're doing on the mac, type a configurable keystroke like command-space and it brings up the Quicksilver command window. Then you type to bring up the thing you want. It can be a program, the name of a file, or a song in iTunes or a person in the address book, or a bookmark in your browser, or an album in iPhoto or just about anything. Most launchers stop there, you bring up the thing, hit return and it opens (Spotlight works like that). Quicksilver's power comes from the second pane in the command window where you can enter a verb. Sure the most common one is open, but you might use Copy, Move To..., Email to..., Add to Playlist, Hide, etc. If I bring up a contact from the address book in the first pane I can choose actions like Compose Email to start an email or Email Item to then choose a file to send (it will just do it I don't even have to open Mail) or IM... or Video Chat... or Edit Contact, etc.
The intangible part of Quicksilver is that after you get used to it, you start all your actions on the computer with it. It almost becomes the interface to your mac, and it's very difficult to use someone else's machine that doesn't have it.
There's a lot more to it but one more thing to mention is triggers. You can bind commands to keystrokes to make them even faster to run. E.g., if I type option-command-f (I said I was an emacs user) Quicksilver appears and prompts me for text to search in imdb for. I look up movie titles and actors all the time using this. I don't have to first go to the browser and then visit imdb or choose a search engine from the search box drop down. One keystroke, type and see the results in my browser. If I add shift to the keystroke then I can first highlight text and hit and it searches for the text. So if I'm reading an article about a director, I can find his or her imdb page without ever having to type or even copy and paste the name, just highlight and type a keystroke. I used a trigger (control-shift-command-i) to resize the above screenshot to be 400 pixels wide to post on the blog. I use that trigger all the time.
Sean started using Quicksilver recently and is adding new commands and uses to his repertoire over time. I was describing a trigger I used all the time (hide the current application by moving the mouse to the top right corner of the screen) and he said "i don't use many key-combo triggers", he mostly just uses the Quicksilver command window and types in nouns and verbs. I replied that it "must be my emacs background" that I use lots of triggers. He said "vi has command mode which may be why I'm so comfortable in QS's noun-verb mode and rely less on combos, QS is like command mode for my OS" I thought that was a really nice description and added "and triggers are like emacs key bindings". The nice thing is that you can choose to use it either way. Quicksilver is really flexible in how it lets you use it and in its own way, it solved the emacs-vi war.
After we had this epiphany in chat he said "TO TWITTER!" and we both laughed and realized this wasn't going to fit in 140 characters. We both ended up blogging it. Here's Sean's writeup of this. He takes the analogy further and introduces perl.
This was long before menus and mice so both text and editing commands had to be entered via the keyboard and it was even before arrow keys. But since you need to be able to type all the letters, numbers and punctuation, where do you put the commands like uppercase word and move forward a sentence? This was even before arrow keys so there wasn't that solution either. And both of these editors have a lot of commands (though I think it's fair to say Emacs has many more and vi users see that as a detriment).
In Emacs, commands have names like forward-word which moves the cursor forward a word. You can execute it by typing M-x which stands for hit the meta key and then x and typing forward-word. (Keyboards used to have a meta key, now usually the alt key stands in its stead or you can hit esc and then x.) Or for the more common commands (and even many uncommon ones) they are bound to a keystroke, in this case M-f. Emacs is famous for binding commands to crazy keystrokes like C-M-s (search forward for a regular expression pattern) or C-x C-s for save (type x while holding down control then type s while holding down control). You really do get used to it, and you can learn commands at your own rate but it's easier if you turn your caps lock into a control key.
vi is different, it has two modes: a command mode and an edit (aka insert) mode. In edit mode you type and the letters go into the document. In command mode, the various letters stand for commands. Famously (as many games still use this), the h, j, k, and l keys stand in for the arrow keys as left, down, up and right. $ is the end of the line and ^ is the beginning of a line. Type these and the cursor moves as commanded. w moves to the beginning of the next word, e to the end of it. 4w moves to the beginning of the 4th word following the cursor. etc. /string searches for "string" in the file. vi users are really good at switching between modes.
So real programmers use either vi or emacs. I've been using emacs since 1983. My friend Sean uses vi. I long ago got over the flamewars. An editor is only as good as you know it. If you're proficient at emacs you can be just as efficient as someone proficient at vi. But the flamewars continue.
When I switched to the mac I discovered the program Quicksilver. It quickly became my favorite program of all time, even more so than emacs. It's easy to use but not obvious and it's unfortunately very difficult to describe just how powerful it is. And I've tried, I wrote a 120 page manual for it and a one page quick reference sheet. This tutorial is a good intro, but basically it's a launcher. No matter what you're doing on the mac, type a configurable keystroke like command-space and it brings up the Quicksilver command window. Then you type to bring up the thing you want. It can be a program, the name of a file, or a song in iTunes or a person in the address book, or a bookmark in your browser, or an album in iPhoto or just about anything. Most launchers stop there, you bring up the thing, hit return and it opens (Spotlight works like that). Quicksilver's power comes from the second pane in the command window where you can enter a verb. Sure the most common one is open, but you might use Copy, Move To..., Email to..., Add to Playlist, Hide, etc. If I bring up a contact from the address book in the first pane I can choose actions like Compose Email to start an email or Email Item to then choose a file to send (it will just do it I don't even have to open Mail) or IM... or Video Chat... or Edit Contact, etc.
There's a lot more to it but one more thing to mention is triggers. You can bind commands to keystrokes to make them even faster to run. E.g., if I type option-command-f (I said I was an emacs user) Quicksilver appears and prompts me for text to search in imdb for. I look up movie titles and actors all the time using this. I don't have to first go to the browser and then visit imdb or choose a search engine from the search box drop down. One keystroke, type and see the results in my browser. If I add shift to the keystroke then I can first highlight text and hit and it searches for the text. So if I'm reading an article about a director, I can find his or her imdb page without ever having to type or even copy and paste the name, just highlight and type a keystroke. I used a trigger (control-shift-command-i) to resize the above screenshot to be 400 pixels wide to post on the blog. I use that trigger all the time.
Sean started using Quicksilver recently and is adding new commands and uses to his repertoire over time. I was describing a trigger I used all the time (hide the current application by moving the mouse to the top right corner of the screen) and he said "i don't use many key-combo triggers", he mostly just uses the Quicksilver command window and types in nouns and verbs. I replied that it "must be my emacs background" that I use lots of triggers. He said "vi has command mode which may be why I'm so comfortable in QS's noun-verb mode and rely less on combos, QS is like command mode for my OS" I thought that was a really nice description and added "and triggers are like emacs key bindings". The nice thing is that you can choose to use it either way. Quicksilver is really flexible in how it lets you use it and in its own way, it solved the emacs-vi war.
After we had this epiphany in chat he said "TO TWITTER!" and we both laughed and realized this wasn't going to fit in 140 characters. We both ended up blogging it. Here's Sean's writeup of this. He takes the analogy further and introduces perl.
The Story Behind Clinton's Trip to North Korea
CNN has some facts about The story behind Clinton's trip to North Korea.
The key one seems to be: "During a phone call with their families in mid-July, the journalists told their relatives that they had been informed by the North Koreans that they would be willing to grant them amnesty if an envoy like former President Clinton would come to Pyongyang to secure their release."
I wonder if this was all about Kim Jong Il wanting a pic with a current or former US president before he died.
Anyway, it's good that Ling and Lee are back, and I'm anxious to hear them tell their story.
The key one seems to be: "During a phone call with their families in mid-July, the journalists told their relatives that they had been informed by the North Koreans that they would be willing to grant them amnesty if an envoy like former President Clinton would come to Pyongyang to secure their release."
I wonder if this was all about Kim Jong Il wanting a pic with a current or former US president before he died.
Anyway, it's good that Ling and Lee are back, and I'm anxious to hear them tell their story.
Obsessing Over Rashomon
Matt Shepherd tries to figure out Kurosawa's classic film in, In Which I Ruin Rashomon For Everyone, Forever. It includes detailed maps like this one:
and a few crazy theories, including an appearance by Swamp Thing. At least by the end he shows he does get it.
and a few crazy theories, including an appearance by Swamp Thing. At least by the end he shows he does get it.
Apple Censors an iPhone Dictionary
The way you buy apps for the iPhone is by using Apple's AppStore. Apple has a policy of reviewing all the apps before letting them be sold. This might well be good to prevent viruses and malicious code from making it onto iPhones. They also review and rate apps for content much like movies have ratings. Unfortunately their review policy has been question and various apps have been rejected for really stupid reasons.
Daring Fireball describes the latest and I think worst example of this in Ninjawords: iPhone Dictionary, Censored by Apple "Apple requires you to be 17 years or older to purchase a censored dictionary that omits half the words Steve Jobs uses every day."
One of my favorite features of the mac is the built-in system wide dictionary provided by The New Oxford American Dictionary. It's also easy to use, hover the mouse over a word in just about any app (well any cocoa app) and hit option-command-d and a definition appears in the popup. This comes free with all macs. It has all the words listed as objectionable in the article; including their "vulgar" definitions. Apparently the parental controls has a “Hide profanity in Dictionary” checkbox.
Seems like the equivalent for the AppStore would be an uncensored 17+ version of the dictionary and a censored all-ages version. Since it seems that such reviewing mistakes happen weekly at the AppStore, it would also be reasonable to replace someone running the review policy.
Daring Fireball describes the latest and I think worst example of this in Ninjawords: iPhone Dictionary, Censored by Apple "Apple requires you to be 17 years or older to purchase a censored dictionary that omits half the words Steve Jobs uses every day."
One of my favorite features of the mac is the built-in system wide dictionary provided by The New Oxford American Dictionary. It's also easy to use, hover the mouse over a word in just about any app (well any cocoa app) and hit option-command-d and a definition appears in the popup. This comes free with all macs. It has all the words listed as objectionable in the article; including their "vulgar" definitions. Apparently the parental controls has a “Hide profanity in Dictionary” checkbox.
Seems like the equivalent for the AppStore would be an uncensored 17+ version of the dictionary and a censored all-ages version. Since it seems that such reviewing mistakes happen weekly at the AppStore, it would also be reasonable to replace someone running the review policy.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Good Stuff on TCM
Turner Classic Movies is showing some good stuff this week. Tonight at 8pm is The President's Analyst, a really funny film with James Coburn. Tomorrow is a Harold Lloyd marathon of 19 films. If you haven't seen Safety Last (10:30am), you need too. Also on Thu morning at 4:30 they're showing The Sin of Harold Diddlebock that I mentioned the other day.
Krugman on the Media
Paul Krugman wrote today, Shape of planet blogging "Long ago I said that if liberals said the Earth was round, while conservatives said it was flat, the news headlines would read ‘Shape of the planet: both sides have a point.’ But I encountered a new wrinkle today."
Birthers Fall for a Fake Birth Certificate, Ignoring Real One
Daily Kos writes Debunking the unbearably stupid and points to even more at Third Obama birth certificate appears in court.
Some older stuff... Apparently birthers are mostly southerners.
Bill Moher wrote this week's New Rules as a very funny op-ed.
FYI, here's FactCheck.org's view on The truth about obama's birth certificate. "FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said."
Some older stuff... Apparently birthers are mostly southerners.
Bill Moher wrote this week's New Rules as a very funny op-ed.
FYI, here's FactCheck.org's view on The truth about obama's birth certificate. "FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said."
The 100 Greatest Sci-Fi Movies
Total Sci-Fi has a list of The 100 Greatest Sci-Fi Movies that's actually quite good. It's easy to nitpick and the comments point out that they left out AI, War of the Worlds, and a couple of others. I think if you're going to include comedies, Mars Attacks would make the top 100.
I've seen all but 14 of their listed films. If you've seen any of these and think they're good, I'd like to hear about it in the comments:
16) Silent Running (1972)
38) The Fantastic Planet (1973)
40) Things to Come (1936)
43) Quatermass 2 (1957)
44) This Island Earth (1955)
47) Dark Star (1974)
50) Stalker (1979)
51) Tetsuo: The Iron Man (1989)
54) It Came From Outer Space (1953)
69) A Boy and his Dog (1975)
78) The Quiet Earth (1985)
79) Invaders From Mars (1953)
91) Explorers (1985)
99) Trancers (1985)
I 'd break up the films as follows. The numbers are the rankings from the article, and while I've made some attempt to group the better films towards the top of each section, it's hard to produce a completely linear ranking. I'm considering a few things in these rankings: film quality, sci-fi elements, fun, historical significance.
Here are the best sci-fi films:
8) Planet of the Apes (1968) - I think the best all-around
3) Star Wars (1977) - great fun and the most significant sci-fi film
2) 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) - the most technically accurate, mind-blowing and advanced for it's time, though dull at times
4) Alien (1979) - the best suspenseful horror movie in space
13) The Empire Strikes Back (1980) - is this best sequel of all time?
21) The Matrix (1999) - a great action film and a great idea
7) The Terminator (1984) - I still debate between this and the sequel
6) The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) - the best of the 50s films
1) Blade Runner (1982) - gorgeous and influential but a little dull at times
Here are great sci-fi films:
19) Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
32) Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991)
15) Aliens (1986)
9) E.T. (1982)
17) Brazil (1985)
5) Metropolis (1927)
12) Forbidden Planet (1956)
25) Jurassic Park (1993)
27) A Clockwork Orange (1971)
35) Return of the Jedi (1983)
36) Back to the Future (1985)
37) WALL-E (2008)
88) Serenity (2005)
83) Twelve Monkeys (1995)
Here are really really good sci-fi films:
10) Solaris (1972)
11) Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
20) Total Recall (1990)
90) Primer (2004)
75) Dark City (1998)
45) Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
46) Delicatessen (1991)
48) The Andromeda Strain (1971)
71) Donnie Darko (2001)
80) Fantastic Voyage (1966)
95) Galaxy Quest (1999)
67) Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)
68) Outland (1981)
98) Predator (1987)
23) The Thing (1982)
29) La Jetée (1962)
These sci-fi films I had some problems with but they're still worthy of being in a list of the top 100:
28) The Fifth Element (1997) - everyone in the future is an idiot, but nice visuals
57) Minority Report (2002) - good film, but the premise doesn't work, the evil plot was find someone willing to die and that's it
34) Mad Max 2 (aka The Road Warrior) (1981) - not my cup of tea
70) Mad Max (1979) - not my cup of tea
66) Children of Men (2006) - nice filmmaking and allusions but not enough story
74) Moon (2009) - nicely done but I didn't relate to the lead
93) Star Trek (2009) - good characterizations and some good fun, but stupid plot and some dumb scenes
60) The Fountain (2006) - some nice ideas but overwrought.
These films I have some fond memories of or at least don't hate, but it might be because I saw them a long time ago:
30) Sleeper (1973)
33) Westworld (1973)
42) The Abyss (1989)
49) The Omega Man (1971)
52) Escape from New York (1981)
63) Logan’s Run (1976)
65) Repo Man (1984)
72) Soylent Green (1973)
81) Barbarella (1968)
86) Altered States (1980)
89) Dune (1984)
92) THX 1138 (1971)
94) Flash Gordon (1980)
97) Stargate (1994)
100) Rollerball (1975)
96) Cocoon (1985)
22) Tron (1982)
56) Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)
These films didn't do it for me, but 100 is a big number and something has to be at the bottom
18) Akira (1988)
64) Ghost in the Shell (1995)
77) A Scanner Darkly (2006)
14) A Trip to the Moon (1902) - historical significance but not great today
31) The Fly (1986)
24) RoboCop (1987)
26) Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
39) The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976)
41) 20 Million Miles to Earth (1957)
53) The Invisible Man (1933)
55) Godzilla (1954)
58) Alphaville (1965)
59) Gattaca (1997)
61) Them! (1954)
62) Videodrome (1983)
73) Cube (1997)
76) Starship Troopers (1997)
82) Fahrenheit 451 (1966)
84) Event Horizon (1997)
85) Independence Day (1996)
87) The Stepford Wives (1975)
Ok, tell me what I got wrong...
I've seen all but 14 of their listed films. If you've seen any of these and think they're good, I'd like to hear about it in the comments:
16) Silent Running (1972)
38) The Fantastic Planet (1973)
40) Things to Come (1936)
43) Quatermass 2 (1957)
44) This Island Earth (1955)
47) Dark Star (1974)
50) Stalker (1979)
51) Tetsuo: The Iron Man (1989)
54) It Came From Outer Space (1953)
69) A Boy and his Dog (1975)
78) The Quiet Earth (1985)
79) Invaders From Mars (1953)
91) Explorers (1985)
99) Trancers (1985)
I 'd break up the films as follows. The numbers are the rankings from the article, and while I've made some attempt to group the better films towards the top of each section, it's hard to produce a completely linear ranking. I'm considering a few things in these rankings: film quality, sci-fi elements, fun, historical significance.
Here are the best sci-fi films:
8) Planet of the Apes (1968) - I think the best all-around
3) Star Wars (1977) - great fun and the most significant sci-fi film
2) 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) - the most technically accurate, mind-blowing and advanced for it's time, though dull at times
4) Alien (1979) - the best suspenseful horror movie in space
13) The Empire Strikes Back (1980) - is this best sequel of all time?
21) The Matrix (1999) - a great action film and a great idea
7) The Terminator (1984) - I still debate between this and the sequel
6) The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) - the best of the 50s films
1) Blade Runner (1982) - gorgeous and influential but a little dull at times
Here are great sci-fi films:
19) Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
32) Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991)
15) Aliens (1986)
9) E.T. (1982)
17) Brazil (1985)
5) Metropolis (1927)
12) Forbidden Planet (1956)
25) Jurassic Park (1993)
27) A Clockwork Orange (1971)
35) Return of the Jedi (1983)
36) Back to the Future (1985)
37) WALL-E (2008)
88) Serenity (2005)
83) Twelve Monkeys (1995)
Here are really really good sci-fi films:
10) Solaris (1972)
11) Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
20) Total Recall (1990)
90) Primer (2004)
75) Dark City (1998)
45) Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
46) Delicatessen (1991)
48) The Andromeda Strain (1971)
71) Donnie Darko (2001)
80) Fantastic Voyage (1966)
95) Galaxy Quest (1999)
67) Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)
68) Outland (1981)
98) Predator (1987)
23) The Thing (1982)
29) La Jetée (1962)
These sci-fi films I had some problems with but they're still worthy of being in a list of the top 100:
28) The Fifth Element (1997) - everyone in the future is an idiot, but nice visuals
57) Minority Report (2002) - good film, but the premise doesn't work, the evil plot was find someone willing to die and that's it
34) Mad Max 2 (aka The Road Warrior) (1981) - not my cup of tea
70) Mad Max (1979) - not my cup of tea
66) Children of Men (2006) - nice filmmaking and allusions but not enough story
74) Moon (2009) - nicely done but I didn't relate to the lead
93) Star Trek (2009) - good characterizations and some good fun, but stupid plot and some dumb scenes
60) The Fountain (2006) - some nice ideas but overwrought.
These films I have some fond memories of or at least don't hate, but it might be because I saw them a long time ago:
30) Sleeper (1973)
33) Westworld (1973)
42) The Abyss (1989)
49) The Omega Man (1971)
52) Escape from New York (1981)
63) Logan’s Run (1976)
65) Repo Man (1984)
72) Soylent Green (1973)
81) Barbarella (1968)
86) Altered States (1980)
89) Dune (1984)
92) THX 1138 (1971)
94) Flash Gordon (1980)
97) Stargate (1994)
100) Rollerball (1975)
96) Cocoon (1985)
22) Tron (1982)
56) Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)
These films didn't do it for me, but 100 is a big number and something has to be at the bottom
18) Akira (1988)
64) Ghost in the Shell (1995)
77) A Scanner Darkly (2006)
14) A Trip to the Moon (1902) - historical significance but not great today
31) The Fly (1986)
24) RoboCop (1987)
26) Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
39) The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976)
41) 20 Million Miles to Earth (1957)
53) The Invisible Man (1933)
55) Godzilla (1954)
58) Alphaville (1965)
59) Gattaca (1997)
61) Them! (1954)
62) Videodrome (1983)
73) Cube (1997)
76) Starship Troopers (1997)
82) Fahrenheit 451 (1966)
84) Event Horizon (1997)
85) Independence Day (1996)
87) The Stepford Wives (1975)
Ok, tell me what I got wrong...
The White House Blogs Facts
I really like that The White House in Facts Are Stubborn Things is using the internet to try to stop disinformation about health care reform. I wish it would go a little further.
Rather than just allude to the disinformation, show the clips that are going around, show Fox news clips with lies about health care reform. Jon Stewart did a wonderful job last night in calling out the lies about the "Cash for Clunkers" program, particularly in describing The Crank Cycle about how Fox states something, a viewer restates it and then fox reports on the restating:
Maybe the White House shouldn't stoop down to calling out the media, maybe you just show lies the republican congressmen and senators are saying.
Also I wish they would be a little more truthful and comprehensive, it would make them more convincing and give the opposition less ammunition to use. The fact of the matter is that today, most Americans can't necessarily keep health insurance or doctors they like. Since they get their health insurance via the employer, if the employer changes plans, most likely to save costs, the employee is forced to change. As near as I can tell, that won't change in the current proposals. It is different if you get your own insurance independent of an employer, or are in a successful government run plan like Medicare or the VA or if we had a single payer system.
Rather than just allude to the disinformation, show the clips that are going around, show Fox news clips with lies about health care reform. Jon Stewart did a wonderful job last night in calling out the lies about the "Cash for Clunkers" program, particularly in describing The Crank Cycle about how Fox states something, a viewer restates it and then fox reports on the restating:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c |
| Master Rebators - The Crank Cycle | |
Maybe the White House shouldn't stoop down to calling out the media, maybe you just show lies the republican congressmen and senators are saying.
Also I wish they would be a little more truthful and comprehensive, it would make them more convincing and give the opposition less ammunition to use. The fact of the matter is that today, most Americans can't necessarily keep health insurance or doctors they like. Since they get their health insurance via the employer, if the employer changes plans, most likely to save costs, the employee is forced to change. As near as I can tell, that won't change in the current proposals. It is different if you get your own insurance independent of an employer, or are in a successful government run plan like Medicare or the VA or if we had a single payer system.
Monday, August 03, 2009
Movie Review: The Hurt Locker
The Hurt Locker is an atypical war movie. It follows a bomb disposal unit in Iraq; these are people who walk up to bombs and try to diffuse them. It's extremely high stress work and the film shows this while exploring the type of person who would do this work and the effect of the stress on them. The opening quote is telling: “The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug.”
The first hour and half or so are four big set pieces of missions the unit goes on with just a little connecting them. The reality quotient seemed really high and I was on the edge of my seat the whole time. There's a lot of handheld camera work and a lot of effort is made to make you feel you're in the situation and raise your own stress levels. Like Full Metal Jacket and Black Hawk Down, you get a real sense of the terrain and the location of all the characters in a scene; not enough films do this.
The last 40 minutes adds more to the running story and the tense scenes are shorter. It's an unusual story telling technique, without clear arcs or even a climax. I'm sure this is deliberate to reflect lack of climax in a tour duty, particularly as there's a countdown shown on screen.
The film mostly follows Staff Sergeant William James who's an expert at his job but also quite reckless. This annoys the rest of his unit who fear that he is endangering them. He doesn't say much and yet the film is a skilled character study telling much more with actions than with words.
My biggest gripe with the film is the casting. They were all very good, particularly Jeremy Renner as James, but as the leads were unknown to me, I was more drawn into their story and the reality of the situation. My complaint is with the more well known actors in smaller roles. I didn't recognize Guy Pearce or David Morse, but when Ralph Fiennes and Evangeline Lilly appeared on screen I was immediately taken out of the picture.
The list of great war films is very very long, but it's now one film longer.
The first hour and half or so are four big set pieces of missions the unit goes on with just a little connecting them. The reality quotient seemed really high and I was on the edge of my seat the whole time. There's a lot of handheld camera work and a lot of effort is made to make you feel you're in the situation and raise your own stress levels. Like Full Metal Jacket and Black Hawk Down, you get a real sense of the terrain and the location of all the characters in a scene; not enough films do this.
The last 40 minutes adds more to the running story and the tense scenes are shorter. It's an unusual story telling technique, without clear arcs or even a climax. I'm sure this is deliberate to reflect lack of climax in a tour duty, particularly as there's a countdown shown on screen.
The film mostly follows Staff Sergeant William James who's an expert at his job but also quite reckless. This annoys the rest of his unit who fear that he is endangering them. He doesn't say much and yet the film is a skilled character study telling much more with actions than with words.
My biggest gripe with the film is the casting. They were all very good, particularly Jeremy Renner as James, but as the leads were unknown to me, I was more drawn into their story and the reality of the situation. My complaint is with the more well known actors in smaller roles. I didn't recognize Guy Pearce or David Morse, but when Ralph Fiennes and Evangeline Lilly appeared on screen I was immediately taken out of the picture.
The list of great war films is very very long, but it's now one film longer.
Movie Review: Moon
Moon got a lot of reviews as one of the best serious sci-fi films since 2001 and Solaris. That's high praise indeed. Some time in the future, 70% of Earth's energy needs are met by fusion powered by He-3 mined on the far side of the moon. A mining facility is staffed by just one man, Sam Bell who's a few weeks away from the end of his 3 year contract stint. He's aided at the facility by Gerty a robot voiced by Kevin Spacey. I won't give away the plot, but strange things start to happen.
Sam Rockwell plays Bell and gives the very good performance you would expect. It was made for just $5 million and it's very impressive on that account. The sets are sparse but reasonable and add to the sense of isolation. The film worked for me though I had a hard time relating to Sam. It could have just been me, but I found his reactions to some events rather baffling. Maybe it was just denial spurred on by the isolation, but I'm not sure why I should care about that. I wish the ideas presented were taken a little further, but I can also see how people would be very happy with this film. If you're a sci-fi fan you should certainly see it.
Sam Rockwell plays Bell and gives the very good performance you would expect. It was made for just $5 million and it's very impressive on that account. The sets are sparse but reasonable and add to the sense of isolation. The film worked for me though I had a hard time relating to Sam. It could have just been me, but I found his reactions to some events rather baffling. Maybe it was just denial spurred on by the isolation, but I'm not sure why I should care about that. I wish the ideas presented were taken a little further, but I can also see how people would be very happy with this film. If you're a sci-fi fan you should certainly see it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)