Pomplamoose–Telephone

For reasons I can’t quite articulate I dig this song and video:

Shooting video with DSLRs

I found the video of this shootout to be strangley compelling. Until now I’ve thought that shooting video with a Digital SLR didn’t make much sense because of the limitations. But this video shows you how good some of the DSLRs are at video.  

Where in the world is my wife? Johannesburg.

Today my wife is in Johannesburg.

Photo credit: Panasonichdx

Where in the world is my wife? Capetown

Until this morning, she was in Capetown:

Image credit: Ifijay Check out Ifijay’s photostream. He has a number of other nice photos.

David Mamet’s Memo on Writing Drama

A few years ago, David Mamet wrote this memo to the writers of the crime drama, The Unit. Mamet gives good advice to these writers. It’s good to see that all of us struggle from time to time with our writing, even professional writers. I don’t write fiction, but the general premise is the same. Here’s the core of Mamet’s teaching:  

WE, THE WRITERS, MUST ASK OURSELVES OF EVERY SCENE THESE THREE QUESTIONS.

1) WHO WANTS WHAT?
2) WHAT HAPPENS IF HER DON’T GET IT?
3) WHY NOW?

…

START, EVERY TIME, WITH THIS INVIOLABLE RULE: THE SCENE MUST BE DRAMATIC. it must start because the hero HAS A PROBLEM, AND IT MUST CULMINATE WITH THE HERO FINDING HIM OR HERSELF EITHER THWARTED OR EDUCATED THAT ANOTHER WAY EXISTS.

…

ANY TIME TWO CHARACTERS ARE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD, THE SCENE IS A CROCK OF SHIT.

 

ANY TIME ANY CHARACTER IS SAYING TO ANOTHER “AS YOU KNOW”, THAT IS, TELLING ANOTHER CHARACTER WHAT YOU, THE WRITER, NEED

THE AUDIENCE TO KNOW, THE SCENE IS A CROCK OF SHIT.

 

DO NOT WRITE A CROCK OF SHIT. WRITE A RIPPING THREE, FOUR, SEVEN MINUTE SCENE WHICH MOVES THE STORY ALONG, AND YOU CAN, VERY SOON, BUY A HOUSE IN BEL AIR AND HIRE SOMEONE TO LIVE THERE FOR YOU.

I get really bored with exposition instead of drama. I don’t now if I realized that before, but as Mamet explains, scenes have to be dramatic and exposition isn’t dramatic. 

Why political futures markets got the health care bill so wrong.

Daniel Gross argues in Newsweek that the political futures market, such as Intrade, got the health care bill wrong because you shouldn’t short Obama. That only half right—the complete answer is that the political future market got the health care bill wrong because people underestimated the lengths Obama was willing to go to get the bill passed, including sacrificing scores of Congressmen from his party.

5 Reasons Republicans Should Let Go of Health Care and One Reason they Won’t

Any article which tries to say what the Republicans should do, especially on health care, that doesn’t mention Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts is worthless, such as this one from Time. Time lays out 5 reason why the Republicans should let go of health care:

1. What happens when, as President Obama put it to the Democratic House Caucus on Saturday, “lo and behold nobody is pulling the plug on granny”?

2. Repeal the bill?

3. In opposing reconciliation the GOP would, in some cases, be opposing things that they, um, actually like.

4. The courts have a long history of federal law taking precedent over state laws: ahem, Medicare and Medicaid.

5. The ‘Party of No’ label.

To they 5 reasons, I have a single reason why the Republicans won’t care—Scott Brown. Somehow a Republican, running on a no-health care bill platform, was elected in Massachusetts. Last time I checked, Massachusetts was a pretty Democratic state. If there is discontent in Massachusetts, there is discontent everywhere. That might change, but as long as the Democrats continues to ignore ways which create real jobs and instead spending money on political favors, Americans will continue to be ticked off.

An discussion of what the Republicans will do that doesn’t include Scott Brown, completely misses the hope the Republicans have to achieve sweeping wins in November. This is especially true since so far, President Obama has proved successful at helping to elect exactly one person—himself.

Why the stimulus isn’t working…

What do you mean this table saw doesn’t have “flesh detection technology”?

A Boston jury recently awarded a man named Carlos Osorio $1.5 million because he screwed up while using a table saw like this. He argued that the saw should use “flesh detection technology” to prevent serious injuries.

The problem is that Mr. Osorio’s injury was completely preventable by Mr. Osorio. Instead of relying on “flesh detection technology,” which the saw was not equipped with, he should have followed the example of most people and not let his bingers get close blade to necessitate the technology. After all, spinning saw blades are pretty scary.   

The # 1 rule of using a saw is “be careful” and the #2 rule is “don’t saw your fingers off.” There is no negligence here on the part of Ryobi, the makers of the saw in question. The negligence was squarely on the shoulders of Carlos Osorio. He knew that the spinning blade would cut his fingers off if he messed and and he went ahead and negligently used the saw.

If Osorio thinks that saws should be made with “flesh detection technology”, great! It’s a great business opportunity for Mr. Osorio. He should start a company making safety-table saws and put people like Ryobi and their finger manglers out of business. It’s that simple.  

I hope this decision is reversed on appeal and I wish Mr. Osorio well in creating his high-tech finger-protecting table saws.

Rework vs. Karl Rove

I don’t know what I think about this book, but this commercial is amusing: