Those Hollywood types surely are a stuffy and pompous lot. They gave out there Oscar awards this week and the only thing bigger than the suspense in the room was the ego of the nominees. My oh my, they have made the self congratulatory more interesting than the lousy films they produce. Well, I didn't watch it, because I didn't see any of the nominated films (or watch the oscar Awards Broadcast), mainly because I had no interest or desire to. Hollywood movies are generally a vacuous exercise in non sequitors. This past Oscar year I saw only three films at theaters, so I shouldn't and won't comment specifically about the winners.
Instead I want to mention a better awards show for films, the Golden Razzie awards or Razzies, for short. The Razzies are an annual award ceremony held in Los Angeles to recognize the worst in film. And there is more worst than best out for which people can waste their money. The Razzberry event precedes the corresponding Academy Award ceremony by one day and surprise of surprises, the Oscar winner for best actress in a film also won a Razzie for worst actress in another film. Sandra Bullock picked up her Razzie for 'All About Steve' and her Oscar for 'The Blind Side'. Bullock attended the Razzies in person to pick up her award and even brought a toy wagon filled with 'All About Steve' DVD's as "gifts" for the Razzie audience.
Since paid members (you may become a member of the foundation by visiting the web site at www.razzies.com). of the Golden Raspberry Award Foundation vote to determine the winners it is a far more democratic way of recognizing the industry than those stale and rigged Oscar awards for excellence.Here are this years winners....or is it "losers"?
Worst Picture of 2009:
Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen(Aka Trannies, Too)(DREAMWORKS/PARAMOUNT)
Worst Actress of 2009:
Sandra BullockALL ABOUT STEVE
Worst Actor(s) of 2009:
All Three Jonas BrothersJONAS BROTHERS: THE 3-D CONCERT EXPERIENCE
Worst Screen Couple:
Sandra Bullock & Bradley CooperALL ABOUT STEVE
Worst Supporting Actress:
Sienna MillerG.I. JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA
Worst Supporting Actor:
Billy Ray CyrusHANNAH MONTANA: THE MOVIE
Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off or Sequel(Combined Category for 2009
Land of The Lost(UNIVERSAL PICTURES)
Worst Director:
Michael BayTRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN (AKA TRANNIES, TOO)
Worst Screenplay:
Transformers: Revenge Of The FallenWRITTEN BY EHREN KRUGER & ROBERTO ORCI & ALEX KURTZMAN,BASED ON HASBRO’S TRANSFORMERS ACTION FIGURESSpecial 30th RAZZIE®-versary Awardz
Worst Picture of the Decade:
Battlefield EarthNOMINATED FOR 10 RAZZIES® / “WINNER” OF 8(INCLUDING WORST DRAMA OF OUR FIRST 25 YRS)
Worst Actor of the Decade:
Eddie MurphyNOMINATED FOR 12 “ACHIEVEMENTS” / “WINNER” OF 3 RAZZIES®ADVENTURES OF PLUTO NASH, I SPY, IMAGINE THAT,MEET DAVE, NORBIT, SHOWTIME
Worst Actress of the decade
Paris HiltonNOMINATED FOR 5 “ACHIEVEMENTS,” “WINNER” OF 4 RAZZIES®THE HOTTIE & THE NOTTIE, HOUSE OF WHACKS,REPO: THE GENETIC OPERA
Tempted to see any of those? There's probably not much difference between the Razzie films and the Oscars. Be prepared to visit the snack bar often regardless of whether you see an Oscar film or a Razzie. The view from Hollywood is best seen away from the screen itself.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Shooting Treme
Yesterday I worked in an episode of an upcoming HBO series called 'Treme' (a lower income and heavily black neighborhood famous for great musicians in New Orleans partially destroyed by Hurricane Katrina in 2005) that has been filming here since November. The series Treme starts at about three months after the hurricane and is about the lives of some struggling locals (many of whom are musicians made homeless by the floods of the storm) as they try to rebuild the city.
The series uses many real life local musicians and chefs in an attempt to be realistic and to capture the character of the city.The Treme section of the city is slowly being rebuilt. It is one of the poorer and older sections and the home of many black residents, and though it was less damaged than other sections (including some affluent white areas that were completely
destroyed), it has the appeal of a "poor section rising again", and thus was picked as the focus of the show. I have worked in three of the episodes, two of which were shot in Treme itself to give the show more authenticity. This makes me curious as to whether the series will be another vacuous Hollywood spectacle or a real life study of this city after the hurricane.
There are other signs this may be a more serious and realistic series. For example, on Mardi Gras day when in the French Quarter section I saw Treme shooting real life scenes of locals celebrating the festival rather than the more typical Hollywood idea of recreating carnival here in an artificial Hollywood image. Too, almost all the musicians being used as performers or actors/actresses in Treme are New Orleanians. The episode I worked in yesterday had a "real" Cajun zydeko band performing (all I did, with about 100 other extras, was to look excited and cheer on the band's performance). There was a fiddle player, an accordionist, two guitar players and a drummer, and the singer sang a lively standard in the Arcadian French dialect one still hears in Acadiana, (about 80 kilometers from New Orleans) just as almost all Cajun bands do. The club used for the shoot is a famed local joint, Tipitana's. It all seemed authentic that day.
It's my understanding that many of the kinds of "characters" (uh.. some of the eccentric people here) that New Orleans is famous for will be models for the fictional characters that will appear beside the real life ones. I hope a balanced view of the city will be shown and that it will not be made to appear that Treme is New Orleans and New Orleans is Treme. It is not. The city is far more diverse and interesting than any one of it's neighborhoods, even Treme. But then, I think the show intends to show Treme as a microcosm of the struggle of the city, and that it will make it clear to viewers who know nothing about New Orleans that what is being shown is only one component of the city. I'll know when I see some of the episodes of the show later this year.
The series uses many real life local musicians and chefs in an attempt to be realistic and to capture the character of the city.The Treme section of the city is slowly being rebuilt. It is one of the poorer and older sections and the home of many black residents, and though it was less damaged than other sections (including some affluent white areas that were completely
destroyed), it has the appeal of a "poor section rising again", and thus was picked as the focus of the show. I have worked in three of the episodes, two of which were shot in Treme itself to give the show more authenticity. This makes me curious as to whether the series will be another vacuous Hollywood spectacle or a real life study of this city after the hurricane.
There are other signs this may be a more serious and realistic series. For example, on Mardi Gras day when in the French Quarter section I saw Treme shooting real life scenes of locals celebrating the festival rather than the more typical Hollywood idea of recreating carnival here in an artificial Hollywood image. Too, almost all the musicians being used as performers or actors/actresses in Treme are New Orleanians. The episode I worked in yesterday had a "real" Cajun zydeko band performing (all I did, with about 100 other extras, was to look excited and cheer on the band's performance). There was a fiddle player, an accordionist, two guitar players and a drummer, and the singer sang a lively standard in the Arcadian French dialect one still hears in Acadiana, (about 80 kilometers from New Orleans) just as almost all Cajun bands do. The club used for the shoot is a famed local joint, Tipitana's. It all seemed authentic that day.
It's my understanding that many of the kinds of "characters" (uh.. some of the eccentric people here) that New Orleans is famous for will be models for the fictional characters that will appear beside the real life ones. I hope a balanced view of the city will be shown and that it will not be made to appear that Treme is New Orleans and New Orleans is Treme. It is not. The city is far more diverse and interesting than any one of it's neighborhoods, even Treme. But then, I think the show intends to show Treme as a microcosm of the struggle of the city, and that it will make it clear to viewers who know nothing about New Orleans that what is being shown is only one component of the city. I'll know when I see some of the episodes of the show later this year.
For Dummies
I was thinking the other day (yes, a rare day for me) . I don't think about serious things very often because I am less serious rather than more serious about most of life. So what stuck my mind yesterday was those "For Dummies" books. What is it with those things. They are everywhere and seemingly about every subject. I think every nation has 'For Dummy' books, probably because allot of us are dummies. So I had to do a little research to see how many of them have been printed.
I found that there are almost 2000 'For Dummy' books in print. WOW! There must be many dummies everywhere because those books are big sellers. They are the ones with the yellow and black covers. Each subject area of the Dummy book is written by an expert in the field to give the books some aura of expertise. I have never bought any of them, but I have browsed some at bookstores or wherever they appear. The literary level really is dummy based. All of them are written on a lower, simple level as one would expect given the title. You don't have to be a dummy to read and understand them, but being a smarty probably won't help either. Most 10 year olds can read and understand a Dummy book.
The Dummy series tells us about some subject we are interested in but know little about in a painless way. It's a good concept for the novice. I wonder why no one has come up with a "Graduate Dummy" series of books to make even more money for the publishers. 'A Grad Dummy' book could be a higher level book that goes into detail the 'Dummy' book can't because we are too stupid to understand when we read it. I like my idea, so if you steal it and make money off of it....remember....I may be a dummy but even a dummy can hire a lawyer to sue you for property theft. Ahhhhhhhh I knew I should have read the 'Patent and Copy writing For Dummies" book.
Maybe you haven't paid as much attention the the Dummy book series as I. It would probably be a good sign if you didn't because Dummies like me know about such things. Here are a few of the actual (I am not kidding about these titles) 'For Dummy' books I have seen: Living Gluten Free For Dummies (Gluten Free gets it's own book...shows the state of the world today); FaceBook For Dummies (not an oxymoron I think); Raising Chickens For Dummies (Do you have to be smart to raise chickens? They are already everywhere); Spanish For Dummies (Spain must not be happy that only Dummies are learning to speak its language): Canon EOS Digital Rebel XSi/450D For Dummies (What?); Iphone Apps For Dummies (Shouldn't it instead be 'Iphone Apps For Cell Phone Addicts'?); Home Buying For Dummies (I don't think the should sell homes to stupid people. They never pay their mortgages); The Bible For Dummies (I would make one of my cynical remarks but God might strike me dead if I do); Pressure Cookers For Dummies (How can they fill an entire book with pressure cooking information? Maybe pressure cooking fanatics can't read and the pages are all the same); Quantum Physics Workbook For Dummies (I always wanted that book!)
Because there are many more dummy titles, you'll have to find the names yourself because although I'm a dummy I am also too lazy to list them for you. You might think I am making up all of this, that those books don't exist. Forget it. I am too much of a dummy to make up anything this crazy.
I found that there are almost 2000 'For Dummy' books in print. WOW! There must be many dummies everywhere because those books are big sellers. They are the ones with the yellow and black covers. Each subject area of the Dummy book is written by an expert in the field to give the books some aura of expertise. I have never bought any of them, but I have browsed some at bookstores or wherever they appear. The literary level really is dummy based. All of them are written on a lower, simple level as one would expect given the title. You don't have to be a dummy to read and understand them, but being a smarty probably won't help either. Most 10 year olds can read and understand a Dummy book.
The Dummy series tells us about some subject we are interested in but know little about in a painless way. It's a good concept for the novice. I wonder why no one has come up with a "Graduate Dummy" series of books to make even more money for the publishers. 'A Grad Dummy' book could be a higher level book that goes into detail the 'Dummy' book can't because we are too stupid to understand when we read it. I like my idea, so if you steal it and make money off of it....remember....I may be a dummy but even a dummy can hire a lawyer to sue you for property theft. Ahhhhhhhh I knew I should have read the 'Patent and Copy writing For Dummies" book.
Maybe you haven't paid as much attention the the Dummy book series as I. It would probably be a good sign if you didn't because Dummies like me know about such things. Here are a few of the actual (I am not kidding about these titles) 'For Dummy' books I have seen: Living Gluten Free For Dummies (Gluten Free gets it's own book...shows the state of the world today); FaceBook For Dummies (not an oxymoron I think); Raising Chickens For Dummies (Do you have to be smart to raise chickens? They are already everywhere); Spanish For Dummies (Spain must not be happy that only Dummies are learning to speak its language): Canon EOS Digital Rebel XSi/450D For Dummies (What?); Iphone Apps For Dummies (Shouldn't it instead be 'Iphone Apps For Cell Phone Addicts'?); Home Buying For Dummies (I don't think the should sell homes to stupid people. They never pay their mortgages); The Bible For Dummies (I would make one of my cynical remarks but God might strike me dead if I do); Pressure Cookers For Dummies (How can they fill an entire book with pressure cooking information? Maybe pressure cooking fanatics can't read and the pages are all the same); Quantum Physics Workbook For Dummies (I always wanted that book!)
Because there are many more dummy titles, you'll have to find the names yourself because although I'm a dummy I am also too lazy to list them for you. You might think I am making up all of this, that those books don't exist. Forget it. I am too much of a dummy to make up anything this crazy.
Friday, March 5, 2010
The Sugar Police
They are attacking sugar again! First it is always mom that attacks, "Sugar will give you diabetes..will give you pimples...make you fat" Bla, bla, bla, bla. That's bad enough to we sugar addicts. But in this politically correct age the media is the new mom as it warns us about the "evils" (Is anything pure anymore that is not trendy?) The latest comes from a media release about one of those (probably a Nazi) nutritionists who tell us to kill our taste buds in order to extend out lives. The Sugar Police is on the prowl. Beware!
Bonnie Liebman, a nutritionist with the Center for Science in the Public Interest, offers these ideas for the consumption of added sugars in 'The Nutrition Action Newsletter'. Her comments are all sour to me, so I have a few remarks to offer after each of her points.
• Follow the American Heart Association guidelines and limit yourself to 100 calories a day of added sugar (6 1/2 teaspoons or 25 grams) if you're a woman; 150 calories (9 1/2 teaspoons or 38 grams) if you're a man. Even less may be better for your heart.- Can and would anyone really want to compute this level? Too, 100 calories from sugar would be easily reached with the natural sugars found in all those fresh fruits they keep telling us we must eat. That means no Oreo cookie, no candy bar, no pie or cake!..ridiculous! Humans need to eat what taste good too. Otherwise their souls become diseased. I'd rather have a diseased body than a diseased nutritionist soul.
• Don't drink beverages sweetened with sugar, high fructose corn syrup or other caloric sweeteners- But they all seem to have that kind of sugar. The old pure granulated sugar (which the Sugar Police only dislike a little more than corn syrup) has been discontinued by most food and drink sellers because it cost more to use than granulated sugar. One would have to look carefully to find no high fructose corn syrup or "other caloric sweeteners". This idea from Libeman is an unrealistic one.
• Limit fruit juices to no more than one cup a day- Wait! Didn't the Sugar Police, as recently as 10 years ago, tell us repeatedly that we should stop drinking soda and other sugared drinks and drink fruit juices instead? It's enough to make me add to my morning coffee an extra spoon of that deadly corn syrup. Maybe if the Sugar Police had more sweet they would quit changing their minds so much.
• Limit all added sugars, including high fructose corn syrup, cane or beet sugar, evaporated cane juice, brown rice syrup, agave syrup and honey- Does that mean limiting all natural sugars too? Most foods have natural sugar in them, some an abundance of it. Take carrots, for example. They are loaded with sugar. Should we dump the noble, nutritious and tasty carrot as well? Hmmmmm This idea of the Sugar Police makes me think they are hatching a plot to make us eat only tofu!
• Don't worry about naturally occurring sugar in fruit, milk and plain yogurt- Why? If sugar is bad, and there are lost of sugars in natural foods, why is it the ones naturally found in food are better than the ones added to improve the taste of foods. Do not diabetics also have to watch the intake of natural sugars in foods?
Sigh..I need a candy bar to help me calm down.
Bonnie Liebman, a nutritionist with the Center for Science in the Public Interest, offers these ideas for the consumption of added sugars in 'The Nutrition Action Newsletter'. Her comments are all sour to me, so I have a few remarks to offer after each of her points.
• Follow the American Heart Association guidelines and limit yourself to 100 calories a day of added sugar (6 1/2 teaspoons or 25 grams) if you're a woman; 150 calories (9 1/2 teaspoons or 38 grams) if you're a man. Even less may be better for your heart.- Can and would anyone really want to compute this level? Too, 100 calories from sugar would be easily reached with the natural sugars found in all those fresh fruits they keep telling us we must eat. That means no Oreo cookie, no candy bar, no pie or cake!..ridiculous! Humans need to eat what taste good too. Otherwise their souls become diseased. I'd rather have a diseased body than a diseased nutritionist soul.
• Don't drink beverages sweetened with sugar, high fructose corn syrup or other caloric sweeteners- But they all seem to have that kind of sugar. The old pure granulated sugar (which the Sugar Police only dislike a little more than corn syrup) has been discontinued by most food and drink sellers because it cost more to use than granulated sugar. One would have to look carefully to find no high fructose corn syrup or "other caloric sweeteners". This idea from Libeman is an unrealistic one.
• Limit fruit juices to no more than one cup a day- Wait! Didn't the Sugar Police, as recently as 10 years ago, tell us repeatedly that we should stop drinking soda and other sugared drinks and drink fruit juices instead? It's enough to make me add to my morning coffee an extra spoon of that deadly corn syrup. Maybe if the Sugar Police had more sweet they would quit changing their minds so much.
• Limit all added sugars, including high fructose corn syrup, cane or beet sugar, evaporated cane juice, brown rice syrup, agave syrup and honey- Does that mean limiting all natural sugars too? Most foods have natural sugar in them, some an abundance of it. Take carrots, for example. They are loaded with sugar. Should we dump the noble, nutritious and tasty carrot as well? Hmmmmm This idea of the Sugar Police makes me think they are hatching a plot to make us eat only tofu!
• Don't worry about naturally occurring sugar in fruit, milk and plain yogurt- Why? If sugar is bad, and there are lost of sugars in natural foods, why is it the ones naturally found in food are better than the ones added to improve the taste of foods. Do not diabetics also have to watch the intake of natural sugars in foods?
Sigh..I need a candy bar to help me calm down.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
PEW News Reading Study
The way in which people (at least those who are interested) are learning "the news" has evolved, for better or worse, with the advent of the internet. In the U.S today. According to Pew ResearchReading the news online is now the third most popular way of finding and or learning news, behind local and national TV stations. News awareness" is becoming an anytime, anywhere, any device activity for those who want to stay informed," Pew determined.
But this also implies that knowing the news is a secondary matter, and we all know that an informed public is necessary to a decent society and honest, representative government. In my view, the great irony of the more easy access to news information is that it has decreased the knowledge base of many people as they use the access to read or view triviality that is printed or filmed to amuse them rather than inform.
Here are some stats from the Pew survey.
-Sixty-one per cent of readers surveyed said they got their news online on a typical day, compared with 78% from local news channels and 71% from a national TV network such as NBC or cable channels such as CNN or Fox News.
-Fifty-four per cent said they listened to radio news programs at home or in the car.
-More than 90% use more than one method to get news, and 57% consult between two and five web sites as part of their news gathering, the survey found.
- Most online news consumers regularly draw on just a handful of different sites. They generally don't have one favorite web site but also don't search aimlessly
-Regular readership of newspapers, either local ones or national papers such as the New York Times, have dropped to 50%
Ouch! These are not findings that are compatible to being a serious news reader. Isn't it the responsibility of the citizen to take the time and make effort to be informed? The Pew study indicates that we see news gathering more as an entertainment (which explains why so much of it given to us today is idiotic and mind numbing), just another amusement and not a civic responsibility. Our improved technology is making it easier to shun that civic responsibility. I wonder if the implication of not knowing 'the news' (what is happening in and impacting lives in the community) will make us less able to respond intelligently to both a crisis and to the every day needs a citizen faces.
As real news sources decline in breadth and depth of coverage or die altogether and citizens begin to obtain their news from the less serious and less intelligent and challenging sites. Society declines bit by bit because of it not being informed about that which really matters. I see that happening today, but wonder how (beyond better educational systems) consumers can be more attracted to discovering serious and important news. Any ideas?
But this also implies that knowing the news is a secondary matter, and we all know that an informed public is necessary to a decent society and honest, representative government. In my view, the great irony of the more easy access to news information is that it has decreased the knowledge base of many people as they use the access to read or view triviality that is printed or filmed to amuse them rather than inform.
Here are some stats from the Pew survey.
-Sixty-one per cent of readers surveyed said they got their news online on a typical day, compared with 78% from local news channels and 71% from a national TV network such as NBC or cable channels such as CNN or Fox News.
-Fifty-four per cent said they listened to radio news programs at home or in the car.
-More than 90% use more than one method to get news, and 57% consult between two and five web sites as part of their news gathering, the survey found.
- Most online news consumers regularly draw on just a handful of different sites. They generally don't have one favorite web site but also don't search aimlessly
-Regular readership of newspapers, either local ones or national papers such as the New York Times, have dropped to 50%
Ouch! These are not findings that are compatible to being a serious news reader. Isn't it the responsibility of the citizen to take the time and make effort to be informed? The Pew study indicates that we see news gathering more as an entertainment (which explains why so much of it given to us today is idiotic and mind numbing), just another amusement and not a civic responsibility. Our improved technology is making it easier to shun that civic responsibility. I wonder if the implication of not knowing 'the news' (what is happening in and impacting lives in the community) will make us less able to respond intelligently to both a crisis and to the every day needs a citizen faces.
As real news sources decline in breadth and depth of coverage or die altogether and citizens begin to obtain their news from the less serious and less intelligent and challenging sites. Society declines bit by bit because of it not being informed about that which really matters. I see that happening today, but wonder how (beyond better educational systems) consumers can be more attracted to discovering serious and important news. Any ideas?
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Evolving Free Mail Programs
Hot mail, G mail, Yahoo mail and many other free E mail programs are becoming the dominant behemoths on the net. They are evolving into more than the original concept as a simple platform to send and receive E mail outside of the users servers more restricted mailbox. I like the idea of them and for years had have had a hot mail box as a "junk mail" box for. When I have to give an address to a web site I use the hot mail box so it gets the endless spam and other annoyances that come when one posts his or her address on line.
Those free mail boxes used to be simple, but no more. Google's G mail is leading the way to the free mail program being the heart of the web site rather than an adjunct to it. It has been adding and deleting "cutsie' features to attract users away from the old stand by hot mail and yahoo and to G mail and to Google itself. It now has added a Facebook-like social service aspect (it calls it "Buzz") to the Google site. Strange though, when Buzz first came out it showed users the names and E mail addresses of all the people a person E mailed. That invasion of privacy was objected to so much by the users that Google got rid of the feature.
Fact is, anyone who goes on line today knows that he or she trades some anonymity for the access to the programs used. When we have to fill out the information boxes to use a program we pay the site by giving them our personal information it uses to sell to advertisers who annoy us with spam ads. We buy things using our private information as "currency".
But at what cost? The person who uses one of the free E mail or other sites never knows what costs will arise from surrendering the currency of our private information. Will it be used only to make money from advertisers who use it reasonably, or will it fall into the hands of unscrupulous persons who will misuse it and take away our privacy or even or rape the user financially? The fact that sites like Google value our "data" more than even our cash shows it must be very valuable to them. And to add to that problem is the fact that many users don't realize that when they surrender information they more expose themselves to possible on-line trauma.
Speaking of on-line trauma, Facebook has announced that it will keep active the accounts of users who are deceased in order to "collectively share mourning for the lost one". That is an interesting decision, unique as most accounts are deleted after it has been inactive for six months. this means a person will live eternally on line, kind of a high tech photo memory book where others can revisit as if visiting a grave site.
It seems like the competition among the free sites is getting intense as each looks for traffic that can bring advertising rewards. Our presence at their sites is equal to payments to them, and that means, that as long as we give up our private information, for better or worse we are in the driver's seat
Those free mail boxes used to be simple, but no more. Google's G mail is leading the way to the free mail program being the heart of the web site rather than an adjunct to it. It has been adding and deleting "cutsie' features to attract users away from the old stand by hot mail and yahoo and to G mail and to Google itself. It now has added a Facebook-like social service aspect (it calls it "Buzz") to the Google site. Strange though, when Buzz first came out it showed users the names and E mail addresses of all the people a person E mailed. That invasion of privacy was objected to so much by the users that Google got rid of the feature.
Fact is, anyone who goes on line today knows that he or she trades some anonymity for the access to the programs used. When we have to fill out the information boxes to use a program we pay the site by giving them our personal information it uses to sell to advertisers who annoy us with spam ads. We buy things using our private information as "currency".
But at what cost? The person who uses one of the free E mail or other sites never knows what costs will arise from surrendering the currency of our private information. Will it be used only to make money from advertisers who use it reasonably, or will it fall into the hands of unscrupulous persons who will misuse it and take away our privacy or even or rape the user financially? The fact that sites like Google value our "data" more than even our cash shows it must be very valuable to them. And to add to that problem is the fact that many users don't realize that when they surrender information they more expose themselves to possible on-line trauma.
Speaking of on-line trauma, Facebook has announced that it will keep active the accounts of users who are deceased in order to "collectively share mourning for the lost one". That is an interesting decision, unique as most accounts are deleted after it has been inactive for six months. this means a person will live eternally on line, kind of a high tech photo memory book where others can revisit as if visiting a grave site.
It seems like the competition among the free sites is getting intense as each looks for traffic that can bring advertising rewards. Our presence at their sites is equal to payments to them, and that means, that as long as we give up our private information, for better or worse we are in the driver's seat
Monday, March 1, 2010
Odd Science
Something more today about those "studies we are supposed to blindly accept and cheer.... From the "How to justify an expensive study" department comes this story that I saw on the BBC.com site the other day about a Peruvian frog species. Here's what the site reported. "Genetic tests have revealed that male and females of one species of Peruvian poison frog remain utterly faithful.
More surprising is the discovery that just one thing - the size of the pools of water in which they lay their tadpoles - prevents the frogs straying.That constitutes the best evidence yet documented that monogamy can have a single cause, say scientists."Haha What a shocking conclusion. Maybe they should conduct a multi-million dollar study to se that when a killer is locked in prison he can't kill again..proof that a single cause stops murderous convicts from killing. I doubt anyone will accept the Peruvian frog conclusion is significant, but then, most of the world believes in the pseudo science of the global warmers.
I wonder how the idea of water contained monogamous Peruvian frogs relates to say.....Tiger Woods cheating on his wife. Maybe the wife should put Tiger in the middle of an isolated island between Tiger's golf outings. But then, Tiger isn't a frog. He's a "horny " human male.
(Hornclubbed Tigerhumanis). I am sure some scientist will get a grant to study Tigerhumais too, especially if he or she says the planet will be threatened if money isn't given for such a study.
All this begs a question. Though it is important to study Peruvian or even my local frogs, might not a more relevant study be a better one to undertake, one that gives us something of use when the study is concluded? Do you also notice that allot of speculation is being injected into what was formerly called "science"? It used to be that a hypothesis was tested and was never promoted as valid until empirical evidence showed to to be. Not it's the reverse. I am certain that isn't science. Rather, it's an agenda.
But now, particularly in the environmental fields of study, the hypothesis is immediately accepted as truth and one is asked to disprove what is being hypothesized, a convoluted premise. This absence of the scientific method as the model is curious, unless the one practicing it is trying to promote some cause for a gain (perhaps monetary or to gain or enhance notoriety) perceived to be obtained more easily by the use of untested hypothesis as fact.
Mass communication today makes this trend much easier than one would ordinarily think possible to achieve. Theories like Global Warming are promoted and subtle implications that they are based on fact rather than theory are implied. The public accepts what "the experts say is true', never searching for factual validity or denial of the same.
Sigh... it's so complicated these days that sometimes I wish I were one of those Peruvian frogs.
More surprising is the discovery that just one thing - the size of the pools of water in which they lay their tadpoles - prevents the frogs straying.That constitutes the best evidence yet documented that monogamy can have a single cause, say scientists."Haha What a shocking conclusion. Maybe they should conduct a multi-million dollar study to se that when a killer is locked in prison he can't kill again..proof that a single cause stops murderous convicts from killing. I doubt anyone will accept the Peruvian frog conclusion is significant, but then, most of the world believes in the pseudo science of the global warmers.
I wonder how the idea of water contained monogamous Peruvian frogs relates to say.....Tiger Woods cheating on his wife. Maybe the wife should put Tiger in the middle of an isolated island between Tiger's golf outings. But then, Tiger isn't a frog. He's a "horny " human male.
(Hornclubbed Tigerhumanis). I am sure some scientist will get a grant to study Tigerhumais too, especially if he or she says the planet will be threatened if money isn't given for such a study.
All this begs a question. Though it is important to study Peruvian or even my local frogs, might not a more relevant study be a better one to undertake, one that gives us something of use when the study is concluded? Do you also notice that allot of speculation is being injected into what was formerly called "science"? It used to be that a hypothesis was tested and was never promoted as valid until empirical evidence showed to to be. Not it's the reverse. I am certain that isn't science. Rather, it's an agenda.
But now, particularly in the environmental fields of study, the hypothesis is immediately accepted as truth and one is asked to disprove what is being hypothesized, a convoluted premise. This absence of the scientific method as the model is curious, unless the one practicing it is trying to promote some cause for a gain (perhaps monetary or to gain or enhance notoriety) perceived to be obtained more easily by the use of untested hypothesis as fact.
Mass communication today makes this trend much easier than one would ordinarily think possible to achieve. Theories like Global Warming are promoted and subtle implications that they are based on fact rather than theory are implied. The public accepts what "the experts say is true', never searching for factual validity or denial of the same.
Sigh... it's so complicated these days that sometimes I wish I were one of those Peruvian frogs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)