5:58
Not a great mile time, but respectable given the cold, a long day at work, and my woeful shape. Were it above 6 min, I'd be a bit worried. Below 5:50 and I'd be proud.
It's a long way off from the best mile time I can remember - 5:15. If memory serves, I ran than during high school, when I was 15 lbs lighter and in great shape. I'm sure I could of topped it in college during the soccer season, but probably not by much. Maybe could of broke 5:10 on a great day. I don't really know.
Given my current situation, a goal of 5:35 before spring seems like a good goal.
Over the break I was jogging, lamenting being considerably slower than in my younger years, and then wanted to kick myself for glorifying my past in my head. I was never ALWAYS in shape. I was certainly in great shape by the end of the soccer season, but would definitely fall out of shape in the off season. It would take a good month of casual training on my own and another month of hard training with the team to get in real good shape. One way to look at the late 20s-30s is one long off season. The implication being, I could get back into shape. Theoretically, this is true, but there will never be the time or motivation to get into game shape. During the season playing intense 90 minute games twice a week was what kept one in shape. In the real world, there is no opportunity for a workout that intense.
So with this new stop watch I'm going to try and track my mile times and improve.
Monday, January 05, 2009
Not Only Movie Budgets
Patrick Goldstein on the lies in movie budgeting.
I remember being in Middle School and my friend bragged his father won "every single time" he gambled. Even at that age, I knew it was bullshit. I called him out - "if he won every time," I asked, "why doesn't he gamble every day for a living?" If he were smarter, he could of come up with some answer along the lines using opportunity cost logic (who prefers to spend all their time gambling), but the point was moot. He was lying.
But who cares? Everyone lies - especially about money and sex. Ask a guy how much his shoes cost in front of a pretty girl. He'll say $200. Ask him in front of his front of his frugal mother and he'll say $110 - he got them on sale at Nordstrom. Look at the receipt and you'll discover something in between: $135 after sales tax.
Movies are no different. There is the cost, the real cost, the actual cost, and it isn't the studios fault. I went to a film festival where a guy shot a 30 min film on 35mm. Someone asked him how much it cost and he said $5000. I coughed "bullshit." Afterward I told my civilian friends it was a crock of shit and they said "how could you possibly know." Just the purchase of film stock and developing it alone would far exceed the $5000 figure. Not to mention renting a camera, a truck, locations, permits, food, telecine, editing bays, etc. Granted, you could get a grant, school support, free locations, and all sorts of nice perks. But gimme a break. I've made short films and there are price traps everywhere. The guy might of gotten 20 G donation from his parents and paid $5000 out of pocket. Doesn't mean the movie cost $5000. Point is a movie can cost whatever people say it cost, depending on whether what you decide to call a discount or a grant.
Patrick Goldstein on the lies in movie budgeting.
I remember being in Middle School and my friend bragged his father won "every single time" he gambled. Even at that age, I knew it was bullshit. I called him out - "if he won every time," I asked, "why doesn't he gamble every day for a living?" If he were smarter, he could of come up with some answer along the lines using opportunity cost logic (who prefers to spend all their time gambling), but the point was moot. He was lying.
But who cares? Everyone lies - especially about money and sex. Ask a guy how much his shoes cost in front of a pretty girl. He'll say $200. Ask him in front of his front of his frugal mother and he'll say $110 - he got them on sale at Nordstrom. Look at the receipt and you'll discover something in between: $135 after sales tax.
Movies are no different. There is the cost, the real cost, the actual cost, and it isn't the studios fault. I went to a film festival where a guy shot a 30 min film on 35mm. Someone asked him how much it cost and he said $5000. I coughed "bullshit." Afterward I told my civilian friends it was a crock of shit and they said "how could you possibly know." Just the purchase of film stock and developing it alone would far exceed the $5000 figure. Not to mention renting a camera, a truck, locations, permits, food, telecine, editing bays, etc. Granted, you could get a grant, school support, free locations, and all sorts of nice perks. But gimme a break. I've made short films and there are price traps everywhere. The guy might of gotten 20 G donation from his parents and paid $5000 out of pocket. Doesn't mean the movie cost $5000. Point is a movie can cost whatever people say it cost, depending on whether what you decide to call a discount or a grant.
Same As the Old Boss
Let's see, a surge of troops, a massive tax cut, old hands in the cabinet, giving the heisman to progressives...who does that describe? Bush or Obama?
Let's see, a surge of troops, a massive tax cut, old hands in the cabinet, giving the heisman to progressives...who does that describe? Bush or Obama?
Sunday, January 04, 2009
2008 and 2009
For this blogger, 2008 was the year of small trips. I visited Napa three times and San Francisco four times. I visited New York, Tahoe/Reno, Mammoth, Sedona, and San Diego one time each.
By all media accounts, 2008 was one of the worst on record. So I guess I should be happy I survived the global recession and my small trips without any permanent damage to my bank account or soul. I turned 30. I was the best man and a groomsmen in weddings of close friends. I completed my first full year "on the job." I discovered a new "home" in Santa Monica. I'm more humble. I suppose we all are. And that isn't a bad thing.
Oh yeah, lists:
My personal favorite movie of 2008 - Red Belt
The movie I'd recommend to citizens - Slumdog
My favorite double feature - House Bunny and Vicky Christina Barcelona
My favorite new TV show - Life and Times of Tim
My favorite old TV show - The Wire
The show that caught my attention again and then totally disappointed - Entourage
The show with the best female characters - Mad Men
Favorite music I somehow was missing before 2008 - tie Lil Wayne and Steve Earle
Favorite food - Bay Cities turkey with the works
Favorite drink - rediscovering Sierra Nevada Pale Ale
Favorite happy hour - Modelo Madness
Biggest News Story - Obama
Biggest News Story Not Discussed - Handing Iraq back over to the Iraqis
Best New Game - Carcassone
Best Books I Read - The New Biographical Dictionary of Film, Jimmy Corrigan the Smartest Kid on Earth, The Blind Side, Once a Runner
Thing I Should Love, But Hate - Facebook
Thing I Should Hate, But Love - Sarah Palin
Best Sports Moment - Kobe getting his ass kicked in the NBA Finals
Favorite New Gadget - Amazon Kindle
Okay...that got boring. Anyhow, my 2009 resolutions are the same as 2008 and 1998. (I always have the same three resolutions):
1. Wear sunglasses more often
2. Drink more hard alcohol
3. Get more girls.
And yes, I'm kidding about Sarah Palin. Just hoping to get a rise...
For this blogger, 2008 was the year of small trips. I visited Napa three times and San Francisco four times. I visited New York, Tahoe/Reno, Mammoth, Sedona, and San Diego one time each.
By all media accounts, 2008 was one of the worst on record. So I guess I should be happy I survived the global recession and my small trips without any permanent damage to my bank account or soul. I turned 30. I was the best man and a groomsmen in weddings of close friends. I completed my first full year "on the job." I discovered a new "home" in Santa Monica. I'm more humble. I suppose we all are. And that isn't a bad thing.
Oh yeah, lists:
My personal favorite movie of 2008 - Red Belt
The movie I'd recommend to citizens - Slumdog
My favorite double feature - House Bunny and Vicky Christina Barcelona
My favorite new TV show - Life and Times of Tim
My favorite old TV show - The Wire
The show that caught my attention again and then totally disappointed - Entourage
The show with the best female characters - Mad Men
Favorite music I somehow was missing before 2008 - tie Lil Wayne and Steve Earle
Favorite food - Bay Cities turkey with the works
Favorite drink - rediscovering Sierra Nevada Pale Ale
Favorite happy hour - Modelo Madness
Biggest News Story - Obama
Biggest News Story Not Discussed - Handing Iraq back over to the Iraqis
Best New Game - Carcassone
Best Books I Read - The New Biographical Dictionary of Film, Jimmy Corrigan the Smartest Kid on Earth, The Blind Side, Once a Runner
Thing I Should Love, But Hate - Facebook
Thing I Should Hate, But Love - Sarah Palin
Best Sports Moment - Kobe getting his ass kicked in the NBA Finals
Favorite New Gadget - Amazon Kindle
Okay...that got boring. Anyhow, my 2009 resolutions are the same as 2008 and 1998. (I always have the same three resolutions):
1. Wear sunglasses more often
2. Drink more hard alcohol
3. Get more girls.
And yes, I'm kidding about Sarah Palin. Just hoping to get a rise...
Saturday, January 03, 2009
War Related Thoughts
Hearing Israel is doing a ground offensive into Gaza, I can't help be struck by the thought: why? What are Israel's goals? They say they do not want to occupy Gaza - which is probably smart. So what do they hope to achieve? Punishment? Isn't that achieved through the air strikes? Are they trying to cripple Hamas and allow for the PA to come in and negotiate a two state solution? Highly unlikely.
If I were Israel, I would continue the decapitation strategy they used against Hamas in the 2nd Infitada. Basically, going after the entire leadership personally. Eventually, this will either persuade Hamas to negotiate a truce (a temporary two state solution) or leave them sufficiently leaderless and unorganized to grow. It will make them a losing investment for Iran and won't cause a huge amount of casualties on either side. But maybe Israel isn't able to do this.
Israel is dealing with a difficult situation. The majority of the Palestinian population, particularly in Gaza, supports and end to the Israeli state. Hamas is the democratically elected government. Bitterness towards Israel is embedded deeply into the culture and unlike Iraq or Afghanistan where you are fighting to protect the majority against a dedicated minority, effectively, the majority of the people are your enemy. The best you can hope for is a government more moderate than the people who can through a mix of force, persuasion, and incentives, steer them in a better direction.
In Iraq, a much different approach worked for the US military. The shift from force protection to population protection completely altered the course of the war and now provides an effective model about how to fight an insurgency when a vicious minority group is trying to terrorize the majority group into submission.
In the Civil War, the Union generals were initially concerned with two things: land seizure and force protection. They would use manoeuvres to capture territory without engaging the Confederate Army. Later, the Confederates would counterattack and re-take the territory. It drove Lincoln crazy. To end the Civil War, he knew we needed to crush the Army of the Confederates. Grant and Sherman understood this and when they went on the battlefield, they tracked their enemy and engaged them, using their overwhelming numbers to beat superior tacticians into submission.
Hearing Israel is doing a ground offensive into Gaza, I can't help be struck by the thought: why? What are Israel's goals? They say they do not want to occupy Gaza - which is probably smart. So what do they hope to achieve? Punishment? Isn't that achieved through the air strikes? Are they trying to cripple Hamas and allow for the PA to come in and negotiate a two state solution? Highly unlikely.
If I were Israel, I would continue the decapitation strategy they used against Hamas in the 2nd Infitada. Basically, going after the entire leadership personally. Eventually, this will either persuade Hamas to negotiate a truce (a temporary two state solution) or leave them sufficiently leaderless and unorganized to grow. It will make them a losing investment for Iran and won't cause a huge amount of casualties on either side. But maybe Israel isn't able to do this.
Israel is dealing with a difficult situation. The majority of the Palestinian population, particularly in Gaza, supports and end to the Israeli state. Hamas is the democratically elected government. Bitterness towards Israel is embedded deeply into the culture and unlike Iraq or Afghanistan where you are fighting to protect the majority against a dedicated minority, effectively, the majority of the people are your enemy. The best you can hope for is a government more moderate than the people who can through a mix of force, persuasion, and incentives, steer them in a better direction.
In Iraq, a much different approach worked for the US military. The shift from force protection to population protection completely altered the course of the war and now provides an effective model about how to fight an insurgency when a vicious minority group is trying to terrorize the majority group into submission.
In the Civil War, the Union generals were initially concerned with two things: land seizure and force protection. They would use manoeuvres to capture territory without engaging the Confederate Army. Later, the Confederates would counterattack and re-take the territory. It drove Lincoln crazy. To end the Civil War, he knew we needed to crush the Army of the Confederates. Grant and Sherman understood this and when they went on the battlefield, they tracked their enemy and engaged them, using their overwhelming numbers to beat superior tacticians into submission.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Indeed
I never understand what people mean when they say Israel's response to being attacked is "disproportionate."
I never understand what people mean when they say Israel's response to being attacked is "disproportionate."
What would a legitimate and “proportionate” response actually look like? Surely they don’t believe Israel should scrap its sophisticated weapons systems, build Qassam rockets, and launch those at Gaza instead.
The “disproportionate response” crowd doesn’t seem to mind that Israel struck back at Hamas per se. They aren’t saying Israel should only be allowed to negotiate with its enemies or that any use of force whatsoever is wrong. They’re clearly saying Israel should use less force, inflict less damage, or both.
One problem here is that it’s not at all clear how they think Israelis should go about doing it. The weapons used by each side can’t be the same. No one has ever said Israel ought to put its superior weapons systems in cold storage until Hamas can develop or purchase something similar. Presumably Israel is allowed to use its superior technology as long as the casualty count on each side is proportionate.
But how would that work in practice? A single Israeli air strike is going to kill at least as many people as Hamas can kill in twelve months. Does that mean Israel should be given a “license” of one air strike per year to use in the war? If IDF commanders want to take out a target where they expect five Hamas leaders or fighters to be killed, do they have to wait until five Israelis are killed first? If the Israelis endure rocket fire until one civilian is killed, do they get a “kill one Palestinian terrorist” coupon?
Contrarian
Last night I was called a contrarian. I disagreed. (Presumably proving their point). Anyhow, it is safe to say I recognize most people I know, from different walks of life, would probably agree to call me a contrarian.
I don't like the term because I think it tends to be used as "You're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary," and allows someone to get out a weak argument. And I don't perceive myself to be contrary just for the sake of it.
So I looked up contrarian on the internet and found two definitions I think put it in perspective -
1. Contrarian Investor
In finance, a contrarian is one who attempts to profit by investing in a manner that differs from the conventional wisdom, when the consensus opinion appears to be wrong.
A contrarian believes that certain crowd behavior among investors can lead to exploitable mispricings in securities markets.
2. Contrarian Scientist
A contrarian is someone who poses as a skeptic, refusing to accept consensus conclusions in science on the ground that there is still some uncertainty. As Chris Mooney writes:
That doesn’t mean that scientific consensus is right in every instance. There are famous examples, in fact, of when it was proved wrong: Galileo comes to mind, as does a lowly patent clerk named Einstein. In the vast majority of modern cases, however, scientific consensus can be expected to hold up under scrutiny precisely because it was reached through a lengthy and rigorous process of professional skepticism and criticism.*
Contrarians are particularly active in the areas of climate change and other environmental issues, but they have been active in many other areas as well, such as tobacco and health issues. Contrarians demand endless analysis of issues to prevent any action from being taken rather than to ensure that the most reasonable conclusion be arrived at. Polluters and anyone else opposed to government regulations are well served by the contrarian's paralysis by analysis. Contrarians often refer to their endless demands for more study and their claims that doubts still remain—no matter what the consensus—as "sound science," a bit of doublespeak that is the scientific equivalent of the filibuster.
If I am to cop to being a contrarian, I cop to the first definition. I certainly believe the "crowd" whether it applies to investing, movie taste, political choices, and a whole host of issues has systemic "gaps" of intelligence. Groups get things wrong for a lot of reasons - mostly as a combination of limited intelligence and a herd mentality which makes it safer to accept the widely accepted view because if you are wrong as part of a herd, everyone else is wrong as well, and you don't look stupid.
But I do not subscribe to being a contrarian in the second sense, trying to purposely filibuster accepted knowledge cynically to further the interests of evildoers or just be purposely obstructive.
So there.
Last night I was called a contrarian. I disagreed. (Presumably proving their point). Anyhow, it is safe to say I recognize most people I know, from different walks of life, would probably agree to call me a contrarian.
I don't like the term because I think it tends to be used as "You're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary," and allows someone to get out a weak argument. And I don't perceive myself to be contrary just for the sake of it.
So I looked up contrarian on the internet and found two definitions I think put it in perspective -
1. Contrarian Investor
In finance, a contrarian is one who attempts to profit by investing in a manner that differs from the conventional wisdom, when the consensus opinion appears to be wrong.
A contrarian believes that certain crowd behavior among investors can lead to exploitable mispricings in securities markets.
2. Contrarian Scientist
A contrarian is someone who poses as a skeptic, refusing to accept consensus conclusions in science on the ground that there is still some uncertainty. As Chris Mooney writes:
That doesn’t mean that scientific consensus is right in every instance. There are famous examples, in fact, of when it was proved wrong: Galileo comes to mind, as does a lowly patent clerk named Einstein. In the vast majority of modern cases, however, scientific consensus can be expected to hold up under scrutiny precisely because it was reached through a lengthy and rigorous process of professional skepticism and criticism.*
Contrarians are particularly active in the areas of climate change and other environmental issues, but they have been active in many other areas as well, such as tobacco and health issues. Contrarians demand endless analysis of issues to prevent any action from being taken rather than to ensure that the most reasonable conclusion be arrived at. Polluters and anyone else opposed to government regulations are well served by the contrarian's paralysis by analysis. Contrarians often refer to their endless demands for more study and their claims that doubts still remain—no matter what the consensus—as "sound science," a bit of doublespeak that is the scientific equivalent of the filibuster.
If I am to cop to being a contrarian, I cop to the first definition. I certainly believe the "crowd" whether it applies to investing, movie taste, political choices, and a whole host of issues has systemic "gaps" of intelligence. Groups get things wrong for a lot of reasons - mostly as a combination of limited intelligence and a herd mentality which makes it safer to accept the widely accepted view because if you are wrong as part of a herd, everyone else is wrong as well, and you don't look stupid.
But I do not subscribe to being a contrarian in the second sense, trying to purposely filibuster accepted knowledge cynically to further the interests of evildoers or just be purposely obstructive.
So there.
I Don't Mean to Say "I Told You So"
But, I told you so.
All over the sports channels are reporting Jets teammates badmouthing Favre. This is what happens when the media glorify the guy and manufacture the myth of the great white gunslinging quarterback...the guys who KNOW what's up get frustrated and eventually let it spill over in public - when it gets too much (and obvious) to bear.
UPDATE: Here is an example - a Favre fan boy trying to justify Favre's miserable season by rearguing the Packers would have been better off keep Favre. Huh?
UPDATE 2: Cowher won't take Jets job because he doesn't want to coach Favre. Yikes. Guess the word is really getting out around the league.
In other news, Happy New Year.
But, I told you so.
All over the sports channels are reporting Jets teammates badmouthing Favre. This is what happens when the media glorify the guy and manufacture the myth of the great white gunslinging quarterback...the guys who KNOW what's up get frustrated and eventually let it spill over in public - when it gets too much (and obvious) to bear.
UPDATE: Here is an example - a Favre fan boy trying to justify Favre's miserable season by rearguing the Packers would have been better off keep Favre. Huh?
UPDATE 2: Cowher won't take Jets job because he doesn't want to coach Favre. Yikes. Guess the word is really getting out around the league.
In other news, Happy New Year.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
A Few Thoughts
Blogging will be light until January 5th or so. Internet access is variable at my parents house and part of the whole "winter break" means time away from the blog as well.
On Favre...notice how the media won't talk about how he helped blow the Jets season. Six weeks ago, the Jets were going to the Superbowl. Now they won't even make the playoffs and in a game where they controlled their own destiny, he tossed three INTs. It doesn't come as a surprise to me - Favre is the most overrated player in football. But I suspect the sports media - who are in love with the guy - will bury the story.
On Hamas...how stupid are these guys? They start lobbing missiles into Israel that don't kill anyone or set the stage for any type of military strategy. Israel says "stop lobbing missiles at us or we're going to attack you and kick your ass." Egypt says "stop lobbing missiles into Israel, what's the point?" Hamas keeps lobbing missiles. Then Israel attacks today and kills 250+ people and the UN condemns both Israel and Hamas. Palestinians try to flee into Egypt and Egyptian border guards shoot at them. Hamas says "All right, the gloves are off, we're going to unleash suicide bombers again." Greeeaaat.
On the Lakers beating the Celtics on xmas...it surprised me...Gasol stepped up. Do the NBA teams realize the Lakers are worse when Kobe "goes off?" It causes all the other guys to stop playing hard. Why doesn't a team try the inverse of the we-won't let-Stephon Curry-beat-us tactic and say we're-going-to-let-Kobe-go-off and get the four other guys to sit on their asses, get lazy, get cold, and endure Kobe making fun of them during time outs and then in crunch time shut Kobe down? Just a thought.
Blogging will be light until January 5th or so. Internet access is variable at my parents house and part of the whole "winter break" means time away from the blog as well.
On Favre...notice how the media won't talk about how he helped blow the Jets season. Six weeks ago, the Jets were going to the Superbowl. Now they won't even make the playoffs and in a game where they controlled their own destiny, he tossed three INTs. It doesn't come as a surprise to me - Favre is the most overrated player in football. But I suspect the sports media - who are in love with the guy - will bury the story.
On Hamas...how stupid are these guys? They start lobbing missiles into Israel that don't kill anyone or set the stage for any type of military strategy. Israel says "stop lobbing missiles at us or we're going to attack you and kick your ass." Egypt says "stop lobbing missiles into Israel, what's the point?" Hamas keeps lobbing missiles. Then Israel attacks today and kills 250+ people and the UN condemns both Israel and Hamas. Palestinians try to flee into Egypt and Egyptian border guards shoot at them. Hamas says "All right, the gloves are off, we're going to unleash suicide bombers again." Greeeaaat.
On the Lakers beating the Celtics on xmas...it surprised me...Gasol stepped up. Do the NBA teams realize the Lakers are worse when Kobe "goes off?" It causes all the other guys to stop playing hard. Why doesn't a team try the inverse of the we-won't let-Stephon Curry-beat-us tactic and say we're-going-to-let-Kobe-go-off and get the four other guys to sit on their asses, get lazy, get cold, and endure Kobe making fun of them during time outs and then in crunch time shut Kobe down? Just a thought.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Kindle Review
As requested by Naveen, a short report on the Kindle. I like it. I enjoy reading books on it. I haven't used it for newspapers and magazines yet. In contrast to stubby paperbacks and heavy hardbacks, it is easy to read while drinking coffee or eating because you do not need to hold pages back. It is great for manuscripts, many of which aren't worth the paper they are printed on. With the Kindle you read part of the manuscript and if it's no good, you didn't need to waste ink and paper and lug the pages around. I like how new books are affordable and usually cost $10 as opposed to $26 if they are only in hardback. I also like how classic books are available for super cheap $1-3. I like how you can "carry" multiple books or manuscripts or papers around on the Kindle without weighing down a bag. I like how conceivably, you can take the Kindle to Sunday brunch and download a newspaper, although I haven't done this yet. Getting the books on the Kindle is incredibly easy - you simply fire off an email and wallah - they show up. I am quite sure owning the Kindle will either allow or cause me read more.
What I don't like: the Kindle feels a bit fragile. I like how newspapers and cheap paperbacks can be tossed around, stuffed in a pocket, and thrown aside and still retain their core function. The Kindle is delicate. It feels easily breakable. The page turn function is a tad annoying. It is very easy to turn a page on mistake and therefore you are constantly turning back a page. When reading, I miss the weight of a book. I Kindled Twilight, figuring it was going to be a quick book I could read in a night or two. It took me a week. Later, I saw the book at the store - it was quite a bit larger than I thought - 500+ pages - and I was like - no wonder it took me so long to read. You don't realize how physical presence of a book impacts the way you experience reading it. The Kindle has a little dot bar at the bottom which tracks how far into a book you are. But the dot bar is a ratio and doesn't really give you a sense (at least initially) how long or short the book is. Also, books are easy to share, but Kindle books only live on your Kindle.
What I didn't expect: The Kindle is more mechanical than electronic. It feels more like a machine than a computer. The only computer function, really, is getting the material via "whispernet" - basically a wireless email service. The rest of the functioning feels rather mechanical...it's hard to explain.
Overall, the Kindle was a perfect gift. It is useful and fun and a cool grown up toy to own, but if mine broke or I didn't have one, I would never purchase it for myself. One, it is rather expensive - $350, I think, and don't think it'll "save" you money because you'll Kindle books instead of buying hardcovers. If you read that much, bless you, and you wouldn't waste time on my blog. I'm pretty sure Kindle owners end up spending more money on books, etc, in the same way Itunes doesn't save anyone money on music. Note: Buying more books does not necessarily equate to reading more.
In the end, the Kindle isn't replacing books. It compliments them. For any good book - or any book worth owning - buying a Kindle version and a hardcover version is well worth the cost. And the Kindle will allow for more casual, easy, throw away, reading, which isn't a bad thing I should think.
As requested by Naveen, a short report on the Kindle. I like it. I enjoy reading books on it. I haven't used it for newspapers and magazines yet. In contrast to stubby paperbacks and heavy hardbacks, it is easy to read while drinking coffee or eating because you do not need to hold pages back. It is great for manuscripts, many of which aren't worth the paper they are printed on. With the Kindle you read part of the manuscript and if it's no good, you didn't need to waste ink and paper and lug the pages around. I like how new books are affordable and usually cost $10 as opposed to $26 if they are only in hardback. I also like how classic books are available for super cheap $1-3. I like how you can "carry" multiple books or manuscripts or papers around on the Kindle without weighing down a bag. I like how conceivably, you can take the Kindle to Sunday brunch and download a newspaper, although I haven't done this yet. Getting the books on the Kindle is incredibly easy - you simply fire off an email and wallah - they show up. I am quite sure owning the Kindle will either allow or cause me read more.
What I don't like: the Kindle feels a bit fragile. I like how newspapers and cheap paperbacks can be tossed around, stuffed in a pocket, and thrown aside and still retain their core function. The Kindle is delicate. It feels easily breakable. The page turn function is a tad annoying. It is very easy to turn a page on mistake and therefore you are constantly turning back a page. When reading, I miss the weight of a book. I Kindled Twilight, figuring it was going to be a quick book I could read in a night or two. It took me a week. Later, I saw the book at the store - it was quite a bit larger than I thought - 500+ pages - and I was like - no wonder it took me so long to read. You don't realize how physical presence of a book impacts the way you experience reading it. The Kindle has a little dot bar at the bottom which tracks how far into a book you are. But the dot bar is a ratio and doesn't really give you a sense (at least initially) how long or short the book is. Also, books are easy to share, but Kindle books only live on your Kindle.
What I didn't expect: The Kindle is more mechanical than electronic. It feels more like a machine than a computer. The only computer function, really, is getting the material via "whispernet" - basically a wireless email service. The rest of the functioning feels rather mechanical...it's hard to explain.
Overall, the Kindle was a perfect gift. It is useful and fun and a cool grown up toy to own, but if mine broke or I didn't have one, I would never purchase it for myself. One, it is rather expensive - $350, I think, and don't think it'll "save" you money because you'll Kindle books instead of buying hardcovers. If you read that much, bless you, and you wouldn't waste time on my blog. I'm pretty sure Kindle owners end up spending more money on books, etc, in the same way Itunes doesn't save anyone money on music. Note: Buying more books does not necessarily equate to reading more.
In the end, the Kindle isn't replacing books. It compliments them. For any good book - or any book worth owning - buying a Kindle version and a hardcover version is well worth the cost. And the Kindle will allow for more casual, easy, throw away, reading, which isn't a bad thing I should think.
I Never Knew This Story
In 1992, Bill Clinton allowed an execution of a mentally handicapped man in Arkansas during the New Hampshire primary as a political calculation to appear tough on crime and "not pull a Dukakis."
I never knew this story and hearing it now makes me ill.
In 1992, Bill Clinton allowed an execution of a mentally handicapped man in Arkansas during the New Hampshire primary as a political calculation to appear tough on crime and "not pull a Dukakis."
I never knew this story and hearing it now makes me ill.
I never heard this argument before, but it's quite elegant. Hitchens points out there are four conditions under which a country loses their sovereignty.
1. Repeated aggression against other states.
2. Violation of non-proliferation treaties.
3. Harboring of gangsters or terrorists wanted by other states.
4. Committed acts of genocide.
Iraq, prior to the 2003 invasion was in violation of all four conditions. Iran, in contrast, can only be said to be in violation of #2 and #3 (and vaguely in violation of #1). North Korea can be said to be in violation of #2.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
A Book
Since I got my Kindle, buying real books makes less sense. But yesterday, in a used bookstore, I found a book worth buying: The Dangerous Book for Boys. It's a fun book to flip through. If I had my own coffee table, it would be on it. Opening quote:
"Don't worry about genius and don't worry about not being clever. Trust rather to work hard, perseverance, and determination. The best motto for a long march is "Don't grumble. Plug on."
You hold your future in your own hands. Never waver in this belief. Don't swagger. The boy who swaggers - like the man who swaggers - has little else that he can do. He is a cheap-Jack crying his own paltry wares. It is the empty tin that rattles most. Be honest. Be loyal. Be kind. Remember that the hardest thing to acquire is the faculty of being unselfish. As a quality it is one of the finest attributes of manliness."
There is a section on poems every boy should know. If by Kipling was one...which prompted me to buy Kim (which incidentally, is also my wikipedia entry of the day.)
One nice thing about the Kindle: classics for super cheap. Conrad's The Secret Agent is next - cost $2.50. Kim cost $1.60. Huck Finn is $1.29.
Since I got my Kindle, buying real books makes less sense. But yesterday, in a used bookstore, I found a book worth buying: The Dangerous Book for Boys. It's a fun book to flip through. If I had my own coffee table, it would be on it. Opening quote:
"Don't worry about genius and don't worry about not being clever. Trust rather to work hard, perseverance, and determination. The best motto for a long march is "Don't grumble. Plug on."
You hold your future in your own hands. Never waver in this belief. Don't swagger. The boy who swaggers - like the man who swaggers - has little else that he can do. He is a cheap-Jack crying his own paltry wares. It is the empty tin that rattles most. Be honest. Be loyal. Be kind. Remember that the hardest thing to acquire is the faculty of being unselfish. As a quality it is one of the finest attributes of manliness."
There is a section on poems every boy should know. If by Kipling was one...which prompted me to buy Kim (which incidentally, is also my wikipedia entry of the day.)
One nice thing about the Kindle: classics for super cheap. Conrad's The Secret Agent is next - cost $2.50. Kim cost $1.60. Huck Finn is $1.29.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
The Rise of the East
I watched part of the last two Lakers game where they lost close games to Miami and Orlando. Orlando looked good. Howard had an off night, Kobe had his best game of the year, and Orlando still won. With the Cavs playing incredible, Boston the best team in the league, and Orlando, the East is rising. In the West, the Lakers are soft, San Antonio is old, Phoenix is old, Dallas is old, New Orleans is underperforming, Houston is injury prone, and Portland is both young and injury prone.
On the postgame, Magic and Worthy both said the Lakers looked soft and no one comes to play except Kobe and Fisher, sometimes. Why won't anyone say the truth - the Laker's don't have a leader. Kobe is a great player and horrible leader, but what's worse - he won't allow someone else to be the leader of the team. That's why the Lakers can only get softies (Lamar and Gasol) or too-nice guys (Fisher and Walton) or young guys (Bynum and Farmer) or foreigners (those weirdo Eastern European dudes).
I watched part of the last two Lakers game where they lost close games to Miami and Orlando. Orlando looked good. Howard had an off night, Kobe had his best game of the year, and Orlando still won. With the Cavs playing incredible, Boston the best team in the league, and Orlando, the East is rising. In the West, the Lakers are soft, San Antonio is old, Phoenix is old, Dallas is old, New Orleans is underperforming, Houston is injury prone, and Portland is both young and injury prone.
On the postgame, Magic and Worthy both said the Lakers looked soft and no one comes to play except Kobe and Fisher, sometimes. Why won't anyone say the truth - the Laker's don't have a leader. Kobe is a great player and horrible leader, but what's worse - he won't allow someone else to be the leader of the team. That's why the Lakers can only get softies (Lamar and Gasol) or too-nice guys (Fisher and Walton) or young guys (Bynum and Farmer) or foreigners (those weirdo Eastern European dudes).
"Trusting" Obama
Andrew Sullivan responds to why Obama packing his cabinet with conservative, establishment choices is different from when Clinton did the same thing. Because he trusts him.
One of my favorite lesser known Tarantino lines comes from Jackie Brown:
"Do you trust Beaumont?"
"I trust Beaumont to be Beaumont. You know what I'm saying?"
Or something along those lines...it's been over five years since I saw the film. But yeah, I trust Obama to be a politician and make compromises. The Warren pick was all over the news and I heard about it before I even knew what it was about - Obama picks some anti-gay dude - but then I learned it was just the guy who swears him in. Uhhhh, who cares? Mel Gibson and Jenna Jamison could swear Obama in, it wouldn't matter to me. Warren has no impact on policy or anything that matters.
My only question about Obama is whether he's a leader or a celebrity and being President and history will test it - because there will come a moment when the doing the right thing and doing the popular thing will be different. Will he disappoint the jawing masses? I certainly hope so.
Andrew Sullivan responds to why Obama packing his cabinet with conservative, establishment choices is different from when Clinton did the same thing. Because he trusts him.
One of my favorite lesser known Tarantino lines comes from Jackie Brown:
"Do you trust Beaumont?"
"I trust Beaumont to be Beaumont. You know what I'm saying?"
Or something along those lines...it's been over five years since I saw the film. But yeah, I trust Obama to be a politician and make compromises. The Warren pick was all over the news and I heard about it before I even knew what it was about - Obama picks some anti-gay dude - but then I learned it was just the guy who swears him in. Uhhhh, who cares? Mel Gibson and Jenna Jamison could swear Obama in, it wouldn't matter to me. Warren has no impact on policy or anything that matters.
My only question about Obama is whether he's a leader or a celebrity and being President and history will test it - because there will come a moment when the doing the right thing and doing the popular thing will be different. Will he disappoint the jawing masses? I certainly hope so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)