This was essentially an IMDb forum post reply, but I decided to put that up here first, becuse I thought my ideas are just so compelling :gt; to let them go away, as forum posts sometimes do on IMDb...
Janeway had to choose between not keeping Tuvix alive and not having Tuvok and Neelix around. Essentially her obligation was to her crewmembers Tuvok and Neelix, who she felt she had to save. — Especially Tuvok, who was the only one who Janeway could talk to, because no-one else would listen unless absolutely necessary :>
Chances are that if the writers and producers were willing to have Tuvix alongside Tuvok and Neelix, then it would have been quite a bit more intersting a tv show than what dreck Voyager ended up being. I am not sure how it would have fared budget-wise, but perhaps Tuvix could have been made a regular...
My mind went into overdrive around here:
Neelix would be completely sidelined in his cooking duties much to his chagrin (loss of any culinary status and interaction with crew in the kitchen), and then to add insult to injury, Tuvix could have knocked up Kes in very quick order :9 (I wouldn't have minded that after "Warlord", which was Jennifer Lien's best episode). All that would have given Neelix two very good reasons to be extremely jealous, jealous, jealous!!1 :>
But if Tuvix were kept, then I would have done away with Harry Kim (I'd say he should have been assimilated into Species 8472) and Chakotay (assimilated by the Borg). In the process, "Voyager" could have for some time been a battlefield, and its crew desperately caught between Borg and Species 8472 fighting one another, with the poor ship disparately flying to and fro Borg space and occasionally the Fluidic space.
There should have been some reason for Voyager to be the bone of contention between the two big powers. Maybe the super-important Omega molecule (or even a collection of them) freeflying 'round the ship of its (their) own volition, with neither power being able to get it, because of its rather elusive nature...
For all that time, that would have been very taxing to Janeway, who'd end up having PTSD, making multiple mistakes and judgements of error after Chakotay's assimilation — cuz she was secretly pining for him... And the Borg Queen terrorizing Janeway by privately showing the capt'n not just the first time the Borg actually reproduce themselves (by then, Chakotay would be the sperm donor 1+n times). Because of all that, Janeway would probably end up a poor crazy woman by the end of the show. (Kate Mulgrew's chance at Emmys.)
In the end, Tuvok would have become Commander and Tuvix would have gotten some or all of Tuvok's duties (suppose Tuvok was out of commission for a short while, so Tuvix would have gotten valuable battlefield experience). Once the doctor decided Janeway was no good anymore, Tuvok would be acting captain or something. Torres would be second-in-command, Seven of Nine would do engineering.
Chances are also, that Tuvok's impending mental disease issue would have withered away, given that Tuvix was half-Vulcan and 'family' enough to help with the healing. I wonder how that would have looked like... Anyways, if that wouldn't help right away (since Tuvix is only half-Vulcan and might genetically harbour the same disease, which would perhaps emerge much later than in Tuvok), Torres would get command and Tuvok would give her progressively insane advice (which against all odds ends up working).
Tom Paris would still be the flyboy, maybe even literally after accidentally getting into a transporter accident with some flying bug. (Emmys for makeup or even sfx!)
And attrition would have allowed for some new faces (and perhaps also better actors) to emerge to the fore on the ship to replace lost senior crew. Romulans, anyone?
teisipäev, 29. november 2011
esmaspäev, 28. november 2011
Star Trek: Voyager episodes that made me emotional
This is a post on an IMDb Forum. Posts on these forums may eventually get lost, so I post here, too, just for the sake of showing which some episodes of Voyager I liked.
I won't say cried, because it's corny and mostly I didn't, but definitely misty-eyed and choked up.
In no particular order from all the episodes mentioned here:
"Jetrel"
"Tuvix"
"Drone" (Jeri Ryan's best moments)
"Riddles" (Tuvok attacked by mysterious aliens, loses memory)
"Once Upon a Time" (where a shuttle crashes and Ensign Wildman records a farewell message to her daughter)
"Imperfection" is good, but I can't remember the episode very well. (about 7 of 9 getting too emotional and Icheb worrying about it)
"Lifesigns" was poignant (The Doctor getting to be with a Vidiian woman).
"Innocence" (Tuvok stranded on a planet with kids)
"Remember" was really good (Torres getting memories from an older lady about genocide).
"Timeless" is very good in execution, but Garrett Wang's acting wasn't so much, though he tried.
I won't say cried, because it's corny and mostly I didn't, but definitely misty-eyed and choked up.
In no particular order from all the episodes mentioned here:
"Jetrel"
"Tuvix"
"Drone" (Jeri Ryan's best moments)
"Riddles" (Tuvok attacked by mysterious aliens, loses memory)
"Once Upon a Time" (where a shuttle crashes and Ensign Wildman records a farewell message to her daughter)
"Imperfection" is good, but I can't remember the episode very well. (about 7 of 9 getting too emotional and Icheb worrying about it)
"Lifesigns" was poignant (The Doctor getting to be with a Vidiian woman).
"Innocence" (Tuvok stranded on a planet with kids)
"Remember" was really good (Torres getting memories from an older lady about genocide).
"Timeless" is very good in execution, but Garrett Wang's acting wasn't so much, though he tried.
pühapäev, 27. november 2011
The Eavesdropper is only hearing thoughts
This post is in reply to a post on IMDb.
A typical misconception in entertainment industries — perhaps carried over from older mediums (print and radio), where text and speech was important to communicate ideas — is that people only think in speech, while I prefer to think that there are people who rely on text to think and that there are people who use mental images in their thought processes.
This makes catching someone's thoughts more difficult, if a person observed uses the kind of mental imagery that necessarily does not use that person's own (inner) voice, but that of someone s/he thinks about. The trick, then, is to be able to detect what the person's underpinning thought process is in relation to the image and the activity in that image that is working in their primary consciousness. The difference here is in getting to observe what the person perceives in their thought processes, and actually eavesdrop on what he or she really thinks about. Overlap isn't always guaranteed.
Since I haven't seen the film, I guess the experiment was in getting people (or just the protagonist; see below) to only 'hear' someone's thoughts, but not necessarily see them. This would mean that the ability of perception was probably limited to receiving just one type of sensing faculty.
Given the film's premise of 14 people (out of 15) becoming crazy as a result, then I guess the failed method did not include a filter on these people, and so their minds vere overwhelmed. I remember this issue was once handled in an episode of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", where Buffy's mind-reading sensitivity to read others' minds and sensing radius progressively expanded to the point that it became almost impossible to have a sane mind.
See the Mental image article on Wikipedia for more.
Another point is that even despite filmmakers, of all people, realizing that people also think in images, then it's probably just easier to use the "hearing of thoughts" method than "seeing the thoughts" method, as the former is cheaper, while the latter may sometimes require expensive means of post-production to visualise 'seeing' someone's thoughts. Think "Minority Report" and "Brainstorm" (1983).
P.S.
Saw a poster and that George Takei was in it, so got here.
A typical misconception in entertainment industries — perhaps carried over from older mediums (print and radio), where text and speech was important to communicate ideas — is that people only think in speech, while I prefer to think that there are people who rely on text to think and that there are people who use mental images in their thought processes.
This makes catching someone's thoughts more difficult, if a person observed uses the kind of mental imagery that necessarily does not use that person's own (inner) voice, but that of someone s/he thinks about. The trick, then, is to be able to detect what the person's underpinning thought process is in relation to the image and the activity in that image that is working in their primary consciousness. The difference here is in getting to observe what the person perceives in their thought processes, and actually eavesdrop on what he or she really thinks about. Overlap isn't always guaranteed.
Since I haven't seen the film, I guess the experiment was in getting people (or just the protagonist; see below) to only 'hear' someone's thoughts, but not necessarily see them. This would mean that the ability of perception was probably limited to receiving just one type of sensing faculty.
Given the film's premise of 14 people (out of 15) becoming crazy as a result, then I guess the failed method did not include a filter on these people, and so their minds vere overwhelmed. I remember this issue was once handled in an episode of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", where Buffy's mind-reading sensitivity to read others' minds and sensing radius progressively expanded to the point that it became almost impossible to have a sane mind.
See the Mental image article on Wikipedia for more.
Another point is that even despite filmmakers, of all people, realizing that people also think in images, then it's probably just easier to use the "hearing of thoughts" method than "seeing the thoughts" method, as the former is cheaper, while the latter may sometimes require expensive means of post-production to visualise 'seeing' someone's thoughts. Think "Minority Report" and "Brainstorm" (1983).
P.S.
Saw a poster and that George Takei was in it, so got here.
esmaspäev, 21. november 2011
Of closets and people
As time goes on and many other people come out of the closet (such as Zachary Quinto), then I get more and more comfortable with famous people not coming out of the closet or not revealing any of their private lives (mostly because of family reasons), and not just because they have a job made more dangerous if they were out.
It is because there are other people now who are coming out of the closet, more and more so. One day, Page Six is just going to have its own section every day: "People who came out today," hopefully well before obituaries at the back.
The only caveat being that some people might decide to stay in the closet for exactly this reason :\
Some actors might choose to stay in the closet to get better considered for 'straight' roles (somehow I think it still happens like that), but a recent blog post or article, probably at Post Apocalyptic Bohemian, suggested that the movie industry should also start appreciating gay actors who can convincingly play straight roles, as "Brokeback Mountain" so well proved to us in reverse.
It is because there are other people now who are coming out of the closet, more and more so. One day, Page Six is just going to have its own section every day: "People who came out today," hopefully well before obituaries at the back.
The only caveat being that some people might decide to stay in the closet for exactly this reason :\
Some actors might choose to stay in the closet to get better considered for 'straight' roles (somehow I think it still happens like that), but a recent blog post or article, probably at Post Apocalyptic Bohemian, suggested that the movie industry should also start appreciating gay actors who can convincingly play straight roles, as "Brokeback Mountain" so well proved to us in reverse.
neljapäev, 17. november 2011
Women, kids, and Stargate Universe
To refer to a user on GateWorld Forums who contended that the most populous demographic watching Stargate Universe (SGU) were older (white) men who would watch any and all Stargate that was available. He asked if women and kids "killed" SGU — implying those Nielsen viewers who didn't watch Stargate Universe, thereby letting SyFy have low ratings as the official reason as to not renewing SGU.I haven't seen the Nielsen statistics, but based on information presented here (that mostly men watched), then the conclusion is that not all [i]Nielsen[/i] women could watch the show — preferring "Dancing With The Star(let)s". — And those that could watch couldn't let their kids watch, effectively sacrificing watching it themselves.
Part of SyFy's favoured demographic wasn't adult enough: The young kids who couldn't see (under-14's), and older kids who wouldn't watch (the video game generation not interested in character drama). And assuming those were mostly male. The 'girl' demographic could have been turned off either by the very concept of science fiction, or other interests, such as Dancing With My Two Left Feet and a goth woman scientist secretly infatuated with her father-figure-boss.
There's been another thread over here questioning if any of the women characters could have been or could have become someone like Carter (I haven't read through all the thread yet, but I do have a draft reply for it), or very nearly as perfect as her. You know, these people are very few and far between anyway; the closest real-life examples are women astronauts or someone like Valerie Plame. — I have to admit I dropped my jaw when I first saw her on tv (IIRC :-).
This must probably be a cultural thing that women in nowadays' U.S.-based (or -targeted) television shows are very strong characters, possessing almost superwoman-like capabilities in each show, including NCIS, SG-1, and so on; as if that were something who young American women would strive to be, thereby failing to tolerate characters more fallible than your average superchick.
Truth of the matter is, that most people (including women) just are not as perfect as the 'hero'-type characters presented on popular tv shows. I have to contend that SGU was so realistic in its presentation that it perhaps turned viewers off to the collective dismay of us fans. I remember an unintentionally funny line by an SGU hater who wrote (on IMDb, I think) that tv shows weren't supposed to show real life...
Oh, and the kids that did watch SGU, didn't watch it from a Nielsen box, but I guess, very much on their own terms. I am also considering failures in marketing SGU, but I don't know where did the responsibilities lie as to who was supposed to do exactly what.
esmaspäev, 31. oktoober 2011
Three Excellent Women
...of comedy and drama —
In no particular order:
• Mindy Sterling (Frau Fabrissina, the cohort of Dr. Evil from Mike Myers' Austin Powers franchise)
• Linda Hunt (Ilsa Grunt in "If Looks Could Kill")
• Fran Lebowitz (not Lei-, so take note of that) — In terms of cutting wit, she's on the same level as Professor Sidney Morgenbesser and physicist Lev Landau)
Common denominators: These women are all short... (ish), witty (on screen or off screen or both), and accomplished. I realized that Lebowitz and Hunt are also lesbians, which makes the mix all the more fabulous :>
Moreover, they all belong to the same generation, and before knowing any better, I'd sometimes mix at least the first two up in my mind as the same person, one or the other.
The reason I wrote this, is because I somewhat stumbled upon a post written about Lebowitz by Stephen at post apocalyptic bohemian [sic].
So much of that :>
In no particular order:
• Mindy Sterling (Frau Fabrissina, the cohort of Dr. Evil from Mike Myers' Austin Powers franchise)
• Linda Hunt (Ilsa Grunt in "If Looks Could Kill")
• Fran Lebowitz (not Lei-, so take note of that) — In terms of cutting wit, she's on the same level as Professor Sidney Morgenbesser and physicist Lev Landau)
Common denominators: These women are all short... (ish), witty (on screen or off screen or both), and accomplished. I realized that Lebowitz and Hunt are also lesbians, which makes the mix all the more fabulous :>
Moreover, they all belong to the same generation, and before knowing any better, I'd sometimes mix at least the first two up in my mind as the same person, one or the other.
Another witty woman of the same generation is Carrie Fisher.Sometimes it feels as if the three are really the same person, or three sisters of the same family scattered around the country.
(Oh, no men to speak of from the same generation, cuz I don't know of any >:-)
The reason I wrote this, is because I somewhat stumbled upon a post written about Lebowitz by Stephen at post apocalyptic bohemian [sic].
So much of that :>
reede, 7. oktoober 2011
Soldier and Outlander
This is in reply to one or more posts in an IMDb forum concerning themselves with intricacies surrounding Outlander (2008), an indie science fiction film.
First off, I didn't know Outlander was an indie science fiction movie.
The indie factor alone is worth alot.
What is most interesting, perhaps, is, that Outlander has a greater IMDb score with 6.3/10 points (from 23,768 votes), than the rather similarly themed Soldier, with just 5.6/10 points and 19,190 votes, despite Soldier being ten years older than Outlander.
Soldier's Rotten Tomatoes score is only 10%, while Outlander has 38%.
Both are box office flops with these numbers:
• Soldier: budget U.S. $75 mil/$15,000,000~ gross worldwide;
• Outlander: budget $47 mil/$6,192,098 worldwide gross.
Unfortunately, Outlander's budget-to-return ratio lesser :(
Nevertheless, I wonder if Outlander has made a greater impact, given the greater number of votes for Outlander for a three-year period and Soldier over a thirteen-year period (or is it because of a greater number of Internet users?), because I think Jim Caviezel still made a really good performance there. I mean, the film is nice for Caviezel alone :)
First off, I didn't know Outlander was an indie science fiction movie.
The indie factor alone is worth alot.
What is most interesting, perhaps, is, that Outlander has a greater IMDb score with 6.3/10 points (from 23,768 votes), than the rather similarly themed Soldier, with just 5.6/10 points and 19,190 votes, despite Soldier being ten years older than Outlander.
Soldier's Rotten Tomatoes score is only 10%, while Outlander has 38%.
Both are box office flops with these numbers:
• Soldier: budget U.S. $75 mil/$15,000,000~ gross worldwide;
• Outlander: budget $47 mil/$6,192,098 worldwide gross.
Unfortunately, Outlander's budget-to-return ratio lesser :(
Nevertheless, I wonder if Outlander has made a greater impact, given the greater number of votes for Outlander for a three-year period and Soldier over a thirteen-year period (or is it because of a greater number of Internet users?), because I think Jim Caviezel still made a really good performance there. I mean, the film is nice for Caviezel alone :)
laupäev, 1. oktoober 2011
Going All the Way
Film review that was first a comment; in reply to a thread on IMDb.
I waited, too, to see if they'd discover one another further than what's in the movie, though New York's Greenwich Village alluded to as much.
The film felt open-ended and probably stayed true to the very letter of the novel it was based on, which, I assume, was just as vague, suggesting several possible outcomes, depending on the eye of the beholder.
I would have ended it differently and sweetly. Even if such a happy-end situation were there, then after they guys would meet in NYC, the most possible outcome would have by then been known in advance to any viewer with a brain.
Fortunately, the ending was not as tragic as the one in "The Locusts"...
Would I (have) cast a different actor to play Sonny, just for the sake of seeing Sonny and Gunner (as played by Affleck) discover one another and consummate a possible guy/guy relationship brewing underneath?
Well, I don't know if I would — Davies is just too unique an actor, and the original story shows an environment so devoid of substance that it would not want to suggest anything that would be gay; For example, sodomy laws in the U.S. were not repealed before 1970's, neither was homosexuality an acceptable topic in the kind of polite society shown in this film. The novel by the same title was published in 1970, which is when attitudes towards homosexuality in the U.S. somehow started to thaw, and then only really slowly.
I think I did notice some lines in the movie from which I could infer that there could have been guy/guy relationships, I think in the very inconspicous way Gunner formed words in his sentences. Oh well.
Yet, in conclusion, "Going All the Way" did suggest possible ways of how the Beat Generation sprung up.
I waited, too, to see if they'd discover one another further than what's in the movie, though New York's Greenwich Village alluded to as much.
The film felt open-ended and probably stayed true to the very letter of the novel it was based on, which, I assume, was just as vague, suggesting several possible outcomes, depending on the eye of the beholder.
I would have ended it differently and sweetly. Even if such a happy-end situation were there, then after they guys would meet in NYC, the most possible outcome would have by then been known in advance to any viewer with a brain.
Fortunately, the ending was not as tragic as the one in "The Locusts"...
Would I (have) cast a different actor to play Sonny, just for the sake of seeing Sonny and Gunner (as played by Affleck) discover one another and consummate a possible guy/guy relationship brewing underneath?
Well, I don't know if I would — Davies is just too unique an actor, and the original story shows an environment so devoid of substance that it would not want to suggest anything that would be gay; For example, sodomy laws in the U.S. were not repealed before 1970's, neither was homosexuality an acceptable topic in the kind of polite society shown in this film. The novel by the same title was published in 1970, which is when attitudes towards homosexuality in the U.S. somehow started to thaw, and then only really slowly.
I think I did notice some lines in the movie from which I could infer that there could have been guy/guy relationships, I think in the very inconspicous way Gunner formed words in his sentences. Oh well.
Yet, in conclusion, "Going All the Way" did suggest possible ways of how the Beat Generation sprung up.
neljapäev, 8. september 2011
Reflections on the Politico/NBC News Republican Presidential Candidates Debate at Reagan Library
What began as a quick write-up based on comments written during the debate, became a more lengthy post, due to my near-perfectionist efforts at design.
So, in the quickest order, I found the best stream of the chatter at Ronald Reagan Presidential Library was embedded at The Right Scoop website, courtesy of the-always-resourceful-MSNBC.
The candidates start and often continue with spewing rhetorical crap, mostly dodging difficult subjects and questions. Bachmann and Cain outshine everyone else in this.
The Republican candidates always mention the number of children they have and the number of adopted children they have. Lots of children for "old times' insurance", I suppose...
Jon Huntsman only has two and these are adopted, also, and legally brought over to the U.S. Why didn't he adopt American children??
• Michele Bachmann frets about "Obamacare", mentions Obama rather often, maybe just as Obama mentioned Bush-Cheney throughout his campaign. After that, other candidates are very much agreeable enough to fret about "Hillarycare". Otherwise lots of hot air. Bachmann criticizes Obama on Libya, thinks it was wrong to go there (Obama really didn't, but I don't understand where her allegiances lie). I infer her support for oil drilling in Everglades (talks about energy and responsibility). Confuses green job creation in Spain and its high unemployment, which was caused by a construction and property bust.
• Mitt Romney manages to mention renewable resources, too, where he proposes a mixed package, which I say, is a wise move. Mentions even oil shale (!).
Thinks that Obama has to go (which everyone else heartily agrees with), yet offers no solutions himself, except creating nebulous "jobs" — maybe in the fashion that Bachmann talked about getting gas prices to $2/gal.
Romney believes in the Tea Party movement. Foundlessly criticizes Obama. Talks about the middle class, only that the Republican middle class are the rich.
• Ron Paul is old, criticizes Reagan's policy (though loves his 'message'), and criticizes really everything, so remaining an eternal opposition figure. Wants to abolish TSA (maybe because of probably having been subject to a 'pat-down', given his frequent trips on airplanes, but we don't know that :).
• The Texas governor Rick Perry says stupid things, thinks Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Calls Texas education cuts 'thoughtful reductions', then claims that there's no dearth of educated people in Texas, because of Facebook and Toyota having opened base there — but that's because Texas has about the lowest taxes in all of the U.S.
Perry, though, likes a balanced budget by wanting an amendment passed to support it. Then somehow offers platitudes to Obama (I hear an attempt to woo conservative democrats). Wants clear entrance and exit strategies when invading another country, criticizes Obama on this, yet that was a burden bourne out of Obama's predecessors.
Gaffe: "Ozone levels down Xx%!"
As governor, has signed the most executions in a state to date (which means more than GWB), doesn't lose sleep if even one person executed is innocent, because he believes that there is a working (and 'just') system in place.
• Herman Cain (the only African-American Republican candidate, who's speech also has a nice twang :) wants to fix everything — this infers all things being broken, even in crisis, which everyone agrees with. Does not answer about GE getting huge profits, but legally not having to pay taxes in the U.S. The answer is iffy.
• Jon Huntsman (Idaho) is too slick in both speech and appearance and has a deep tan. Did he spend a vacation in Mexico? Thinks "we've lost our confidence as a country," wants to make his eyes misty — Is that for real? Has two adopted children. What about biological children? Wants to bring troops home (audience claps hands) and has good ideas about how to go on in Afghanistan. Does not cut down on hot fluff, though. Supports science (vis-a-vis creationism, climate change caused by human activity, I didn't hear anything about stem cells).
Everyone agrees with Homeland Security Dpt.
• Newt Gingrich is seasoned, agrees with Obama's programme of charter schools. Proposes humane treatment of illegal immigrants, not deporting them.
• Rick Santorum is a Roman Catholic candidate. Has the most balanced rhetoric, but is very uninformed and stutters — the latter not necessarily being a bad trait, given the popularity of "The King's Speech", all of which also reminds me about Lt. Reginald Barclay in "Star Trek: The Next Generation". Was positive about immigration.
For a long while Telemundo journo's face is not shown at the beginning.
To follow the debates further, see here.
My wish-list of Republican policies based on the debate
So, in the quickest order, I found the best stream of the chatter at Ronald Reagan Presidential Library was embedded at The Right Scoop website, courtesy of the-always-resourceful-MSNBC.
The candidates start and often continue with spewing rhetorical crap, mostly dodging difficult subjects and questions. Bachmann and Cain outshine everyone else in this.
The Republican candidates always mention the number of children they have and the number of adopted children they have. Lots of children for "old times' insurance", I suppose...
Jon Huntsman only has two and these are adopted, also, and legally brought over to the U.S. Why didn't he adopt American children??
• Michele Bachmann frets about "Obamacare", mentions Obama rather often, maybe just as Obama mentioned Bush-Cheney throughout his campaign. After that, other candidates are very much agreeable enough to fret about "Hillarycare". Otherwise lots of hot air. Bachmann criticizes Obama on Libya, thinks it was wrong to go there (Obama really didn't, but I don't understand where her allegiances lie). I infer her support for oil drilling in Everglades (talks about energy and responsibility). Confuses green job creation in Spain and its high unemployment, which was caused by a construction and property bust.
• Mitt Romney manages to mention renewable resources, too, where he proposes a mixed package, which I say, is a wise move. Mentions even oil shale (!).
Thinks that Obama has to go (which everyone else heartily agrees with), yet offers no solutions himself, except creating nebulous "jobs" — maybe in the fashion that Bachmann talked about getting gas prices to $2/gal.
Romney believes in the Tea Party movement. Foundlessly criticizes Obama. Talks about the middle class, only that the Republican middle class are the rich.
• Ron Paul is old, criticizes Reagan's policy (though loves his 'message'), and criticizes really everything, so remaining an eternal opposition figure. Wants to abolish TSA (maybe because of probably having been subject to a 'pat-down', given his frequent trips on airplanes, but we don't know that :).
• The Texas governor Rick Perry says stupid things, thinks Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Calls Texas education cuts 'thoughtful reductions', then claims that there's no dearth of educated people in Texas, because of Facebook and Toyota having opened base there — but that's because Texas has about the lowest taxes in all of the U.S.
Perry, though, likes a balanced budget by wanting an amendment passed to support it. Then somehow offers platitudes to Obama (I hear an attempt to woo conservative democrats). Wants clear entrance and exit strategies when invading another country, criticizes Obama on this, yet that was a burden bourne out of Obama's predecessors.
Gaffe: "Ozone levels down Xx%!"
As governor, has signed the most executions in a state to date (which means more than GWB), doesn't lose sleep if even one person executed is innocent, because he believes that there is a working (and 'just') system in place.
• Herman Cain (the only African-American Republican candidate, who's speech also has a nice twang :) wants to fix everything — this infers all things being broken, even in crisis, which everyone agrees with. Does not answer about GE getting huge profits, but legally not having to pay taxes in the U.S. The answer is iffy.
• Jon Huntsman (Idaho) is too slick in both speech and appearance and has a deep tan. Did he spend a vacation in Mexico? Thinks "we've lost our confidence as a country," wants to make his eyes misty — Is that for real? Has two adopted children. What about biological children? Wants to bring troops home (audience claps hands) and has good ideas about how to go on in Afghanistan. Does not cut down on hot fluff, though. Supports science (vis-a-vis creationism, climate change caused by human activity, I didn't hear anything about stem cells).
Everyone agrees with Homeland Security Dpt.
• Newt Gingrich is seasoned, agrees with Obama's programme of charter schools. Proposes humane treatment of illegal immigrants, not deporting them.
• Rick Santorum is a Roman Catholic candidate. Has the most balanced rhetoric, but is very uninformed and stutters — the latter not necessarily being a bad trait, given the popularity of "The King's Speech", all of which also reminds me about Lt. Reginald Barclay in "Star Trek: The Next Generation". Was positive about immigration.
Misc and Other gripes
Sarah Palin's noted absence has taken away some of the entertainment value from the debate.For a long while Telemundo journo's face is not shown at the beginning.
To follow the debates further, see here.
Conclusion
Of most Republican candidates, each have at least one good idea — These are Romney, Paul, Perry, Huntsman, Gingrich, and Santorum (well, so-so). Perry even has two, Huntsman three, Gingrich is tied between the two. Santorum has said the least, so in many ways he's trying to cover his base.My wish-list of Republican policies based on the debate
(In a somewhat increasing order of importance)
- Support science vis-a-vis creationism and climate change caused by human activity (Huntsman);
- Implement charter schools — this should circumvent stubborn teacher's unions (Gingrich);
- Abolish TSA (Paul) — then what?
- Diversify energy production and supply (Romney) — this would put a simmer on oil and gas prices;
- Balance the budget (Perry) — How? Only with cuts and no tax increases?
- Bring troops home, realign Afghanistan strategy and tactics to adapt to asymmetrical warfare (Huntsman);
- Have clear entry and exit strategies when invading a country, and then only under a U.N. mandate (Perry);See in-depth commentary in the sidebar —
- Humane treatment and no deportations of illegal immigrants, the latter provided there is no criminal record (Gingrich and Santorum) — What to do with those who are still crossing over now?
Then someone (Romney?) proposed fixing the legal immigration system — What really are the Republicans' good ideas as to how?Both legal and illegal immigrants that do get over, find work and live normal lives are some of the best people already. Here's why:
• The legal immigrants, because they have the necessary skills and language abilities, and because they have persevered throughout the bureaucracy of the legal immigration system;
• The illegal immigrants from Latin America, because they have persevered through a very taxing endeavour from whichever South American country over to the U.S.Do keep in mind that some of the immigrants don't survive the journey.Same with African immigrants to Europe. At least Al-Jazeera now has a whole programme devoted to warning about the pitfalls of life in the West.
neljapäev, 1. september 2011
Why SyFy canceled SGU
Disclaimer: The post is all my personal opinion, based on some facts
I'd like to add a few of my own thoughts here about why SGU was cancelled. It's all speculation and I've said it before.
Just before MGM entered a pre-packaged bankruptcy, SyFy was probably considering picking the show up for the third season, but after MGM entered bankruptcy proceedings and before it emerged from bankruptcy (a matter of just a few weeks or even less, I might add), SyFy decided not to pick up SGU for S3.
The reason, which is all speculation and inference – is based on the facts that before MGM entered bankruptcy, it was 20% owned by Comcast, which owns 51% of NBC Universal (the other 49% owned by General Electric), which owns SyFy; and 20% of MGM owned by Sony. Thus, with both Comcast/NBC Universal & Sony owning 40% of MGM, it was still (simultaneously) a competitor to them.
After MGM emerged from a pre-packaged bankruptcy, the former owners didn't own it anymore.
Right after it became clear that Comcast+GE/NBC Universal (owner of SyFy) wouldn't own 20% of MGM anymore, any incentive for Comcast's television property to cough up 50% production costs to produce more SGU evaporated. — To reiterate, just because SyFy's parent company/ies didn't own 20% of MGM anymore. (The production went roughly $2 mil. per episode, AFAIK, with 50% by MGM proper.)
And imagine how all the money really ran around. I would love for some regulator to look into this.
My opinion is that SyFy's move of SGU to a terrible timeslot was intentional and I assume, that more than anyone else were Comcast/NBC Universal/SyFy aware that MGM would eventually go into bankruptcy after which they wouldn't own it anymore. Letting SGU fail ratings-wise worked as a convenient excuse not to finance its production any further.
</end of speculation>
The only facts are who and how much anyone owned MGM and who then did not own MGM at which time and who did then and still owns SyFy/NBC. See MGM Holdings article at Wikipedia.
Everyone knew that MGM were haemorraging money like crazy and most potential buyers wanted as a condition of any sale of MGM for it to go through bankruptcy, so that MGM would not be under its former owners. Source here.
Where I think SyFy is culpable in letting SGU's ratings go is shuffling SGU's air times too much; Joseph Mallozzi directly (AFAIK) blames moving SGU to Tuesdays against "Dancing with the Stars" (and starlets) and NCIS (a police-procedural show), in a time of year that is not Summer; I also noticed indirect finger-pointing at what I understand to be rather creative accounting practices (search for Bailey writes in text) over at skiffy. Now it cancelled Eureka.
I'd like to add a few of my own thoughts here about why SGU was cancelled. It's all speculation and I've said it before.
Just before MGM entered a pre-packaged bankruptcy, SyFy was probably considering picking the show up for the third season, but after MGM entered bankruptcy proceedings and before it emerged from bankruptcy (a matter of just a few weeks or even less, I might add), SyFy decided not to pick up SGU for S3.
The reason, which is all speculation and inference – is based on the facts that before MGM entered bankruptcy, it was 20% owned by Comcast, which owns 51% of NBC Universal (the other 49% owned by General Electric), which owns SyFy; and 20% of MGM owned by Sony. Thus, with both Comcast/NBC Universal & Sony owning 40% of MGM, it was still (simultaneously) a competitor to them.
After MGM emerged from a pre-packaged bankruptcy, the former owners didn't own it anymore.
Right after it became clear that Comcast+GE/NBC Universal (owner of SyFy) wouldn't own 20% of MGM anymore, any incentive for Comcast's television property to cough up 50% production costs to produce more SGU evaporated. — To reiterate, just because SyFy's parent company/ies didn't own 20% of MGM anymore. (The production went roughly $2 mil. per episode, AFAIK, with 50% by MGM proper.)
And imagine how all the money really ran around. I would love for some regulator to look into this.
My opinion is that SyFy's move of SGU to a terrible timeslot was intentional and I assume, that more than anyone else were Comcast/NBC Universal/SyFy aware that MGM would eventually go into bankruptcy after which they wouldn't own it anymore. Letting SGU fail ratings-wise worked as a convenient excuse not to finance its production any further.
</end of speculation>
The only facts are who and how much anyone owned MGM and who then did not own MGM at which time and who did then and still owns SyFy/NBC. See MGM Holdings article at Wikipedia.
Everyone knew that MGM were haemorraging money like crazy and most potential buyers wanted as a condition of any sale of MGM for it to go through bankruptcy, so that MGM would not be under its former owners. Source here.
Where I think SyFy is culpable in letting SGU's ratings go is shuffling SGU's air times too much; Joseph Mallozzi directly (AFAIK) blames moving SGU to Tuesdays against "Dancing with the Stars" (and starlets) and NCIS (a police-procedural show), in a time of year that is not Summer; I also noticed indirect finger-pointing at what I understand to be rather creative accounting practices (search for Bailey writes in text) over at skiffy. Now it cancelled Eureka.
reede, 22. juuli 2011
"Super 8" movie review
Well, I hope this will be short enough
Warning: Here be spoilers
Ten, maybe fifteen years ago I would have liked this flick very much and just as much would have been very tempted to retell the story of the movie.
What a difference doubling my years of life then actually makes.
Over many years, I actually went to watch a movie in a movie theathre, over many years with a friend, and over many years with a friend whom I haven't been to pictures with since 2003.
Turned out that instead of a sci-fi action-drama which had kids in it, it was a kiddie-movie with sci-fi action and some drama, too. A very good kiddie-movie. If I were a kid, I am sure I would have really loved this film.
Cinematically, JJ Abrams has done very good work on "Super 8", echoing both of Spielberg's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and "E.T." After all, Spielberg's name was plastered all over the posters of "Super 8". Michael Giacchino does well with the score and his musical style is recognisable (see "Star Trek" (2009)).
• SFX concepts of the alien ship are really out of this world. I mean, I've never had any idea a ship could be built like that.
• The late 1970's now refer to a time that eventually might be long forgotten well into our own future, but the film somehow manages to document a way of life and an America that back then was still a dreamable place to be in.
(One omission of the Summer 1979 events is the re-entry of Skylab, news of which was huge in America.)
• Special kudos to Kyle Chandler and Elle Fanning.
• You won't notice David Gallagher from Seventh Heaven.
If you want to see what the times were back were then 30 years ago, or just reminisce of the times back then, then see all of this for yourself in the movie or from an optical disk once that comes out.
Yet, if a young mind might wish to ruminate over above topics in the bulleted list, I'd suggest watching a documentary or reading the Geneva conventions...
Warning: Here be spoilers
Ten, maybe fifteen years ago I would have liked this flick very much and just as much would have been very tempted to retell the story of the movie.
What a difference doubling my years of life then actually makes.
Over many years, I actually went to watch a movie in a movie theathre, over many years with a friend, and over many years with a friend whom I haven't been to pictures with since 2003.
Turned out that instead of a sci-fi action-drama which had kids in it, it was a kiddie-movie with sci-fi action and some drama, too. A very good kiddie-movie. If I were a kid, I am sure I would have really loved this film.
Cinematically, JJ Abrams has done very good work on "Super 8", echoing both of Spielberg's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and "E.T." After all, Spielberg's name was plastered all over the posters of "Super 8". Michael Giacchino does well with the score and his musical style is recognisable (see "Star Trek" (2009)).
The great stuff
• The train crash is the best train crash I've ever seen.• SFX concepts of the alien ship are really out of this world. I mean, I've never had any idea a ship could be built like that.
• The late 1970's now refer to a time that eventually might be long forgotten well into our own future, but the film somehow manages to document a way of life and an America that back then was still a dreamable place to be in.
(One omission of the Summer 1979 events is the re-entry of Skylab, news of which was huge in America.)
The interesting and thought-provoking stuff
The most intriguing parts I found appeared to be the most insignificant ones.- The Three Mile Island nuclear accident lent me to belive that the young protagonist Joe's mother died in that accident, and not in the steel mill, and Joe's young lady-friend Alice's (Elle Fanning) father was the one who failed to attend the shift at the time, which proved fatal to Joe's mother.
The release of the movie in Summer of 2011 is somehow coincidental, after the Fukushima nuclear accidents in Japan, which began on March 11, 2011. Coincidentally, March 11 is a very loaded date for me since 2004 (the Madrid train bombings) and now even more since this year (2011). In 1979, the Chernobyl nuclear accident hadn't happened yet. - Of course, 1979 wasn't exactly a crisis year in terms of the economy, despite the 1979 oil crisis, for example. It's also before the Savings and Loan crisis of early 1980's really came to be about. Maybe when one progresses into adulthood and reaches news-reading age, then in some ways, crises are always there, around the world; some are closer to home, some are less. So 1979 had its crises, but they weren't of the scale of now.
In light of which is today (as of July 2011) regarded as the Great Recession, the film reminds well into its start for people to be compassionate, generous, and giving; sort of attempting to show that it's still a good thing™ to have these qualities, ways and means permitting. "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" also touches up on the recession.
Breakdown (intentional or not) of the Nuclear Family and single parenting are referred to at least twice; My half-educated guess is that most actual series and films from around the era (1975-1985) wouldn't ever have any of that in the main cast line-up and storylines. - The movie is good in tackling other difficult subjects, like imprisonment, maltreatment and mistreatment of foreigners (the alien being a substitute for the purposes of storytelling) who are regarded as low-lives, despite their sentience or even intelligence. Think Guantánamo. How would someone have to cope with the after-effects of gross mistreatment upon eventual release, what is the subsequent reaction and what should it ideally be (? — in the mind of a moviemaker and viewers who mostly tend to agree), or what can be the motives for aggressive behaviour and how to reduce chances of vengeance or any reoccurrence of it?
This JJ Abrams film is the one where he very well manages in picture terms to explain all of the above to a young mind. Star Trek now seems like an 85% attempt at this, being a very engaging sci-fi action movie and all. - The solution presented is not forgiveness, but departure and detachment. Current policy in world politics seems to desire this to be preferred behaviour, given that sincere forgiveness cannot be easy in the first place. The film suggests that perhaps it's expressions of compassion and dignity in the act of release that might prevent vengeance, or reoccurrence of it. Who knows. Has it been tested and proven already?
Any political power wishes, and, in various degrees usually gets departure and separation of its prisoners from said power upon release, physically at least. Yet mental departure and detachment (letting go) is never easy. Most action flicks have not delved into this.
In a "fish out of sea" situation, departure and detachment might be the first reactions anyway, especially if survival is the primary consideration. Sometimes, compassion and dignity are the first and best steps into repairing very bad relations, methinks, or at least help in stopping violence. A cease-fire, then: "...But you can live!". Well, the movie gets that right.
Remembrance, on the other hand, is special:
Would it be too difficult to explain all of that to adolescents?
• Special kudos to Kyle Chandler and Elle Fanning.
• You won't notice David Gallagher from Seventh Heaven.
If you want to see what the times were back were then 30 years ago, or just reminisce of the times back then, then see all of this for yourself in the movie or from an optical disk once that comes out.
Yet, if a young mind might wish to ruminate over above topics in the bulleted list, I'd suggest watching a documentary or reading the Geneva conventions...
teisipäev, 19. juuli 2011
GateWorld forums thread status icons
If you're wondering what do these red, blue and gray thread status chevrons and their variations at GateWorld forums mean, then here's your answer.
(I couldn't find the right answer at the GateWorld forum FAQ, so had to Google it.)
(I couldn't find the right answer at the GateWorld forum FAQ, so had to Google it.)
laupäev, 9. juuli 2011
The Fake Lottery Ticket Prank is Staged
If you've seen a video where a dude gets a lottery ticket and hollers around and calls his boss, tells him off and quits and then announces a divorce to his wife, whom he's been pinching when she's been sleeping, then tells his (best?) friend that he's been cheating on him with the best friend's wife... The sketch is so believable that it's really impossible to say at first sight whether it was real or not, so I decided to snoop around a bit.
Proof:
Original upload by user adamray24
At 0:05 seconds, the small tv set shows "Adam Ray TV", so you know.
Another original upload, this time at funnyordie.com — the site's logo can't be seen well on third-party YouTube uploads (because they are too low-res and information is not clear based on these):
"America's Funniest Home Video" (note the quotes, which mean to tell that it's really not America's Funniest Home Video tv show)
Furthermore, the uploader there is Adam Ray, too, and his avatar is that of the protagonist in the video.
Moreover, if you click on "Additional Credits" well below the video at funnyordie, the section will expand to show names of other actors from the video (who are good).
So you know.
This doesn't mean there aren't home video uploads around that show real people doing about the same stuff in real life, but the video at hand is even better than real :>
Proof:
Original upload by user adamray24
At 0:05 seconds, the small tv set shows "Adam Ray TV", so you know.
Another original upload, this time at funnyordie.com — the site's logo can't be seen well on third-party YouTube uploads (because they are too low-res and information is not clear based on these):
"America's Funniest Home Video" (note the quotes, which mean to tell that it's really not America's Funniest Home Video tv show)
Furthermore, the uploader there is Adam Ray, too, and his avatar is that of the protagonist in the video.
Moreover, if you click on "Additional Credits" well below the video at funnyordie, the section will expand to show names of other actors from the video (who are good).
So you know.
This doesn't mean there aren't home video uploads around that show real people doing about the same stuff in real life, but the video at hand is even better than real :>
kolmapäev, 22. juuni 2011
The fate of Phlox
Disclaimer: All characters and their names property of CBS Paramount, but here I'd like to offer what else I had in mind for Phlox, because someone objected to my ideas of having Phlox killed off. Everything is fictitious and non-canon.
This was in reply to this post in an IMDb thread.
Oh yes, Trip I would have kept for certain, and Mayweather and a couple for Maco-s, too :> — to at first exercise the art of neuropressue ^_^
And I know Archer didn't look all that bad either... compared to an average American his age.
Okay, then Phlox should have lost some of his syrupy positiveness, become gradually and irreparably crazy because of the Delphic Expanse (T'Pol was spared) and then placed in a psychiatric institution as a response...
In the absence of such an institution casually floating in space just in Enterprise's merry way, he'd despondently stay stuck in the brig, rarely smile, and crazy-tell interesting medical things in the fashion of Pythia (the Oracle of Delphi) for Silik to desipher (because Silik alone perhaps doesn't know everything about medicine, but has to improvise and maybe work together with T'Pol).
Silik's attempts in interpreting Phlox would at the beginning be like subtly goading Phlox into a worse state, perhaps until Silik realizes that this conduct of his really was not a good thing, but then it's far too late and the exchange would devolve into something resembling an Andorian inquisition (see Shran interrogating Soval). I am sure Silik would otherwise enjoy Phlox's condition, if not for the nasty exercise of trying to extract knowledge impossibly trapped somehere in Phox's degenerate brain. I wouldn't want in Archer's place to risk T'Pol doing a mind-meld.
The smiles of a Phlox like this would be reserved for something really devious in order to thwart Silik (despite his somehow good intentions towards Enterprise crew) and lead Silik astray, much to the chagrin of Silik and eventually the people at ENT, who would then be forced to make the 'hard' decision of completely ignoring Phlox and finally returning him to his three wives on Denobula to work something out of the impossible condition he has so inevitably succumbed to; Well, as much as each of them wives cares enough to please. — After all, each of Phlox's wives has up to three other husbands anyway, and each husband of those vies for their attention, too.
For Phlox to have endless terror instead of a terrible end is something I'd much enjoy watching. Of course, John Billingsley would have a field day with a scenario like that, but then there'd have to be equally great material for John Fleck, too.
This was in reply to this post in an IMDb thread.
Oh yes, Trip I would have kept for certain, and Mayweather and a couple for Maco-s, too :> — to at first exercise the art of neuropressue ^_^
And I know Archer didn't look all that bad either... compared to an average American his age.
Then an IMDb user's objection to my wishes about killing Phlox off...
Okay, then Phlox should have lost some of his syrupy positiveness, become gradually and irreparably crazy because of the Delphic Expanse (T'Pol was spared) and then placed in a psychiatric institution as a response...
In the absence of such an institution casually floating in space just in Enterprise's merry way, he'd despondently stay stuck in the brig, rarely smile, and crazy-tell interesting medical things in the fashion of Pythia (the Oracle of Delphi) for Silik to desipher (because Silik alone perhaps doesn't know everything about medicine, but has to improvise and maybe work together with T'Pol).
Silik's attempts in interpreting Phlox would at the beginning be like subtly goading Phlox into a worse state, perhaps until Silik realizes that this conduct of his really was not a good thing, but then it's far too late and the exchange would devolve into something resembling an Andorian inquisition (see Shran interrogating Soval). I am sure Silik would otherwise enjoy Phlox's condition, if not for the nasty exercise of trying to extract knowledge impossibly trapped somehere in Phox's degenerate brain. I wouldn't want in Archer's place to risk T'Pol doing a mind-meld.
The smiles of a Phlox like this would be reserved for something really devious in order to thwart Silik (despite his somehow good intentions towards Enterprise crew) and lead Silik astray, much to the chagrin of Silik and eventually the people at ENT, who would then be forced to make the 'hard' decision of completely ignoring Phlox and finally returning him to his three wives on Denobula to work something out of the impossible condition he has so inevitably succumbed to; Well, as much as each of them wives cares enough to please. — After all, each of Phlox's wives has up to three other husbands anyway, and each husband of those vies for their attention, too.
For Phlox to have endless terror instead of a terrible end is something I'd much enjoy watching. Of course, John Billingsley would have a field day with a scenario like that, but then there'd have to be equally great material for John Fleck, too.
reede, 17. juuni 2011
Sulnis Silik
This I replublished as a comment (which was intended as such) in a thread on IMDb
I'm going to add myself as a huge fan of Stargate Universe, too ^_^
Well now, in chronological order, the non-Star Trek series I've followed and which still remain my favourite (with marks):
* Earth 2 +++
* "Roswell" +++
* Farscape ++++
* "Battlestar Galactica" reimagined +++
* Stargate Universe ++++
TV show I'm willing to consider:
* "Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles" (I've seen a few episodes and the series had lots of potential, but it was axed)
TV series I liked back in the day:
* "Babylon 5"
* "Time Trax" and
* "TimeCop" (both shows very similar in concept) — don't ask me why, but there was a particular night about ten or even more years ago when a Nazi-themed episode of "TimeCop" aired on one channel and later that night another channel featured the "Philadelphia Experiment II" film (the plot of which is very, very reminiscent of ENT's "Storm Front," Parts I & II). I must have seen this one a decade or more ago on German TV.
wrt "Enterprise", I'm going to add that I've gone through a marathon of a number of episodes and now seem to have greater appreciation of it, despite the continuity flaws and all.
With the exception of Jolene Blalock, none of the primary characters are very astounding or particularly deep, so I'd add that the storylines, vfx and guest actors add the most spice, especially Jeffrey Combs as Shran and John Fleck, who most fabulously played Silik.
What I would have done to the cast: Phlox should have been killed off or reassigned to Cold Station 12 in Season 1/Season 2, somehow replaced by Silik to "play doctor". Silik could have been disowned by his very own Suliban Cabal, for example. Unfortunately, he was put to the very top of the Cabal food chain, so there wasn't anyone to replace him, but I'm sure Future Guy could have made necessary arrangements to the past to affect Silik's life in as punishment for some infraction...
So, in any absence of a good doctor in uncharted territories, the deliciously bad-@$$ Silik could have then slowly gained the Enterprise crew's trust, but still stay sneaky and cause surprises and trouble, yet remaining too essential for the crew to be replaceable by any Federation-approved doctor.
Silik's unfamiliarity with the Hippocratic Oath could have added another layer of drama; his expert knowledge in very many things Milky Way Galaxy could have given an addition to suspense and provided a different dimension of knowledge compared to T'Pol's Vulcan-sanitized view.
The only caveat that I see with Silik's appearance is whether there was such colour makeup paint at the time for Silik's apperance that wouldn't adversely affect an actor's internal organs the way it happened to Virginia Hey in Farscape.
I'm going to add myself as a huge fan of Stargate Universe, too ^_^
Well now, in chronological order, the non-Star Trek series I've followed and which still remain my favourite (with marks):
* Earth 2 +++
* "Roswell" +++
* Farscape ++++
* "Battlestar Galactica" reimagined +++
* Stargate Universe ++++
TV show I'm willing to consider:
* "Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles" (I've seen a few episodes and the series had lots of potential, but it was axed)
TV series I liked back in the day:
* "Babylon 5"
* "Time Trax" and
* "TimeCop" (both shows very similar in concept) — don't ask me why, but there was a particular night about ten or even more years ago when a Nazi-themed episode of "TimeCop" aired on one channel and later that night another channel featured the "Philadelphia Experiment II" film (the plot of which is very, very reminiscent of ENT's "Storm Front," Parts I & II). I must have seen this one a decade or more ago on German TV.
wrt "Enterprise", I'm going to add that I've gone through a marathon of a number of episodes and now seem to have greater appreciation of it, despite the continuity flaws and all.
With the exception of Jolene Blalock, none of the primary characters are very astounding or particularly deep, so I'd add that the storylines, vfx and guest actors add the most spice, especially Jeffrey Combs as Shran and John Fleck, who most fabulously played Silik.
What I would have done to the cast: Phlox should have been killed off or reassigned to Cold Station 12 in Season 1/Season 2, somehow replaced by Silik to "play doctor". Silik could have been disowned by his very own Suliban Cabal, for example. Unfortunately, he was put to the very top of the Cabal food chain, so there wasn't anyone to replace him, but I'm sure Future Guy could have made necessary arrangements to the past to affect Silik's life in as punishment for some infraction...
So, in any absence of a good doctor in uncharted territories, the deliciously bad-@$$ Silik could have then slowly gained the Enterprise crew's trust, but still stay sneaky and cause surprises and trouble, yet remaining too essential for the crew to be replaceable by any Federation-approved doctor.
Silik's unfamiliarity with the Hippocratic Oath could have added another layer of drama; his expert knowledge in very many things Milky Way Galaxy could have given an addition to suspense and provided a different dimension of knowledge compared to T'Pol's Vulcan-sanitized view.
The only caveat that I see with Silik's appearance is whether there was such colour makeup paint at the time for Silik's apperance that wouldn't adversely affect an actor's internal organs the way it happened to Virginia Hey in Farscape.
laupäev, 4. juuni 2011
Miks Stargate Universe tegemine tühistati
See kõik on kahtlused ja spekulatsioon, kuid faktilised andmed vähemalt annavad teatud pildi sellest, mis võis olla "Stargate Universe" tühistamise taga.
Ameerika telekanal SyFy otsustas SGU tegemist eelmise aasta lõpus mitte uuendada peale seda kui MGM läks planeeritud pankrotikaitsesse (Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection). SGU finantseerimine oli SyFy ja MGM vahel pooleks. SyFy on USA kaabelkanal, mis kuulub NBC Universal alla ja viimase omanikud on 51% Comcast, 49% General Electric. Enne MGM pankrotikaitsesse astumist oli Comcast 20% MGM omanik (teistest meediaettevõtetest oli ka Sony 20% omanik). Kui MGM pankrotikaitsest väljus, sai MGM endale täiesti uue omanikeringi.
Võib väita, et SGU oli rohkem korporatiivpoliitika kui reitingute ohver. Minu kahtluste järgi võis MGM-ist voolata selle omanike taskusse suurel hulgal raha, niigi nõrgenenud MGM oli lõpuks suurtes võlgades ja ei suutnud enam võlgu üleval pidada. MGM on peale selle veel konkurent NBC Universal (Comcast) ja Sony stuudiotele.
Minu väitel võib olla kaalu, kuna ammugi võlgades MGM potentsiaalsed ostjad ütlesid 2008. ja 2009. aastatel, et nad enne MGM-i endale ei osta kui viimane läheb pankrotikaitse protsessist läbi, misjärel endised omanikud ettevõtet rohkem enam ei oma. — Sest võimalikud ostjad ei teadnud mitte ainult, et MGM-i rahaseis on vilets, vaid ka seda, et sealt voolab raha välja. Seetõttu nad nõudsidki ostu peatingimusena MGM-ile pankrotikaitsest läbiminekut, et raha äravoolule lõpp teha.
SyFy tõenäoliselt omab veel SGU-le ekslusiivset lepingut SGU uute osade esimesteks näitamisteks ja ma arvan, et leping veel kehtib. SGU-d loodeti teha 5 hooaega ja võib oletada, et leping kehtib viis aastat. Isegi kui MGM tahaks sarja kogu Stargate frantsiisi omanikuna teistel kanalitel näidata, ei ole see eksklusiivlepingu pärast võimalik — oletatavasti ootab MGM-i rikkumise eest suur leppetrahv, kui MGM SGU-d enne teatud aega mujal näitab. Ning nii ootab MGM, kuni leping otsa lõpeb ja MGM-l on siis vabadus SGU-d teistele Ameerika kanalitele pakkuda.
SGU madalate reitingute üheks põhjuseks võis olla osade "Stargate SG-1" ja "Stargate Atlantis" fännide äärmiselt valulik reaktsioon SGU võetud uue ja realistlikuma kvaliteedi suhtes, mispeale hakkasid need fännid SGU sarja infantiilselt vihkama ja seda muidugi ka mitte vaatama.
* Teine põhjus on see, et USA-s valitsev Nielseni reitingusüsteem on oma aja ära elanud, sest paljud inimesed enam telekat ei vaata ja vaatavad telesaateid alternatiivsete allikate kaudu.
* Kolmas põhjus on see, et SyFy kandis SGU reedeõhtuselt ajalt teisipäevaõhtusele ajale ja SyFy (endise nimega SciFi) tõi samale ajale ameerika wrestlingu. Teisipäevasele õhtule ülekandmisega "uskus" SyFy, et siis on ehk paremad reitingud, aga viga tehti selles, et ei arvestatud suviste ja sügiseste hooaegade erinevustega, kus antud käik oleks suvise hooaja puhul töötanud, aga sügisel olid samal ajal suurteks konkurentideks "Navy NCIS" protseduurisari ja "Tantsud tähtedega" Ameerika variant.
* Väidetakse, et SyFy kandis SGU üle meelega halvale ajale, et reitingud viletsad oleksid ja et siis oleks võimalik kuulutada SGU näitamine kahjumlikuks ja saada mingi suurem maksusoodustus, millele üks SGU produtsente Joseph Mallozzi viitas, küll mitte otsesõnu.
Vot nii.
Ameerika telekanal SyFy otsustas SGU tegemist eelmise aasta lõpus mitte uuendada peale seda kui MGM läks planeeritud pankrotikaitsesse (Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection). SGU finantseerimine oli SyFy ja MGM vahel pooleks. SyFy on USA kaabelkanal, mis kuulub NBC Universal alla ja viimase omanikud on 51% Comcast, 49% General Electric. Enne MGM pankrotikaitsesse astumist oli Comcast 20% MGM omanik (teistest meediaettevõtetest oli ka Sony 20% omanik). Kui MGM pankrotikaitsest väljus, sai MGM endale täiesti uue omanikeringi.
Võib väita, et SGU oli rohkem korporatiivpoliitika kui reitingute ohver. Minu kahtluste järgi võis MGM-ist voolata selle omanike taskusse suurel hulgal raha, niigi nõrgenenud MGM oli lõpuks suurtes võlgades ja ei suutnud enam võlgu üleval pidada. MGM on peale selle veel konkurent NBC Universal (Comcast) ja Sony stuudiotele.
Minu väitel võib olla kaalu, kuna ammugi võlgades MGM potentsiaalsed ostjad ütlesid 2008. ja 2009. aastatel, et nad enne MGM-i endale ei osta kui viimane läheb pankrotikaitse protsessist läbi, misjärel endised omanikud ettevõtet rohkem enam ei oma. — Sest võimalikud ostjad ei teadnud mitte ainult, et MGM-i rahaseis on vilets, vaid ka seda, et sealt voolab raha välja. Seetõttu nad nõudsidki ostu peatingimusena MGM-ile pankrotikaitsest läbiminekut, et raha äravoolule lõpp teha.
SyFy tõenäoliselt omab veel SGU-le ekslusiivset lepingut SGU uute osade esimesteks näitamisteks ja ma arvan, et leping veel kehtib. SGU-d loodeti teha 5 hooaega ja võib oletada, et leping kehtib viis aastat. Isegi kui MGM tahaks sarja kogu Stargate frantsiisi omanikuna teistel kanalitel näidata, ei ole see eksklusiivlepingu pärast võimalik — oletatavasti ootab MGM-i rikkumise eest suur leppetrahv, kui MGM SGU-d enne teatud aega mujal näitab. Ning nii ootab MGM, kuni leping otsa lõpeb ja MGM-l on siis vabadus SGU-d teistele Ameerika kanalitele pakkuda.
SGU madalate reitingute üheks põhjuseks võis olla osade "Stargate SG-1" ja "Stargate Atlantis" fännide äärmiselt valulik reaktsioon SGU võetud uue ja realistlikuma kvaliteedi suhtes, mispeale hakkasid need fännid SGU sarja infantiilselt vihkama ja seda muidugi ka mitte vaatama.
* Teine põhjus on see, et USA-s valitsev Nielseni reitingusüsteem on oma aja ära elanud, sest paljud inimesed enam telekat ei vaata ja vaatavad telesaateid alternatiivsete allikate kaudu.
* Kolmas põhjus on see, et SyFy kandis SGU reedeõhtuselt ajalt teisipäevaõhtusele ajale ja SyFy (endise nimega SciFi) tõi samale ajale ameerika wrestlingu. Teisipäevasele õhtule ülekandmisega "uskus" SyFy, et siis on ehk paremad reitingud, aga viga tehti selles, et ei arvestatud suviste ja sügiseste hooaegade erinevustega, kus antud käik oleks suvise hooaja puhul töötanud, aga sügisel olid samal ajal suurteks konkurentideks "Navy NCIS" protseduurisari ja "Tantsud tähtedega" Ameerika variant.
* Väidetakse, et SyFy kandis SGU üle meelega halvale ajale, et reitingud viletsad oleksid ja et siis oleks võimalik kuulutada SGU näitamine kahjumlikuks ja saada mingi suurem maksusoodustus, millele üks SGU produtsente Joseph Mallozzi viitas, küll mitte otsesõnu.
Vot nii.
Kas päike võib tulevikus ikkagi pilve tagant paista?
Lootust muidugi veel on, sest produtsendid ja näitlejad on öelnud, et ettenähtavas tulevikus SGU-d ei tehta. Kolm aastat ootamist, nagu vähemalt SGU-st endas lõpuks teada saab, on nähtavasti varjatud vihje eksklusiivlepingule SyFy-ga ja et selle lõpp tuleb ära oodata. Samal ajal on MGM-il soojas uus Bondi-film ja kaks "Kääbiku"-filmi ning selle kolme aasta jooksul on MGM-il siis ka aega koguda raha päris oma asjade tegemiseks. MGM-i asju ajab praegu Spyglass Entertainment, kust tuleb $500 miljonit laenu või investeeringuid, millega teha praeguseid ja tuleviku-projekte, mille pealt oleks võimalik teenida ja saadud tulu investeerida näiteks SGU tegemisse. Et siis kolme aastaga on lootust saada ka piisavalt raha, et SGU-d edasi teha ja siis mitte tingimata SyFy-s näidata.kolmapäev, 11. mai 2011
2011. Eurovisiooni lauluvõistluse I vooru lemmikud ja tulemused
| Esinemisjärjekord | Hinne | Igast märkmed | ||||||||
| 1. | Poola | ... | ||||||||
| 2. | Norra | ~ | "haba haba" | |||||||
| 3. | Albaania | ++ | ||||||||
| 4. | Armeenia | ~ | "boom boom" | |||||||
| 5. | Türgi | ... | ||||||||
| finaal | + | 6. | Serbia | ++++ | /super retro ja estraad | |||||
| finaal | 7. | Venemaa | ... | /vaherepliike vihkan, muidu oleks saanud hinnata | ||||||
| finaal | 8. | Šveits | ++ | /aeglane | ||||||
| finaal | + | 9. | Gruusia | +++ | /väga elav | |||||
| finaal | + | 10. | Soome | ++++ | "Da-da-dam" :> | |||||
| 11. | Malta | + | (shimeil :) | |||||||
| 12. | San Marino | +++ | ||||||||
| 13. | Horvaatia | ++ | ||||||||
| finaal | + | 14. | Island | +++ | /1 pluss oli musi eest ^_^ | |||||
| finaal | + | 15. | Ungari | +++ | /geihümn | |||||
| + | 16. | Portugal | +++ | /for creativity | ||||||
| bööö, sai finaali! | 17. | Leedu | + | /nõrk, nõrk, nõrk | ||||||
| finaal | + | 18. | Aserbaidžaan | ++++ | ||||||
neljapäev, 28. aprill 2011
The Golden Age of Mustamäe
In reply to Giustino's missed america
I guess what Giustino is referring to about the simpler times of 1950's is what for some people resembled the Golden Era, a time, probably ending in 1940's when things were good and fine in America. I can't really put a spot on that one, but this might be a span of time before television took hold in the States, so for a similar reminiscense of "old good times", this time before the time of television, I'd tentatively put The Golden Age of Radio as the one.
When I further thought of this and similar terms, I realised that they have a tendency to come to use well after a period of growth and/or progress has (either gradually or abruptly) ended, in a time when people are a whole lot more sober about their outlook and look at the past with some nostalgia.
This is the kind of past that is not always known by today's contemporaries, but passed down by their older brethren and ancestors, through folklore and culture. We may not have a first-hand feeling of what the 1950's were like, but we've seen it in in the movies, read about it from the books.
Perhaps most interestingly, the books and movies that we refer to when reminiscing about an era may have had less significance in their time than now.
Some cultural items that proffer to establish in the minds of masses the way how things felt like at the time fail to do so, IMO, and some don't.
It's difficult to assess nostalgia. Sometimes it's as simple as having a meal with friends (or alone) in a local diner, or that you actually spent quite a lot more time actually talking, discussing, and interacting with friends and family.
"Nüüd elan Mustamäel...", which Liivimaa parim ratsutaja referred to, is "Mustamäe valss", the lyrics for which can be found here. The page has an inset which says that the song was written in 1971 and explains that Mustamäe was first known as All-Nõmme or Mustamäe-alune (I'm too tired to parse all this into English). The inset explains further that to people suffering from cramped dwellings in "wooden" districts, a spacious property seemed like a godsend.
I guess what Giustino is referring to about the simpler times of 1950's is what for some people resembled the Golden Era, a time, probably ending in 1940's when things were good and fine in America. I can't really put a spot on that one, but this might be a span of time before television took hold in the States, so for a similar reminiscense of "old good times", this time before the time of television, I'd tentatively put The Golden Age of Radio as the one.
When I further thought of this and similar terms, I realised that they have a tendency to come to use well after a period of growth and/or progress has (either gradually or abruptly) ended, in a time when people are a whole lot more sober about their outlook and look at the past with some nostalgia.
This is the kind of past that is not always known by today's contemporaries, but passed down by their older brethren and ancestors, through folklore and culture. We may not have a first-hand feeling of what the 1950's were like, but we've seen it in in the movies, read about it from the books.
Perhaps most interestingly, the books and movies that we refer to when reminiscing about an era may have had less significance in their time than now.
Some cultural items that proffer to establish in the minds of masses the way how things felt like at the time fail to do so, IMO, and some don't.
It's difficult to assess nostalgia. Sometimes it's as simple as having a meal with friends (or alone) in a local diner, or that you actually spent quite a lot more time actually talking, discussing, and interacting with friends and family.
"Nüüd elan Mustamäel...", which Liivimaa parim ratsutaja referred to, is "Mustamäe valss", the lyrics for which can be found here. The page has an inset which says that the song was written in 1971 and explains that Mustamäe was first known as All-Nõmme or Mustamäe-alune (I'm too tired to parse all this into English). The inset explains further that to people suffering from cramped dwellings in "wooden" districts, a spacious property seemed like a godsend.
Historically, before Mustamäe and Õismäe and Lasnamäe, there were more wooden houses and dwellings across all of Tallinn than Kalamaja (which is just representative of the type). A large amount of those wooden houses have been replaced by newer fare both in Soviet and post-Soviet times.Even in 1980's, upgrading from ühiskorter (communal apartment) in ühiselamu (ühikas) or a one-room flat to a three-room flat anywhere in the city was like a huge stroke of luck. I know there are absurd-sounding, but probably true stories of even three generations living in a one- or two-room flat, and maybe a cat and a dog, too. In those times, a three-room flat was never unreasonable, but a dream not always attainable; well-todo people had a four-room flat and teh rich ppl had a private house, or eramaja :)More on ühiskorter in Estonian Wikipedia can be read about in article talk about the term.
esmaspäev, 18. aprill 2011
U.S. tax primer for foreigners and non-U.S. residents
A fine dude named Justin posted a comment at Giustino's blog, only that Justin's comment was lost there, but I still have it, because I subscribed to receive comments to some of Giustino's posts.
Giustino's advice is to consult with an accountant.
My own advice is to also consult the IRS homepage.
And don't forget to consider all of the other comments at Giustino's blog post where the tax topic came up; my favourite was by liimneliivlane, who suggested you register with your embassy and and ask around, if and when they hold an annual 'town hall' meeting.
Justin:
Giustino's advice is to consult with an accountant.
My own advice is to also consult the IRS homepage.
And don't forget to consider all of the other comments at Giustino's blog post where the tax topic came up; my favourite was by liimneliivlane, who suggested you register with your embassy and and ask around, if and when they hold an annual 'town hall' meeting.
Justin:
Argh I wrote a long comment and there was some error on Blogger when I tried to post it. Here's a quick summary:I do my taxes every year with Turbotax and it can handle things well. Just keep all your documentation on file in case of an inquiry from the IRS.
- File a 1040, not a 1040NR or W-8BEN.
- Declare your income in Estonia, but also take a credit for income tax already paid (it's on page 2 of the 1040, callled Foreign Tax Credit).
- No double taxation due to the tax treaty in place. Also because incomes tend to be lower in Estonia than in the US, you may not owe anything to the US since that will put you in a lower tax bracket.
- Declare all your foreign bank accounts on form TD-F 90-22.1. Don't forget this, as they are really cracking down this year. Remember to mail this to a separate address from your normal tax filing.
- Read Publication 54 from the IRS as it's specifically for expats.
- Expats usually get an automatic 3-month extension of time to file (Pub 54 will explain this).
- Be sure to file a tax return. If you don't this can come back to bite you later like if you need to apply for a green card for a relative -- they check tax filing status at that time.
- If you own an Estonian business, file a Form 5471. This is the only form not built into Turbotax so just fill in the PDF on the IRS website and print it.
- Don't forget to declare any substantial interest (I think it's more than $10/year) you earned on your Estonian bank accounts on Schedule B.
Language code
In reaction to “Igal tibil on auto tänapäeval”
@Giustino:
If the two men spoke Estonian with you, then it's best not to switch code.
I can bet the dude who you told "Thank you" to in Russian did understand what you said, yet I am sure was also dismayed that you spoke Russian to him by assuming he was Russian, only because he spoke the language with his lady friend. How and which tongue is he going to use in the public with his romantic interest after such an incident? Their speaking Russian with each other is their thing, even if the lady friend was potentially proficient in Estonian, too.
And in parts of Estonia that are not Tallinn and Ida-Virumaa, Estonian is lingua franca anyway. In Tartu, you don't encounter people asking which language do you speak, because the assumed language is Estonian.
Your situation reminded me of what AnTyx not so long ago wrote about.
I can well vouch as to what most patriotic Estonians now think of your friend Kristjan, who thinks our right-of-centre politicians to be neocons while they are not. I can even guess what party he is supporting.
@Giustino:
If the two men spoke Estonian with you, then it's best not to switch code.
I can bet the dude who you told "Thank you" to in Russian did understand what you said, yet I am sure was also dismayed that you spoke Russian to him by assuming he was Russian, only because he spoke the language with his lady friend. How and which tongue is he going to use in the public with his romantic interest after such an incident? Their speaking Russian with each other is their thing, even if the lady friend was potentially proficient in Estonian, too.
And in parts of Estonia that are not Tallinn and Ida-Virumaa, Estonian is lingua franca anyway. In Tartu, you don't encounter people asking which language do you speak, because the assumed language is Estonian.
Your situation reminded me of what AnTyx not so long ago wrote about.
I can well vouch as to what most patriotic Estonians now think of your friend Kristjan, who thinks our right-of-centre politicians to be neocons while they are not. I can even guess what party he is supporting.
pühapäev, 17. aprill 2011
Giustino's best
Comment to Giustino's writeup "the missionary position" and comments to it, just in case it again fails to appear after I've deleted my original comment.
@Giustino:
I guess The ERR interview, where you describe Estonians to other people who might not know much about us, was odd, yet only so much fits into one article (or a blurb).
Your current writeup is very good and I then realized that your attitude was very Estonian (someone has concurred, also).
Indeed, there are some things in Estonia that can be changed and then some in this country that can't be changed (overnight).
The petty things might change over time; the more pressing stuff may require citizen action. (See the Raha lastele campaign, wherein parents are protesting against the Centrist-ruled Tallinn earmarking more money to its own propaganda-tv thing than the kindergartens, and then also ignoring numerous roads needy of repair and other high-priority stuff.)
I do agree with some of what Piimapukk wrote regarding age, where the oft-youthful need to change the world is replaced with things closer to the heart.
• The Tallinn-Tartu highway tames itself, with speed cameras and reconstructions (there will be less of those around Estonia this year because of cuts).
• "Missionary position" = "The White Man's Burden"... (?)
I remember a very uptight personality who was Swedish and who in late 2007 instead of concentrating on work thought himself to be so much holier-than-thou that he could imply in his lectures to a nice group of fifteen local people about how the way of life here in Estonia was wrong. With this and many other antics I believe he lost all trust of the class.
Fixed a glaring mistake in the original comment, with minor other rewordings and updates.
@Giustino:
I guess The ERR interview, where you describe Estonians to other people who might not know much about us, was odd, yet only so much fits into one article (or a blurb).
Your current writeup is very good and I then realized that your attitude was very Estonian (someone has concurred, also).
Indeed, there are some things in Estonia that can be changed and then some in this country that can't be changed (overnight).
The petty things might change over time; the more pressing stuff may require citizen action. (See the Raha lastele campaign, wherein parents are protesting against the Centrist-ruled Tallinn earmarking more money to its own propaganda-tv thing than the kindergartens, and then also ignoring numerous roads needy of repair and other high-priority stuff.)
I do agree with some of what Piimapukk wrote regarding age, where the oft-youthful need to change the world is replaced with things closer to the heart.
• The Tallinn-Tartu highway tames itself, with speed cameras and reconstructions (there will be less of those around Estonia this year because of cuts).
• "Missionary position" = "The White Man's Burden"... (?)
I remember a very uptight personality who was Swedish and who in late 2007 instead of concentrating on work thought himself to be so much holier-than-thou that he could imply in his lectures to a nice group of fifteen local people about how the way of life here in Estonia was wrong. With this and many other antics I believe he lost all trust of the class.
Fixed a glaring mistake in the original comment, with minor other rewordings and updates.
reede, 25. märts 2011
Estonia's Kyoto deal
This post is in reaction to comments to a post by AnTyx about Estonia's acquisition of electric cars by Mitsubishi for trading pollution quotas (or, if you will, emissions — also called assigned amount units or AAU's) to Japan under the Kyoto Protocol).
The rare-earth metals issue is half-moot: It's not so much about mining them, but producing and processing them to some usable state, and outside China, Estonia's Silmet are like the only supplier (a few moons ago there were articles about Silmet both in EPL and The Economist); while Australia et al. are restarting production — they had to stop, because Chinese supplies were so cheap, and then China raised prices when it turned out that they were the only major producer and supplier (like there's anything new in such a world of business).
So I figured that this isn't just pure chance that Mitsubishi, Japan, and Estonia got off with this a great deal wrt. pollution quotas and electric cars (the batteries of which require rare-earth metals :).
The rare-earth metals issue is half-moot: It's not so much about mining them, but producing and processing them to some usable state, and outside China, Estonia's Silmet are like the only supplier (a few moons ago there were articles about Silmet both in EPL and The Economist); while Australia et al. are restarting production — they had to stop, because Chinese supplies were so cheap, and then China raised prices when it turned out that they were the only major producer and supplier (like there's anything new in such a world of business).
So I figured that this isn't just pure chance that Mitsubishi, Japan, and Estonia got off with this a great deal wrt. pollution quotas and electric cars (the batteries of which require rare-earth metals :).
reede, 11. märts 2011
Venelased, valimised, väljaränne
Kommentaar Jevgeni Ossinovski poolt "Postimehes" väljaöeldule:
"Vene noored ei huvitu poliitikast, nende valdavaks eesmärgiks on välismaale siirdumine."Sellest johtuvalt ongi Keskerakonna valimiskampaanias ja retoorikas juttu "suurest väljarändest" ja et siis eeldatavasti noorte vene rahvusest väljarännanute mingil moel tagasi saamise püüetega, sest tegemist on ju selle erakonna potentsiaalse elektoraadi teatud eemaldumisega nii Eestist kui ka siinsest poliitikast.
laupäev, 19. veebruar 2011
Türi
This comment is in reference to what Piimapukk wrote and in reaction to what viimenliivlane wrote in comment to Giustino's blog post "the vanity of giustino." The reason this comment was posted here was that my comment was deleted — when I reloaded the page sometime after having posted, this one was lost.
@viimneliivlane:
I first thought on 19.02.2011., 17:39 that
"
Türil is still literally and grammatically correct :P
"
— but then started having doubts:
The inessive (seesütlev) -s suffix means being inside of something, like Tallinnas (olen linnas/Räpinas/Elvas; illative/sisseütlev with läksin Tallinnasse, läksin linna), but some placenames that encompass a piece of land (like Türi or Mustamäe) require being on them grammatically: Türil, Mustamäel.
So, when going somewhere, declining placenames refers to going into them or onto them (Tallinnasse, Otepääle, respectively).
Yet when moving oneself ontop of something, then läksin mäe peale ([I] went on a hill), kõndisin/ronisin mäe otsa ([I] walked/climbed ontop of a hill), ronisin puu otsa ([I] climbed onto a tree). Speaking of trees and other vertical constructs (as far as I have understood): Notwithstanding whether one is on a tree or ontop of a tree, the person is still puu otsas. Anything (or anyone) that's physically attached to a tree, including branches, on puu küljes. Puu peal applies once the tree or a large piece of wood (horizontally) lies on the ground. On a tree and on its branch: puu otsas oksa peal.
In case of Türil, then the grammar cancels the raunchiness out, by design, methinks, because if I do take into account the dirty form, then it's in plural partitive (osastava mitmuses) already and that can't be further declined or construed in any other way than what it politely means. So there.
@viimneliivlane:
I first thought on 19.02.2011., 17:39 that
"
Türil is still literally and grammatically correct :P
"
— but then started having doubts:
The inessive (seesütlev) -s suffix means being inside of something, like Tallinnas (olen linnas/Räpinas/Elvas; illative/sisseütlev with läksin Tallinnasse, läksin linna), but some placenames that encompass a piece of land (like Türi or Mustamäe) require being on them grammatically: Türil, Mustamäel.
So, when going somewhere, declining placenames refers to going into them or onto them (Tallinnasse, Otepääle, respectively).
Yet when moving oneself ontop of something, then läksin mäe peale ([I] went on a hill), kõndisin/ronisin mäe otsa ([I] walked/climbed ontop of a hill), ronisin puu otsa ([I] climbed onto a tree). Speaking of trees and other vertical constructs (as far as I have understood): Notwithstanding whether one is on a tree or ontop of a tree, the person is still puu otsas. Anything (or anyone) that's physically attached to a tree, including branches, on puu küljes. Puu peal applies once the tree or a large piece of wood (horizontally) lies on the ground. On a tree and on its branch: puu otsas oksa peal.
In case of Türil, then the grammar cancels the raunchiness out, by design, methinks, because if I do take into account the dirty form, then it's in plural partitive (osastava mitmuses) already and that can't be further declined or construed in any other way than what it politely means. So there.
Ford ja miks mina selle autosid ei ostaks
Pisuke kommentaar E24 artiklile "Ford leidis Vene sõbra".
- Ford müüs Volvo hiinlastele.
- Ford tegi Venemaaga sobingu, et seal autosid
toota.Vt. kõigeülemine link artiklile Tõsi, see pole küll väga haruldane, kuid mulle käib üle mõistuse, et Lääne autotootjad oma suurest ahnusest tahavad müüa oma toodangut pool-, võlts- ja mittedemokraatiatele. Milleks küll?Fiat on küll muidugi pettunud, kuid nüüd on veelgi rohkem põhjust Fordi poolt mitte olla. Kes veel ei tea, siis Venemaal toodetakse ka BMW-sid.Muidugi on suurem põhjus selles, et nii Venemaal kui ka Hiinas on väga-väga karmid tollid selleks, et siis kaitsta oma autotööstust.Teine põhjus on selles, et mõlemad riigid tahavad endale suhtkoht niisama Lääne autotootmise tehnoloogiat.
teisipäev, 11. jaanuar 2011
Me ei vaja uut valimisseadust
Asi on paljuski selles, et meil Eestis kehtib (modifitseeritud) D'Hondt-i meetod, mille kasutustulemus on see, et Eestis valitakse erakondi ja mitte isikuid/kandidaate.
Punktiga "võitja saab kõik" (ehk "First Past the Post", nagu seda näiteks Ühendkuningriikide valimissüsteemi lihtsustatult kirjeldatakse), kus kõige rohkem hääli saanud partei saab võitjaks, ei ole ma üldse nõus.
Nimelt seetõttu, et kui kõige rohkem hääli saanud partei vaated (korruptiivsus ja riigikorra õõnestamise soov) erinevad diametraalselt ülejäänud parlamendi vaadetega, ei taha mina üldse, et säärane partei võimule saaks. Eriti veel, kui kogu rahva enamus selle partei poolt hääletanud ei ole.
Mõttekas ongi praegune süsteem, kui ebameeldiva partei ja ka opositsiooni esindajate vastaseid on parlamendis proportsionaalselt rohkem, siis võidu saab loomulikult kooslus, mida toetab suurem rahva enamus. — Näitlikus olukorras, kus parlamendis on 101 kohta, ei saagi "sotsiaalselt hooliv" partei või parteide kooslus võitu (valitsusse) isegi siis, kui säärane partei on saanud kõige rohkem hääli, kuid vaid 30 kohta Riigikogus ning teine lihtinimese jaoks sarnaste vaadetega partei 15 kohta (mõlema peale kokku 45 või näiteks 30+8+7, kui on kolm sarnaste/kattuvate vaadetega parteid); ainult et sellisel juhul puudub nendel parlamendis ikkagi enamus: teisel pool on 56 parlamendiliiget, kes kuuluvad paremerakondadesse. Peale koalitsiooniläbirääkimisi otsustavad 56 parlamendisaadikut saanud erakonnad moodutada koalitsiooni või seda jätkata. President samuti arvutab veidi, teeb omad järeldused ja annab ülesande valitsuse moodustada erakonnal, mis sai maailmavaatelise enamuse saanud ja kokkuleppe moodustanud blokis (56) kõige rohkem parlamentääre (kui see erakond sai 30 häält ja teine 26).
Maailmavaateline enamus kuulub erakondade kooslusele, milline hoiab poliitilist liini, mis oleks riigile ja rahvale kasulik (ja mitte kahjulik).
Eestis moodustavad riigile ja rahvale (et riik ongi rahvas) hea koosluse nö valged erakonnad, kelle hulka kuuluvad Isamaa ja Res Publica Liit, Reform, Sotsiaaldemokraadid ja Rohelised. Rahvaliit jääb nende lähedale, sest minu arusaamist mööda ei ole nende üldine joon õõnestada või kahjustada riiklust. Keskerakond nende hulka ei kuulu.
Maailmavaateliselt suudaksid Keskerakonnaga koos olla Reform (Kallase valitsus), Sotsiaaldemokraadid (Tallinna linnavalitsuses Pihliga) ja võib-olla Rahvaliit (sest nagu ka Keskerakond, on nad on praegu opositsioonis, kuid võivad vajadusel hääletada koalitsiooniga koos).
Näide elust: Keskerakond valitsusse igal juhul ei saa, sest rahva enamus on hääletanud nende erakondade poolt, mis on Keskerakonna vastu. Samamoodi ei ole Edgar Savisaar kunagi olnud taasiseseisvunud Eesti Vabariigi peaminister.
• Jüri Saare hinnang, milles ta ei pea Eesti praegust poliitilist- ja valimissüsteemi võrrelduna arenenud Lääne demokraatiatega millekski, on kohatu ja küüniline.
Esiteks on Eesti nii ajalooliselt kui kultuuriliselt alati olnud Lääne osa ja seda ka nüüdki, kui me kuulume Euroopa Liitu, NATO-sse, OECD-sse, oleme Eurotsooni liige ja Schengeni viisaruumis. Ning mis siis, et me ei ole veel nii rikkad. Rikkuse saavutamine ei ole pelgalt aastate, vaid aastakümnete töö.
Eesti valimissüsteemis kasutatav D'Hondt-i meetod on kasutusel Islandil, Soomes, Taanis, Hollandis, Belgias, Austrias, Hispaanias, Portugalis, Jaapanis, Šotimaal, Walesis ja Põhja-Iirimaal.
Kõigis nendes riikides on Eestiga võrreldes osaliselt või suuresti pikem demokraatiakogemus ning Eesti demokraatia ja valimissüsteem on oma praegustelt põhimõtetelt täiesti võrreldav nende riikide demokraatiatega.
Et Eestile on kasulik nö valgete ja/või ka paremerakondade võim, tuleneb sellest, et seni kuni Riigikokku ja kohalikule tasandile satuvad ka Eesti maa ja rahva kahjuks kallutatud jõud, tuleb alatasa (olukorrale vastavalt mitte tingimata kogu aeg) tegelda sellega, et Eestile kahjulikud jõud võimule ei saaks ning et nende võimalused juba omatavat võimu kuritarvitada oleksid võimalikult piiratud.
Kuni olukord praeguse riigikorra ülalhoidmiseks täielikult lahenenud ei ole, siis senimaani ongi kogu ülaltoodut arvestades jäänud Eestis laiem poliitiline diskursus (arutlustase) ahtakeseks: poliitiline välisvaenalane hingab liiga lähedalt kuklasse ja lihtlabane "krae üleskeeramine" siinjuhul ei aita.
Kõigest sellest johtuvalt näiteks käibki Tallinna ja riigi omavaheline kemplemine ning korruptsiooniskandaalid Keskerakonna ümber.
Ning on tõesti tõsi, et kuna poliitiline diskursus on aher, sest Eesti on endast sõltumatutel põhjustel mitmeski mõttes ellujäämisrežiimis, saavad kannatada ka need erinevad rahvakihid, kes algmisel ja lihtsamal tasandil tõesti vajavad toetust, kaitset ja hoolivust. Meil lihtsalt ei ole seda luksust turvalisusele, mida on belglastel, kes saavad nautida oma maa valitsuskriisi (selle moodustamise kriisi) flaamide ja valloonide pideva kemplemise pärast.
Tõepoolest, Eesti demokraatias on palju arenguruumi.
Jüri Saare esitatud drastilisi variante mina mingil juhul ei toetada ei saa. See-eest Delfi kommentaariumis
Punktiga "võitja saab kõik" (ehk "First Past the Post", nagu seda näiteks Ühendkuningriikide valimissüsteemi lihtsustatult kirjeldatakse), kus kõige rohkem hääli saanud partei saab võitjaks, ei ole ma üldse nõus.
Nimelt seetõttu, et kui kõige rohkem hääli saanud partei vaated (korruptiivsus ja riigikorra õõnestamise soov) erinevad diametraalselt ülejäänud parlamendi vaadetega, ei taha mina üldse, et säärane partei võimule saaks. Eriti veel, kui kogu rahva enamus selle partei poolt hääletanud ei ole.
Mõttekas ongi praegune süsteem, kui ebameeldiva partei ja ka opositsiooni esindajate vastaseid on parlamendis proportsionaalselt rohkem, siis võidu saab loomulikult kooslus, mida toetab suurem rahva enamus. — Näitlikus olukorras, kus parlamendis on 101 kohta, ei saagi "sotsiaalselt hooliv" partei või parteide kooslus võitu (valitsusse) isegi siis, kui säärane partei on saanud kõige rohkem hääli, kuid vaid 30 kohta Riigikogus ning teine lihtinimese jaoks sarnaste vaadetega partei 15 kohta (mõlema peale kokku 45 või näiteks 30+8+7, kui on kolm sarnaste/kattuvate vaadetega parteid); ainult et sellisel juhul puudub nendel parlamendis ikkagi enamus: teisel pool on 56 parlamendiliiget, kes kuuluvad paremerakondadesse. Peale koalitsiooniläbirääkimisi otsustavad 56 parlamendisaadikut saanud erakonnad moodutada koalitsiooni või seda jätkata. President samuti arvutab veidi, teeb omad järeldused ja annab ülesande valitsuse moodustada erakonnal, mis sai maailmavaatelise enamuse saanud ja kokkuleppe moodustanud blokis (56) kõige rohkem parlamentääre (kui see erakond sai 30 häält ja teine 26).
Maailmavaateline enamus kuulub erakondade kooslusele, milline hoiab poliitilist liini, mis oleks riigile ja rahvale kasulik (ja mitte kahjulik).
Eestis moodustavad riigile ja rahvale (et riik ongi rahvas) hea koosluse nö valged erakonnad, kelle hulka kuuluvad Isamaa ja Res Publica Liit, Reform, Sotsiaaldemokraadid ja Rohelised. Rahvaliit jääb nende lähedale, sest minu arusaamist mööda ei ole nende üldine joon õõnestada või kahjustada riiklust. Keskerakond nende hulka ei kuulu.
Maailmavaateliselt suudaksid Keskerakonnaga koos olla Reform (Kallase valitsus), Sotsiaaldemokraadid (Tallinna linnavalitsuses Pihliga) ja võib-olla Rahvaliit (sest nagu ka Keskerakond, on nad on praegu opositsioonis, kuid võivad vajadusel hääletada koalitsiooniga koos).
Näide elust: Keskerakond valitsusse igal juhul ei saa, sest rahva enamus on hääletanud nende erakondade poolt, mis on Keskerakonna vastu. Samamoodi ei ole Edgar Savisaar kunagi olnud taasiseseisvunud Eesti Vabariigi peaminister.
• Jüri Saare hinnang, milles ta ei pea Eesti praegust poliitilist- ja valimissüsteemi võrrelduna arenenud Lääne demokraatiatega millekski, on kohatu ja küüniline.
Esiteks on Eesti nii ajalooliselt kui kultuuriliselt alati olnud Lääne osa ja seda ka nüüdki, kui me kuulume Euroopa Liitu, NATO-sse, OECD-sse, oleme Eurotsooni liige ja Schengeni viisaruumis. Ning mis siis, et me ei ole veel nii rikkad. Rikkuse saavutamine ei ole pelgalt aastate, vaid aastakümnete töö.
Eesti valimissüsteemis kasutatav D'Hondt-i meetod on kasutusel Islandil, Soomes, Taanis, Hollandis, Belgias, Austrias, Hispaanias, Portugalis, Jaapanis, Šotimaal, Walesis ja Põhja-Iirimaal.
Kõigis nendes riikides on Eestiga võrreldes osaliselt või suuresti pikem demokraatiakogemus ning Eesti demokraatia ja valimissüsteem on oma praegustelt põhimõtetelt täiesti võrreldav nende riikide demokraatiatega.
Et Eestile on kasulik nö valgete ja/või ka paremerakondade võim, tuleneb sellest, et seni kuni Riigikokku ja kohalikule tasandile satuvad ka Eesti maa ja rahva kahjuks kallutatud jõud, tuleb alatasa (olukorrale vastavalt mitte tingimata kogu aeg) tegelda sellega, et Eestile kahjulikud jõud võimule ei saaks ning et nende võimalused juba omatavat võimu kuritarvitada oleksid võimalikult piiratud.
Kuni olukord praeguse riigikorra ülalhoidmiseks täielikult lahenenud ei ole, siis senimaani ongi kogu ülaltoodut arvestades jäänud Eestis laiem poliitiline diskursus (arutlustase) ahtakeseks: poliitiline välisvaenalane hingab liiga lähedalt kuklasse ja lihtlabane "krae üleskeeramine" siinjuhul ei aita.
Kõigest sellest johtuvalt näiteks käibki Tallinna ja riigi omavaheline kemplemine ning korruptsiooniskandaalid Keskerakonna ümber.
Ning on tõesti tõsi, et kuna poliitiline diskursus on aher, sest Eesti on endast sõltumatutel põhjustel mitmeski mõttes ellujäämisrežiimis, saavad kannatada ka need erinevad rahvakihid, kes algmisel ja lihtsamal tasandil tõesti vajavad toetust, kaitset ja hoolivust. Meil lihtsalt ei ole seda luksust turvalisusele, mida on belglastel, kes saavad nautida oma maa valitsuskriisi (selle moodustamise kriisi) flaamide ja valloonide pideva kemplemise pärast.
Tõepoolest, Eesti demokraatias on palju arenguruumi.
Jüri Saare esitatud drastilisi variante mina mingil juhul ei toetada ei saa. See-eest Delfi kommentaariumis
tqnise väljatoodud variant parteinimekirjade moodustamisest näiteks sisevalimiste teel on teretulnud.
laupäev, 1. jaanuar 2011
The blame game: SGA fans against SGU
Why some SGA fans didn't give a chance to SGU
The GateWorld forum rules have it over there, that posters cannot trash-talk other posters and fans, so it's best to opinionate about bad fans here. Admittedly, I am a huge "Stargate Universe" fan and therefore offer my opinion on the whole situation. Once I had finished writing on this topic, I realised that apart from unproductive blame games, it's better to know what went wrong and how to fix it and to look forward to how to keep SGU going.
There is a raft of "Stargate: Atlantis" (SGA) fans that hated and still hate "Stargate Universe" (SGU) from the outset, because "their baby" (SGA), which never was theirs in the first place, was cancelled.
The better strategy would have been to have two of the same shows cohabiting, with the option for SGA to conclude timing-wise the way "Star Trek: The Next Generation" did after the introduction of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine".Only that all SGA stories had been explored and any new episode would have been a rehash of anything from before, including, but not limited to the realm of 11 seasons of "Stargate SG-1" and other science fiction shows.The bitch and moan about "coulda, woulda, shoulda" is nevertheless pointless in here, because SGU is so good that I wouldn't want to change anything in the many a chain of events, where, for example, decisions were made for casting and who does the theme tune and the score and who would be the writers.
Reasons for SGA fans' hate/anger because of cancellation:
- SGA fans felt as disenfranchised as a junkie would feel himself in rehab; In short, they were having terrible withdrawal symptoms.
- Are some SGA fans
psychotic/sociopathicdevoid of remorse and empathy? Yes.Why, you may ask? — They were willing to give low ratings to SGU as a matter of payback and in order to get a "Stargate: Atlantis" movie or some continuation of that cheesy show. — While at the same time not keeping in mind the health of the whole Stargate franchise. In these times, no less.Devoid of remorse and empathy? Well, the "Sister Act" question and the article linked below explain that people devoid of such emotions are willing to do anything to get what they want. Unwillingness to consider a quality TV show by expressing opinion against it in bad faith are not legally punishable. Nevertheless, it is morally reprehensible: like bad-mouthing licorice and the people who really like it. That candy is also dark.
There is a popular, oversimplified and over-applied urban-mystery-type questionnaire consisting of just one question that pertains to detecting psychopaths and sociopaths. If anyone reads this, then you might probably know what the question is about; only that it was debunked.
While licorice candy is a type of food and may be produced by different confectioneries, "Stargate Universe" is a single tv show and neither is it an open source project (which may survive on the whims of enough willing developers and users) and is therefore dependent on viewership, along with viewer response to advertisements, ratings (Nielsen boxes+DVRs+IPTV solutions) and cable subscriptions.
- Are U.S. viewers really this bad? I hope not. But subscribers to SyFy, a cable channel which as of recently has further committed itself to airing wrestling shows?? What about admirers of science fiction in general? Or is it just about bullets, bombs, and boobs? Or just the number of young people not willing to watch TV at a predetermined time? SyFy's moving SGU to Tuesdays from Fridays was detrimental to SGU, but not to the new wrestling show.
More Ideas for SGU's Future
What I hope and pray for, is to see the continuation of Stargate Universe both as a TV show and a franchise.
My ideas (which I am sure I have written about before) for The Powers That Be:
My ideas (which I am sure I have written about before) for The Powers That Be:
- Before and until anything is clear about which television network is to pick up the show, MGM should make and promote a full-feature theatrical movie with the same actors and the same creative cast. The motion picture, if production is quick enough, could be released after Season II concludes on SyFy.
- Crazy idea: Why not market episodes as movies shown in pictures theatres? You could extend them to be at least 60 minutes long, for example, and the movie market is worldwide and not dependent on revenue from television advertisers (I don't mind product placement that is smart). Make sure to release in different countries near-simultaneously.
- Some forum posters have talked budget cuts, which I think are wrong. If cuts still happen, then it's best to reduce the number of episodes and not compromise on actors, the creative cast and production values, all of which affect series quality to a good degree.
- I much appreciate musical montages, so do keep these.
- If you haven't done that yet, publish an SGU soundtrack compilation both in CD and digital formats and maybe as an add-on in DVD sets (they're not cheap anyway, so value has to be added).
- In addition to current and very good musical selections, I'd like to hear music in SGU by some of the following acts: One EskimO/Kristian Leontiou, Nine Inch Nails/Trent Reznor, Frontline Assembly/Delerium (who are in Vancouver, btw), Linkin Park, Sarah McLachlan, maybe even 30 Seconds to Mars and Kanye West. All these musical acts and projects have large and/or dedicated fanbases: having a never-before-released song in some episodes of the show is likely to bring in new viewers (make sure to create positive buzz/tweet beforehand).
Tellimine:
Postitused (Atom)