This was in reply to a comment in YouTube about trains.
The reason that European high-speed train routes from London to Athens and Paris to Athens are not there, is, because they have not been built yet. A lot of it had, and still has plenty to do with world history.
Romania and Bulgaria joined the European Union in 2007, and this formally connected Greece with the rest of the Union on contiguous land. Romania and Bulgaria have yet to join the Schengen Area.
Italy's problems have more to do with mismanagement of their money, and Greece is only slowly emerging from its debt crisis (due also to then-really-bad finances).
Now that there's Brexit, the UK's position with regard to future rail connections to the rest of the EU is uncertain.
In the U.S., the Insterstate Highway System was built, because Dwight D. Eisenhower and other leading politicians noticed, that existing roads were below standard to support a modern state; the historic Route 66 was particularly overused. While the congestion of Route 66 supported all manner of roadside businesses and livelihoods, then it was also an infrastructure bottleneck.
On the other hand, the flipside to having built the Interstate Highway System is, that a large number of private traffic and short-haul business moved to the asphalt, with rail infrastructure displaced — "thanks" in no small part to then-the Big Five automakers greasing the wheels of politicians. Perhaps less intentionally, but with greater disruptive effect, rail got sidelined by airplanes and jumbo jets. The latter reduced travel times so much, that the jets and the Interstate in combination substantially decreased demand for passenger rail services, reducing the status of rail in America the even further.
To the best of my knowledge, California's problems with high-speed rail have been related to the politics almost anywhere in the U.S. of habitually not wanting to dish out enough taxpayer money for any large project, while at the same time, nursing pipe dreams of federal funding, when the state (any state) is legislated and governed by one party, and the federal government by another.
Kuvatud on postitused sildiga comment. Kuva kõik postitused
Kuvatud on postitused sildiga comment. Kuva kõik postitused
neljapäev, 13. detsember 2018
neljapäev, 4. august 2016
The Avalanches - Frankie Sinatra
In reply to a video comment thread —
The video (linked, of course, because I'm loth to embeds)
I heard this track first on the radio, so I knew ahead how mischievous the song was. But before I even saw the video (first time today), then every time I listened to it, I always imagined a travelling carnival of rogues and creeps, à la Carnivàle (which tv series I haven't seen yet either), along with Baz Luhrmann's "Moulin Rouge!", and a fair amount of Tim Burton's film/art, such as "Big Fish", "Batman Returns", and "Batman Forever".
The plot of the video is something of a mix of anything Stephen King would write, and what Tim Burton would readily direct.
The video (linked, of course, because I'm loth to embeds)
I heard this track first on the radio, so I knew ahead how mischievous the song was. But before I even saw the video (first time today), then every time I listened to it, I always imagined a travelling carnival of rogues and creeps, à la Carnivàle (which tv series I haven't seen yet either), along with Baz Luhrmann's "Moulin Rouge!", and a fair amount of Tim Burton's film/art, such as "Big Fish", "Batman Returns", and "Batman Forever".
The plot of the video is something of a mix of anything Stephen King would write, and what Tim Burton would readily direct.
pühapäev, 21. juuni 2015
How we remember a movie
In reply to this post on IMDb
I've never seen the original Jurassic Park film at the cinema, so I think I finally saw it on tv once. But then seeing that film turned out to be such a non-event, that I probably forgot that I ever saw it whole, and so mostly remember getting to see it in parts in my old home. It's as if seeing the original did not make any impression on me. Except "It's a UNIX system! I know this!".
I kinda think that this may be related to how one watches films, and whether it's alone or with someone, and then also where and in which setting. When I see a particular film or documentary at home, then I take the time to watch it, and invest the necessary mental resources to think along.
Another interesting point is whether I've consumed any similar [visual] content on the same day: Of the two movies I might have seen in a day, which one of these will I remember seeing? Will I remember one or the other, or the one I saw later?
I've never seen the original Jurassic Park film at the cinema, so I think I finally saw it on tv once. But then seeing that film turned out to be such a non-event, that I probably forgot that I ever saw it whole, and so mostly remember getting to see it in parts in my old home. It's as if seeing the original did not make any impression on me. Except "It's a UNIX system! I know this!".
I kinda think that this may be related to how one watches films, and whether it's alone or with someone, and then also where and in which setting. When I see a particular film or documentary at home, then I take the time to watch it, and invest the necessary mental resources to think along.
Another interesting point is whether I've consumed any similar [visual] content on the same day: Of the two movies I might have seen in a day, which one of these will I remember seeing? Will I remember one or the other, or the one I saw later?
neljapäev, 4. juuli 2013
Today in History (04.07.2013)
* News that Douglas Engelbart, inventor of the computer mouse, has died at 88 (passed away on 02.07.2013);
* NASA decommissions weather satellite Jason-I (11), because the satellite's last transmitter finally failed;
* King Albert II of Belgium (79) announced that he will abdicate on July 21.
* France apologizes: Je Suis Sorry;
* And now it's been reported that France's own French Fries are not much different from Freedom Fries somewhere far, far away;
* while in
United States
* ...most everyone else rather ungratiously confirms what has been going on all along at the Ministries of Peace, Love, and Truth.
* A huge wildfire in Arizona still remains out of control.
Middle East
* Egypt's military stage a coup yesterday, installing a judge to be acting president today. The U.S. threatens withdrawal of aid to Egypt, while Israel tries to be nice.
Science and tech
* Vine and Instagram fight like a cat and dog: competition in video sharing functionality heats up. Ten years ago we would not have known what these things even are;
* Livers can be grown in laboratory from stem cells. We really are living the future.
* NASA decommissions weather satellite Jason-I (11), because the satellite's last transmitter finally failed;
* King Albert II of Belgium (79) announced that he will abdicate on July 21.
In other news:
Europe* France apologizes: Je Suis Sorry;
* And now it's been reported that France's own French Fries are not much different from Freedom Fries somewhere far, far away;
* while in
United States
* ...most everyone else rather ungratiously confirms what has been going on all along at the Ministries of Peace, Love, and Truth.
* A huge wildfire in Arizona still remains out of control.
Middle East
* Egypt's military stage a coup yesterday, installing a judge to be acting president today. The U.S. threatens withdrawal of aid to Egypt, while Israel tries to be nice.
Science and tech
* Vine and Instagram fight like a cat and dog: competition in video sharing functionality heats up. Ten years ago we would not have known what these things even are;
* Livers can be grown in laboratory from stem cells. We really are living the future.
esmaspäev, 6. mai 2013
Määrdunud korvid poodides ja mida peale hakata
Nagu teada,
on poodides plastmasskorvid ja kärud kole mustad.
Tehke nii:
1. Võtke üks kilekott rullist, mis on tavaliselt puu- ja köögiviljaletis. (Need kilekotid on enam-vähem tasuta, kui neid eesmärgipäraselt kasutada. Tervet rulli ära võtta muidugi ei maksa.)
2. Pange sinna kilekotti oma kaup.
3. Kui kott saab täis, võtke uus.
(Kergelt määriv kaup, nagu näiteks hallitusjuust, tulekski jätta kilekotti.)
4. Kassas: Laduge kaup kilekotist lindile.
...
5. Siis võtke kilekott, pöörake tagurpidi ja pange jopetasku.
6. Saadud kilekotti saab kasutada koera jalutamiseks.
Profit...
7. Koera jalutamisel võtke kilekott, pöörake see käe peale tagurpidi nii, et varem korvis määrdunud kilekotipool jääks välja (kui see mingi kauba poolt enne ära määritud polnud).
8. Korjake koerakaka üles, siduge kilekott kinni ja visake koerakaka vastavaks otstarbeks mõeldud ühe partei värvidega äravõõbatud kasti.
on poodides plastmasskorvid ja kärud kole mustad.
Tehke nii:
1. Võtke üks kilekott rullist, mis on tavaliselt puu- ja köögiviljaletis. (Need kilekotid on enam-vähem tasuta, kui neid eesmärgipäraselt kasutada. Tervet rulli ära võtta muidugi ei maksa.)
2. Pange sinna kilekotti oma kaup.
3. Kui kott saab täis, võtke uus.
(Kergelt määriv kaup, nagu näiteks hallitusjuust, tulekski jätta kilekotti.)
4. Kassas: Laduge kaup kilekotist lindile.
...
5. Siis võtke kilekott, pöörake tagurpidi ja pange jopetasku.
6. Saadud kilekotti saab kasutada koera jalutamiseks.
Profit...
7. Koera jalutamisel võtke kilekott, pöörake see käe peale tagurpidi nii, et varem korvis määrdunud kilekotipool jääks välja (kui see mingi kauba poolt enne ära määritud polnud).
8. Korjake koerakaka üles, siduge kilekott kinni ja visake koerakaka vastavaks otstarbeks mõeldud ühe partei värvidega äravõõbatud kasti.
kolmapäev, 13. veebruar 2013
Rich Juzwiak's glasses. A critique.
So the video is here, the start is set to 1:27.
The following is a list of which glasses I liked the most on Rich Juzwiak, the writer at Gawker.
All in all I counted 19 different pairs.
Disclaimer: I'm gay, too, so all this is meant from my rather reserved (and maybe conservative) perspective of (gay) fashion.
So, if anyone gets to read this, I hope ye won't feel offended, 'cuz I meant to have fun with this :>
And, so, here goes...
- Light ones. The colours match, but proportions seem wrong;
- Best light frames;
- (Black with thickish frames) Best in a dark-lit club or intellectual event;
- (red ones) Too fabulous;
- (golden ones) - kinda fabulous, but not in a good way;
- < This one is the favourite, for some reason, but they're pink, too. Only that the pink colour there is not so in your face. So, if the frame colour were slightly different...
- Blue - too fabulous, too 1970's;
- Black ones with white edges - Too Apple. "I want to hide myself."
- (light frames) Too fabulous and outdated;
- Black shades. This must have something to do with retrofuturism, but I somehow like it. "I hide myself, but I still want to see you."
- Police Cruiser shades. The most form-fitting, except that it accentuates the nose the most (sorry, Rich, I like you the most when you're not wearing spectacles (;
- Dark ones. It's warm and light outside. Yuppie style;
- Square shades. I like those. 1980's (retro)futurism. Still accentuates the nose.
- Black shades. Fabulous, 1979 going on 1982. I don't know, which way, though.
- Red, again. Too fabulous.
- Dark shades. I don't know.
- Dorky, Gotham style. Maybe if you meet The Dark Knight one day...
- 1970's, def. Southern states;
- Big black ones. The Fly. Jeff Goldblum.
neljapäev, 29. november 2012
What went wrong with Star Trek: Nemesis
This is in reply to a post on IMDb's Stuart Baird forum thread regarding what his input was to "Star Trek: Nemesis". The advantage to this post here is that threads on IMDb get sometimes deleted as a matter of cleanup, and I can also edit this one here for further comment.
It is soon almost ten years since the film was released, well past the 2009 "Star Trek" movie directed by J.J. Abrams, and I am making my review only now.
The post herein lists some of the things I thought went wrong with making Star Trek: Nemesis and contains an opinion about the stuff that I would have made.
Indeed, it is yet another and one of many posts that list the things that were and went wrong with Nemesis. Many people, of course, do vouch to be the expert storymaker and director after a flop, yet hindsight also gives us the opportunity not to repeat the mistakes and do things better.
So, for starters, I noted a poster there was actally correct in terms of who actually ran the show, and I made a conclusion:
All in all, it was a confluence of bad calls and decisions:
* John Logan is an awesome team writer. With him doing a solo job on Nemesis, the studio should have assigned someone to take a critical look at the script before it was put into production.
The Reman storyline was ok, though fairly one-sided, as it is. I would have never allowed such a terrible name as "Shinzon". Pieces of "B4" on another planet was also a great idea, but I would have certainly scrapped the car chase for better VFX, and perhaps given the non-space-faring planet a greater role in the dispute over Scimitar the ship and weapon of mass destruction.
* Tom Hardy is a really nice actor and played his bit with vengeance. I can't really see how the appearance of his face is in any way similar to that of Patrick Stewart. Hardy also has really luscious lips :-9
* Stuart Baird is an accomplished film editor, but his directorial effort is something right out of "An Alan Smithee Film: Burn Hollywood Burn".
The more I thought of it, the more I realized that the Nemesis directing situation was almost exactly out of Burn Hollywood, where an editor by trade becomes the director (I admit I haven't seen Burn Hollywood properly, but I'm sure the situation described has happened aplenty in this industry) and is hostage to the whims of the producer, in addition getting into conflict with the actors and everyone else involved. btw, Burn, Hollywood has Whoopi Goldberg in it <:
And one more thing: "Skyfall" has John Logan as one of the writers and Stuart Baird as the editor. Skyfall has raked in a gross of almost $800 million dollars worldwide.
I believe the TNG cast still deserves another movie, one that has a polished script for starters, and preferably with Denise Crosby in it as the wily Sela. But the clock is ticking.
It is soon almost ten years since the film was released, well past the 2009 "Star Trek" movie directed by J.J. Abrams, and I am making my review only now.
The post herein lists some of the things I thought went wrong with making Star Trek: Nemesis and contains an opinion about the stuff that I would have made.
Indeed, it is yet another and one of many posts that list the things that were and went wrong with Nemesis. Many people, of course, do vouch to be the expert storymaker and director after a flop, yet hindsight also gives us the opportunity not to repeat the mistakes and do things better.
So, for starters, I noted a poster there was actally correct in terms of who actually ran the show, and I made a conclusion:
All in all, it was a confluence of bad calls and decisions:
* John Logan is an awesome team writer. With him doing a solo job on Nemesis, the studio should have assigned someone to take a critical look at the script before it was put into production.
The Reman storyline was ok, though fairly one-sided, as it is. I would have never allowed such a terrible name as "Shinzon". Pieces of "B4" on another planet was also a great idea, but I would have certainly scrapped the car chase for better VFX, and perhaps given the non-space-faring planet a greater role in the dispute over Scimitar the ship and weapon of mass destruction.
* Tom Hardy is a really nice actor and played his bit with vengeance. I can't really see how the appearance of his face is in any way similar to that of Patrick Stewart. Hardy also has really luscious lips :-9
* Stuart Baird is an accomplished film editor, but his directorial effort is something right out of "An Alan Smithee Film: Burn Hollywood Burn".
The more I thought of it, the more I realized that the Nemesis directing situation was almost exactly out of Burn Hollywood, where an editor by trade becomes the director (I admit I haven't seen Burn Hollywood properly, but I'm sure the situation described has happened aplenty in this industry) and is hostage to the whims of the producer, in addition getting into conflict with the actors and everyone else involved. btw, Burn, Hollywood has Whoopi Goldberg in it <:
And one more thing: "Skyfall" has John Logan as one of the writers and Stuart Baird as the editor. Skyfall has raked in a gross of almost $800 million dollars worldwide.
I believe the TNG cast still deserves another movie, one that has a polished script for starters, and preferably with Denise Crosby in it as the wily Sela. But the clock is ticking.
reede, 5. oktoober 2012
A.I. Artificial Intelligence. The need to be loved.
This was in reply to a comment on IMDb. I posted it here first, because forums on IMDb sometimes tend to be cleaned up from threads.
I'd assume the makers of androids managed to gather and digitize some amount of brainwaves from humans, which data were then either constricted, or made free within certain baseline contexts (such as love, as in the case of David, or only a simulation of it, as it was with Gigolo Joe).
What you might be asking for is either the level of self-awareness of androids, or the extent to which their programming was free enough to be unpredictable in their actions to explore that self-awareness.
The movie offers what I see to be a dichotomy between the unique David's apparently self-serving and self-aware purpose of [wanting to be] "a real boy, so Mother can love me", that of needing to be loved; and the other less self-aware androids' selfless purpose of service to others. And how all this correlates with the human condition, which can vacillate around variations of these options: Most (well, nearly all) of us want to be loved, but what is the extent of service we are willing to give to others?
The story reveals that several androids became increasingly self-aware and were through various misshaps (intentional or otherwise) forced to become "free agents", but the hardware and programming of the less fortunate ones was limited; imagine people from the autistic spectrum, where their social skills are to some extent or other known to be less adaptive.
Here, Gigolo Joe was one of the few lucky ones to be not just self-aware but also reasonably adaptive. While David was all those things more by an order of magnitude, then the differentiator between David and Joe were experience, skills (both social and practical), heritage, and purpose. What held Joe back were heritage and somewhat constricted social skills which gave him so easily away; while David was aided by the 'more human' fortune of being in these respects a clean slate, and importantly, having an existential and non-materialistic purpose towards the person he related to.
David's primary uniqueness stood in having a (self-aware) purpose, wherein he was not aware of the fact that his being was there to satisfy a very similar (if not exactly the same) human desire — out of which happiness could ultimately be derived. Whereas Gigolo Joe knew precisely what women wanted, and even what would happen to humanity in the longer term.
The juxtaposition of the two shows the differences in how they sought to derive happiness from others. Incidentally, the happiness that either were wired to seek was also different.
While thinking more of it, the future androids in their evolution seemed to have found that very fine balance of satisfying the needs of one (David) and the many, without putting said needs into conflict with one another. This would follow how the early androids' relation to others, despite their being hardwired for service to others, was more, well, binary.
What was lacking in androids, both past and future, was consciousness, or how we humans understand it. Suppose the evolved androids finally managed to reach a level of primary consciousness, but not the subconsciousness, as some cosmological lore has it that in humans this is connected to upper densities of existence. (Not that real-life academics would take seriously or even corroborate, so you can consider it as crackpot science. I might as well add that religion often falls into that same place.)
That is why human consciousness was envied by future androids, so they needed David.
I'd assume the makers of androids managed to gather and digitize some amount of brainwaves from humans, which data were then either constricted, or made free within certain baseline contexts (such as love, as in the case of David, or only a simulation of it, as it was with Gigolo Joe).
What you might be asking for is either the level of self-awareness of androids, or the extent to which their programming was free enough to be unpredictable in their actions to explore that self-awareness.
The movie offers what I see to be a dichotomy between the unique David's apparently self-serving and self-aware purpose of [wanting to be] "a real boy, so Mother can love me", that of needing to be loved; and the other less self-aware androids' selfless purpose of service to others. And how all this correlates with the human condition, which can vacillate around variations of these options: Most (well, nearly all) of us want to be loved, but what is the extent of service we are willing to give to others?
The story reveals that several androids became increasingly self-aware and were through various misshaps (intentional or otherwise) forced to become "free agents", but the hardware and programming of the less fortunate ones was limited; imagine people from the autistic spectrum, where their social skills are to some extent or other known to be less adaptive.
Here, Gigolo Joe was one of the few lucky ones to be not just self-aware but also reasonably adaptive. While David was all those things more by an order of magnitude, then the differentiator between David and Joe were experience, skills (both social and practical), heritage, and purpose. What held Joe back were heritage and somewhat constricted social skills which gave him so easily away; while David was aided by the 'more human' fortune of being in these respects a clean slate, and importantly, having an existential and non-materialistic purpose towards the person he related to.
David's primary uniqueness stood in having a (self-aware) purpose, wherein he was not aware of the fact that his being was there to satisfy a very similar (if not exactly the same) human desire — out of which happiness could ultimately be derived. Whereas Gigolo Joe knew precisely what women wanted, and even what would happen to humanity in the longer term.
The juxtaposition of the two shows the differences in how they sought to derive happiness from others. Incidentally, the happiness that either were wired to seek was also different.
While thinking more of it, the future androids in their evolution seemed to have found that very fine balance of satisfying the needs of one (David) and the many, without putting said needs into conflict with one another. This would follow how the early androids' relation to others, despite their being hardwired for service to others, was more, well, binary.
What was lacking in androids, both past and future, was consciousness, or how we humans understand it. Suppose the evolved androids finally managed to reach a level of primary consciousness, but not the subconsciousness, as some cosmological lore has it that in humans this is connected to upper densities of existence. (Not that real-life academics would take seriously or even corroborate, so you can consider it as crackpot science. I might as well add that religion often falls into that same place.)
That is why human consciousness was envied by future androids, so they needed David.
neljapäev, 20. september 2012
Säästupirnide taarasüsteem
Esimesena avastasin selle idee siit, kuid lõpuks tekkis küsimusi ses osas, et kas on väga mõtet. Seega seesinane on rohkem nagu ülestähendus sellest, kuidas mu mõte antud teemal jooksis.
Taarasüsteem säästupirnidele (kompaktluminofoorlampidele) on tegelikult hea mõte, aga sellega on see jama, et neidsamu pirne tuleks käitlemisel väga õrnalt liigutada, et nad katki ei läheks, sest sisaldavad mürgiseid aineid. Ses mõttes on näiteks pudelite transport praegu palju turvalisem, sest katkiminekul ei eraldu ohtlikke aineid.
Ma tõesti ei tea, kas uuemat tüüpi säästupirnid on juba disainitud nii, et nad kukkumisel kergesti katki ei läheks. Sest "klassikalised" säästupirnid tuleks siiski ümber disainida/konstrueerida selliselt, et ohtlikumad ained on vähemohtlikematest üksteisest paremini eraldatud ja pirniklaasi katkimineku risk väiksem. — Kasvõi nii, et maha kukkudes läheks pirn näiteks pooleks nagu mõni vanem mobiilitüüp (aku ja korpus lahti), aga et üldjoontes oleksid suured detailid korralikult ühes tükis (jama on siis, et sellisel lambi eri osad läheksivad üksteisest turvaliselt lahkuda ja võisivad minna lihtsamini kaduma kui nad oleks püsivalt ühes tükis).
Disaini- ja konstruktsioonimuutusi on tehtud ja nad tähendavad tavaliselt esemete suuremat hinda. Ohutuse mõttes oleks see kogu muu infrastruktuurita juba praegugi väga kasulik.
Niisuguse süsteemi juurutamisel oleks mõtet näiteks siis, kui toodetaks vastavad kastid/karbid ning kogu muu juurdekuuluv infrastruktuur koos masinatega jne.
Üks variant oleks näiteks mingi suht kukkumiskindel konteiner (esimese korraga tuli pähe plastik, aga on ka huvitavamaid aineid), kuhu kasutatud pirn panna, et kukkumisel ja/või transportimisel ei läheks katki. Õhukindel konteiner oleks üldjoontes mitmekordse kasutusega senimaani kuni on toimunud õnnetus ja eraldunud mingi määratud kogus ohtlikke aineid. Kuna osad neist võivad olla paljale silmale suht nähtamatud, siis võiks läbipaistva konteineri sisepinnal toimuda mingi keemiline reaktsioon, mis näitab värviga, et selle sees on toimunud õnnetus ja seda rohkem kasutada ja/või vabas õhus avada ei saa.
Säästupirnide automaatne käitlusjaam oleks samuti suht keerulise ülesehitusega, kuna arvestada tuleks rohkemate muutujatega kui vaid plastmass, pudel ja paber. Heaks küljeks oleks näiteks kohapeal eraldatav tooraine (elavhõbe, jm), mida saaks peale töötlust viia taaskasutusse. Siin võib-olla olekski hea mõte juurutada kergelt demonteeritavaid säästupirne (kas sellised on juba olemas?), mille eri osi oleks kerge lahti võtta ja üksteisest ära eraldada ja saata tööstuslikku ringlusesse. Eelistatavalt muidugi masinatega.
Oletame, et Eesti ja ka teiste Põhjamaade ja Euroopa ettevõtted (ja nende insenerid) teevad koostöös selle asja ära — umbes nagu ka Skype'i tehti — ning siis saaks regiooni majandus hea tõuke selles suunas, et uued vastavad tehnoloogiad saaks patenteerida ja litsenseerida, näiteks. Tehnoloogiaid saab muidugi ka edasi müüa, kuid siis oleks tegemist ühekordse tehinguga. ("Edasimüük" võiks toimuda ka litsenseerimise kaudu.)
Luminofoorlampe võis läbi aastate leida alati asutustes ja alates 1990ndate algusest teistel nišialadel (näiteks laualamp kontoris ja paremates peredes ka kodus :-). Tavalise hõõglambi asendajaks ning säästulambiks ristituna sai luminofoorlamp tuntumaks 2000ndate alguses, kui ühtäkki hakkas tõusma elektri hind. Tegelikkus oli mõnes mõttes ka proosalisem, sest esiteks tekkis säästulampide mitmekesisem saadavus ja nende hinnad langesid lubatavamale tasemele, kus elektrisääst kaalus Eesti inimese jaoks tolle aja kohta uudse pirni kirvena paistva hinna üles.
Sissekeeratavate kompaktluminofoorlampide sattumine laiadesse massidesse Eestis toimus ajalise nihkega, kuna Nõukogude okupatsiooni ajal ei olnud selliseid lampe lihtsalt saada ja vaid väga vähesed võisid teada, et sellised koduseks kasutuseks üldse olemas on.
Taarasüsteem säästupirnidele (kompaktluminofoorlampidele) on tegelikult hea mõte, aga sellega on see jama, et neidsamu pirne tuleks käitlemisel väga õrnalt liigutada, et nad katki ei läheks, sest sisaldavad mürgiseid aineid. Ses mõttes on näiteks pudelite transport praegu palju turvalisem, sest katkiminekul ei eraldu ohtlikke aineid.
Ma tõesti ei tea, kas uuemat tüüpi säästupirnid on juba disainitud nii, et nad kukkumisel kergesti katki ei läheks. Sest "klassikalised" säästupirnid tuleks siiski ümber disainida/konstrueerida selliselt, et ohtlikumad ained on vähemohtlikematest üksteisest paremini eraldatud ja pirniklaasi katkimineku risk väiksem. — Kasvõi nii, et maha kukkudes läheks pirn näiteks pooleks nagu mõni vanem mobiilitüüp (aku ja korpus lahti), aga et üldjoontes oleksid suured detailid korralikult ühes tükis (jama on siis, et sellisel lambi eri osad läheksivad üksteisest turvaliselt lahkuda ja võisivad minna lihtsamini kaduma kui nad oleks püsivalt ühes tükis).
Disaini- ja konstruktsioonimuutusi on tehtud ja nad tähendavad tavaliselt esemete suuremat hinda. Ohutuse mõttes oleks see kogu muu infrastruktuurita juba praegugi väga kasulik.
Niisuguse süsteemi juurutamisel oleks mõtet näiteks siis, kui toodetaks vastavad kastid/karbid ning kogu muu juurdekuuluv infrastruktuur koos masinatega jne.
Üks variant oleks näiteks mingi suht kukkumiskindel konteiner (esimese korraga tuli pähe plastik, aga on ka huvitavamaid aineid), kuhu kasutatud pirn panna, et kukkumisel ja/või transportimisel ei läheks katki. Õhukindel konteiner oleks üldjoontes mitmekordse kasutusega senimaani kuni on toimunud õnnetus ja eraldunud mingi määratud kogus ohtlikke aineid. Kuna osad neist võivad olla paljale silmale suht nähtamatud, siis võiks läbipaistva konteineri sisepinnal toimuda mingi keemiline reaktsioon, mis näitab värviga, et selle sees on toimunud õnnetus ja seda rohkem kasutada ja/või vabas õhus avada ei saa.
Säästupirnide automaatne käitlusjaam oleks samuti suht keerulise ülesehitusega, kuna arvestada tuleks rohkemate muutujatega kui vaid plastmass, pudel ja paber. Heaks küljeks oleks näiteks kohapeal eraldatav tooraine (elavhõbe, jm), mida saaks peale töötlust viia taaskasutusse. Siin võib-olla olekski hea mõte juurutada kergelt demonteeritavaid säästupirne (kas sellised on juba olemas?), mille eri osi oleks kerge lahti võtta ja üksteisest ära eraldada ja saata tööstuslikku ringlusesse. Eelistatavalt muidugi masinatega.
Oletame, et Eesti ja ka teiste Põhjamaade ja Euroopa ettevõtted (ja nende insenerid) teevad koostöös selle asja ära — umbes nagu ka Skype'i tehti — ning siis saaks regiooni majandus hea tõuke selles suunas, et uued vastavad tehnoloogiad saaks patenteerida ja litsenseerida, näiteks. Tehnoloogiaid saab muidugi ka edasi müüa, kuid siis oleks tegemist ühekordse tehinguga. ("Edasimüük" võiks toimuda ka litsenseerimise kaudu.)
Kokkuvõtteks
tuleb nentida, et mõnes mõttes on kompaktluminofoorlamp (CFL) oma paljudest eelistest hoolimata siiski üleminekuline tehnoloogia. Tõsi, nende eeliste seas on ka teatud kordamatuid eripärasid, kuid üleminekulisust ning kogu seda säästupirni-taara-infrastruktuuri uitmõtet on edestanud LED lamp. LED lamp on mehaaniliselt robustne, samal ajal kui suurem osa teisi kunstlikke valgusallikaid on väga õrnad. LED valgusti on küll elavhõbeda-vaba ja seega palju turvalisem kui CFL-lamp, kuid sisaldab pliid ja arseeni.Loomulikult tuleb ka LED-lampe järelkäidelda, kuid nende tööaeg on 6,25 korda suurem kui säästulampidel (uusimatel LED-lampidel 50 000 tundi vs kvaliteetsete säästulampide 8000 tundi/8 aastat vs hõõglambi 1000 tundi/1 aasta), mis tähendab, et LED-lampe tuleb kokku vähem järelkäidelda.Küll on luminofoorlambi eeliseks see, et selle lihtsamad variandid ei ole enam patentide poolt kaitstud, mis langetab nii nende hinda kui tõstab ka üldist saadavust; samal ajal kui LED-lampide tehnoloogiad on patentidega vägagi hästi kaitstud ning innovatsioon nende alal käib metsikus tempos. LED valgustid on kallid nii patentide kui ka keerulise tootmisprotsessi pärast; siiski on energiasääst ikkagi suurem.Ei saa ka eitada, et ka luminofoorlampide alal on arenguid, sest enam-vähem täielise tavalise hõõglambini läks esimestest juurutustest alates veel 25–30 aastat. Õigupoolest tuleb tõdeda, et luminofooride puhul peaks see aeg nagu nüüd olema juba, kuigi uuringud käivad praegu näiteks selle nimel, et valgusallika valguseraldus võimalikult hõõglambitaoliseks arendada.Kontekst ja ajalugu
Hõõglambid on kõigist keeldudest visad kaduma seetõttu, et külmas kliimas annavad nad sooja. — Mis sest, et hõõglambi tehnoloogia on kõigi verstapostidega arvestades ikkagi väga vana.Hõõglambi väga algelisel meetodil on vanust ilusti üle 200 aasta, tänapäevase hõõglambi vanuseks võib pidada umbes 100 aastat:Andmeid ingliskeelse Wikipedia artiklist hõõglambi kohta, kastis oleva teksti litsents on Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License:Tuleb välja, et klassikalised "kodu"-säästupirnid ehk kompaktluminofoorlambid on samuti suhteliselt vanaldane tehnoloogia. Ka seda tüüpi lambid võivad tavaliste hõõgpirnide järel olla veel suhteliselt visad kaduma — oma mõningaste eriomaduste poolest ning ka lihtsalt inertsist — nad on odavamad ja asutustes on nendele mõeldud fikstuure palju-palju.Näiteks mulle meeldivad sellised säästupirnid, mis kohe väga valgeks ei lähegi, vaid teevad seda sujuvalt ja suhteliselt aeglaselt (minutiga). See on hea olukordades, kus kohemaid väga eredat valgust vaja ei ole.Peale selle räägib samaväärsete LED-lampidega võrreldes CFL-lampide poolt ka nende suhteline tükihinna odavus, suurendatud vastupidavus ebameeldivates ilmatingimustes (LED-valgustite puhul veel uuritakse seda täiendavalt) ning peaaegu et valmistehnoloogia hõõglampidega sarnase valgusspektri saavutamiseks.210 aastat tagasi lõi inglane Humphry Davy esimese elektri jõul töötava valgusallika, kui ta kasutas plaatina-hõõgniiti. 203 aastat tagasi lõi Davy esimese süsiniku-kivisüsi traatidega laterna.
177 aastat tagasi demonstreeris James Bowman Lindsay oma püsival elektrijõul töötavat valgustit ja nii on Lindsay tuntud kui esimese hõõglambi leiutaja.Vahepeale jääb 70–75 aastat erinevate leiutajate arendustööd.132 aastat tagasi pandi eri leiutajate/ettevõtete poolt Inglismaal ja Ühendriikides esimesed hõõglambid majadesse sisse.Meile teada-tuntud hõõgpirnide tehnoloogia kujunes nüüdisaegsena välja veidi rohkem kui sada aastat tagasi.
108 aastat tagasi said ungarlane Sándor Just ja horvaatlane Franjo Hanaman Ungari patendi Tungsteni hõõgniidiga hõõglambi eest.
104 aastat tagasi leiutas Thomas Alva Edison sokli, mida teatakse siianiExxnomenklatuuri all, millest Euroopas on tuntuimE27.
Andmeid ingliskeelse Wikipedia artiklist kompaktluminofoorlambi kohta, kastis oleva teksti litsents on Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License:Eesti kodude kontekstis tuleb mainida, et hoolimata saadavusest hästi varustatud elektritarvete poodides jäi luminofoorlamp ikkagi kalliks: toavalgustuse jaoks mõeldud LED-lampe polnud veel olemas ja luminofoorlambid olid siis nagu kõige modernsem valgustustehnika, mida 1990ndate Eestis said võimaldada ja proovida need, kes seda endale lubada said. Juba erineva kujuga fikstuur (lambiseade) oli palju kallim kui E27 sokliga agregaat, mida pikka aega vahetama ei pidanud ega pea ka nüüd. Nii või teisiti kaasneb uute tehnoloogiate kasutusele-võtt põlvkondade ja ka elukeskkonna vahetusega.120 aastat tagasi, 10 aastat peale hõõglampide üleüldise juurutamise algust, leiutas Peter Cooper Hewitt kaasaegse luminofoorlambi eellase ja neid valgusteid kasutati fotostuudiotes ja tööstustes.
Pea kolmveerand sajandit tagasi valmistasid George Inman ja General Electric esimese praktilise luminofoorlambi, mida müüdi juba 1938. ja patenteeriti 1941. aastatel. Esimene luminofoorlamp ja fikstuur demonstreeriti 1939. aasta New Yorki maailmanäitusel.36 aastat tagasi leiutas General Electricu insener Edward Hammer spiraallambi reaktsioonina 1973. aasta naftakriisile. Et aga uue tehase tegemiseks oleks läinud $25 miljonit, jättis GE asja sinnapaika.32 aastat tagasi tõi Philips välja esimese sissekeeratava luminofoorlambi magnetilise ballastiga, millest sai esimene edukas hõõgpirni asendaja.
27 aastat tagasi tõi Osram välja oma mudeli, mis oli esimene kompaktluminofoorlamp elektroonilise ballastiga.
17 aastat tagasi (1995) kaotas viimane spiraallambi patent kehtivuse ja seda tüüpi lambid tulid laialdaselt saadavale ning sest ajast peale on nende läbimüük pidevalt suurenenud.
Luminofoorlampe võis läbi aastate leida alati asutustes ja alates 1990ndate algusest teistel nišialadel (näiteks laualamp kontoris ja paremates peredes ka kodus :-). Tavalise hõõglambi asendajaks ning säästulambiks ristituna sai luminofoorlamp tuntumaks 2000ndate alguses, kui ühtäkki hakkas tõusma elektri hind. Tegelikkus oli mõnes mõttes ka proosalisem, sest esiteks tekkis säästulampide mitmekesisem saadavus ja nende hinnad langesid lubatavamale tasemele, kus elektrisääst kaalus Eesti inimese jaoks tolle aja kohta uudse pirni kirvena paistva hinna üles.
Sissekeeratavate kompaktluminofoorlampide sattumine laiadesse massidesse Eestis toimus ajalise nihkega, kuna Nõukogude okupatsiooni ajal ei olnud selliseid lampe lihtsalt saada ja vaid väga vähesed võisid teada, et sellised koduseks kasutuseks üldse olemas on.
neljapäev, 23. august 2012
E-sõidupiletist ja palju muud
Lugu inspireeris kirjutama Delfis avaldatud uue aasta Tallinna ühistranspordi hinnakirja artikkel, mille kommentaar venis nii pikaks nagu seesinane. Lõpuks otsustasin selle Delfis mitte avaldada.
See tallinlaseks ja mittetallinlaseks liigitamine on väga tõenäoliselt põhiseadusevastane ja ilmselt jõuab see otsaga Riigikohtusse, kui keegi aktiivne kodanik meie niigi leebele õiguskantslerile avalduse esitab.
Üleskutse teiste omavalitsuste poolt tallinlastele hinda kergitada on just see, mida keskerakondlikud tegelased tahavad, et tekiks inimeste (tallinlased vs mittetallinlased) ja regioonide (Tallinn vs Tartu jne) vahel lõhe ja käärimine. Arvake ära kolm korda, kelle ja mille eesmärke see teeniks.
Eestlasi ja eestimaalasi peab ühendama ühtsus, mis selle võõra võimu Tallinnas valimiste kaudu eemaldaks. Kasvõi erakorraliste valimiste kaudu, mille kuulutaks välja näiteks valitsus.
Kuna piletisüsteemi üle hoiab kontrolli ebausaldusväärne linnavalitsus, mida juhib partei, mis juba Eesti Vabariigi taasiseseisvusest alates ebausaldusväärne, ei ole välistatud, et selle e-kaardi ümber keerlevad isikuandmed saavad olema hallatud ebausaldusväärsete isikute (jõudude) poolt — sest ma sain asjast niimoodi aru, et iga e-sõidukaart seotakse nimeliselt (on ka teisigi alasid, kus Eesti elanike isikuandmete turvalisus võib olla küsimärgi all). Siin oleks kindlasti oma sõna öelda vähemalt Andmekaitseinspektsioonil.
Tallinna "oma" sõidukaart loodigi vist seetõttu, et ID-kaardi süsteemi haldab riik.
Ideaalis ei oleks selline e-kaardi bussisõidusüsteem paha, kuid kaardid ei tohiks olla nimelised, vaid numbrilised, nagu see on praegu mobiilikaartidega. Samamoodi võiks nimega sidumine olla puhtalt vabatahtlik.
Pole vahet, kas tasuline või tasuta bussiõigus, peab see olema ühe hinnaga kõigile ja soodustused kehtiksid registreeritud elukohast sõltumata näiteks vaid lastele ja tõepoolest väga eakatele inimestele ("noored pensionärid" ei loe).
Keskerakondlik Tallinn on seda bussipiletihinda ise eri põjuseid ettekäändeks tuues jõudsasti tõstnud ja ise seega hinnatõusu tekitanud, ajades paljud inimesed ühistranspordist autodesse ja vähendades sedasi sotsiaalselt vähekindlustatud ausate inimeste liikumisvõimalusi.
Bussipileti hind läks teenuse kvaliteediga võrreldes nii kõrgeks, et ajaga kaasas käiv elanikkond muretses endale esimesel võimalusel isikliku sõiduvahendi, mis suurel määral muutuski tugeva keskklassi välimäärajaks. Mingitest rikkuritest juttu ei ole — ringi sõidavad kõige tavalisemad inimesed tehes oma igapäevaseid käike. Kokkuvõttes sai autoga liikumine kiirem, puhtam ja mugavam. Ning mis kõige olulisem — palju odavam.
Riigikogu peaks samas seaduseid täiendama ja täpsustama, et Tallinnas sellised JOKK-skeemitamised lõppeksid; eeldatavalt mingi tõsise sanktsiooniga, mille rakendamise üle otsustaks kohus. Üks Eesti elanik "Postimehe" arvamusküljel näiteks juba nõudis Tallinna võimu ülevõtmist valitsuse poolt, et normaalne elu/rütm taastuks.
Ja veel:
1955. aastal keeldus Ameerika Ühendriikides naine nimega Rosa Parks istumast bussis mustade jaoks mõeldud sektsiooni, mis tegu alustas USA-s liikumist rassilise eraldatuse lõpetamiseks ja afro-ameeriklastele kodanikuõiguste nõudmise rahumeelse liikumise alguseks.
Aktsioon oli alustajate poolt rahumeelne ja levis üle kogu riigi.
Selle kõigega seoses tuleb öelda, et seadus on võrdne kõigile ja Tallinna linna-poolne nii autosõitjate kui autota inimeste vastandamine läbi BUS-radade,
ning
pealinna poolt tallinlaste ja mittetallinlaste vahel vahettegemine peab lõppema.
Mõõt on täis.
See tallinlaseks ja mittetallinlaseks liigitamine on väga tõenäoliselt põhiseadusevastane ja ilmselt jõuab see otsaga Riigikohtusse, kui keegi aktiivne kodanik meie niigi leebele õiguskantslerile avalduse esitab.
Üleskutse teiste omavalitsuste poolt tallinlastele hinda kergitada on just see, mida keskerakondlikud tegelased tahavad, et tekiks inimeste (tallinlased vs mittetallinlased) ja regioonide (Tallinn vs Tartu jne) vahel lõhe ja käärimine. Arvake ära kolm korda, kelle ja mille eesmärke see teeniks.
Eestlasi ja eestimaalasi peab ühendama ühtsus, mis selle võõra võimu Tallinnas valimiste kaudu eemaldaks. Kasvõi erakorraliste valimiste kaudu, mille kuulutaks välja näiteks valitsus.
Kuna piletisüsteemi üle hoiab kontrolli ebausaldusväärne linnavalitsus, mida juhib partei, mis juba Eesti Vabariigi taasiseseisvusest alates ebausaldusväärne, ei ole välistatud, et selle e-kaardi ümber keerlevad isikuandmed saavad olema hallatud ebausaldusväärsete isikute (jõudude) poolt — sest ma sain asjast niimoodi aru, et iga e-sõidukaart seotakse nimeliselt (on ka teisigi alasid, kus Eesti elanike isikuandmete turvalisus võib olla küsimärgi all). Siin oleks kindlasti oma sõna öelda vähemalt Andmekaitseinspektsioonil.
Tallinna "oma" sõidukaart loodigi vist seetõttu, et ID-kaardi süsteemi haldab riik.
Ideaalis ei oleks selline e-kaardi bussisõidusüsteem paha, kuid kaardid ei tohiks olla nimelised, vaid numbrilised, nagu see on praegu mobiilikaartidega. Samamoodi võiks nimega sidumine olla puhtalt vabatahtlik.
Pole vahet, kas tasuline või tasuta bussiõigus, peab see olema ühe hinnaga kõigile ja soodustused kehtiksid registreeritud elukohast sõltumata näiteks vaid lastele ja tõepoolest väga eakatele inimestele ("noored pensionärid" ei loe).
Keskerakondlik Tallinn on seda bussipiletihinda ise eri põjuseid ettekäändeks tuues jõudsasti tõstnud ja ise seega hinnatõusu tekitanud, ajades paljud inimesed ühistranspordist autodesse ja vähendades sedasi sotsiaalselt vähekindlustatud ausate inimeste liikumisvõimalusi.
Bussipileti hind läks teenuse kvaliteediga võrreldes nii kõrgeks, et ajaga kaasas käiv elanikkond muretses endale esimesel võimalusel isikliku sõiduvahendi, mis suurel määral muutuski tugeva keskklassi välimäärajaks. Mingitest rikkuritest juttu ei ole — ringi sõidavad kõige tavalisemad inimesed tehes oma igapäevaseid käike. Kokkuvõttes sai autoga liikumine kiirem, puhtam ja mugavam. Ning mis kõige olulisem — palju odavam.
Riigikogu peaks samas seaduseid täiendama ja täpsustama, et Tallinnas sellised JOKK-skeemitamised lõppeksid; eeldatavalt mingi tõsise sanktsiooniga, mille rakendamise üle otsustaks kohus. Üks Eesti elanik "Postimehe" arvamusküljel näiteks juba nõudis Tallinna võimu ülevõtmist valitsuse poolt, et normaalne elu/rütm taastuks.
Ja veel:
1955. aastal keeldus Ameerika Ühendriikides naine nimega Rosa Parks istumast bussis mustade jaoks mõeldud sektsiooni, mis tegu alustas USA-s liikumist rassilise eraldatuse lõpetamiseks ja afro-ameeriklastele kodanikuõiguste nõudmise rahumeelse liikumise alguseks.
Aktsioon oli alustajate poolt rahumeelne ja levis üle kogu riigi.
Selle kõigega seoses tuleb öelda, et seadus on võrdne kõigile ja Tallinna linna-poolne nii autosõitjate kui autota inimeste vastandamine läbi BUS-radade,
ning
pealinna poolt tallinlaste ja mittetallinlaste vahel vahettegemine peab lõppema.
Mõõt on täis.
teisipäev, 21. august 2012
Why Falling Skies is too 'family-friendly'
And why is there little to no swearing.
This was in reply to a Falling Skies IMDb thread posing just these questions.Well, people do swear in real life, but it's probably very difficult to make that balance right on television.
If you'll ever see an episode of "The Borgias" (a historical tv series produced in Canada and filmed mostly in Hungary), then people there don't swear either, but you'll see everything else: death, murder, battles, intrigue, sex, whores, flogging (torture), subterfuge and politics. Even urination.
Most of the time, people don't swear and generally discourage swearing (in public) in a prude, vain, and hopeless attempt to instill polite (aka more 'cultured') language in children, while in real life all it amounts to is just procrastinating the use of such verbiage by young people.
One of the reasons swearing is not used on American tv is that it would turn off many older/prude/conservative viewers, who would then prohibit their children from watching a show. That would result in dismal ratings from those with Nielsen boxes, no matter how flawed that system is (I have a suspicion these boxes aren't distributed all that evenly, either).
On the other hand, Falling Skies seems to be meant for a slightly younger audience than your average teenager who already knows foul language.
So, for example, if you want to know which is the youngest demographic a show is catering to, see who's the youngest major character (babies don't count). In Star Trek: The Next Generation, that was "Wesley Crusher" (played by writer and actor Wil Wheaton, who now has over two million followers on twitter). So, the older the youngest character in a show, the greater likelihood there is to encounter more mature themes.
And if suddenly the characters in "Falling Skies" started swearing as they actually would in real life, then by now it would be very out of character of them to do so. In a way, they should have done that from the outset, but now it's most likely far too late, because we all know now that they are coincidentally a very polite lot.
In conclusion, the only recourse to actual people with children would be not to swear themselves, or at all — just in case them kids accidentally overhear something — and suggest the youth not to use such language in polite company. This would basically ensure the kids learn by example. (Disclaimer: Your mileage may vary.)
teisipäev, 24. juuli 2012
Gay actors and coming out
This was first written as a reply to a witty post on IMDb about a possibly gay actor (no, not the usual suspects), whom I have decided not to name here.
First it came to be almost about justifying his coming out — if he is gay — and if he does that, then about the harshness of the film and tv industry towards gays. Then the post's idea moved to be about why some people choose to be closeted and that on one hand it's okay to rather concentrate on out gay actors, while bemusing the chances of coming out making a chage for the better in the future.
So I ended up making a long one instead: herein follows the post about the actor, without naming him (oh yes, names of out actors are featured).
The Post
If he is gay and chooses to come out to the world, then we would be very proud of him, and young gay people would have a great role model. There aren't many young gay actors right now ('cept for Zachary Quinto) who've hit it this big, and who play or have played not just the gays, but other interesting characters. This is what we have a deficiency of on screen: men and women who are not just gays, but who portray hereoes and role models of all good kinds.
The industry should change its tune for the better on gays, so LGBT people could play their roles as out actors, with pride and confidence. But alas, there are still lots of homophobic bigwigs calling the shots :/I remember reading how Rupert Everett's career took a nosedive after he came out and he advised against actors coming out still in 2009. So, many entertainers and television personalities have come out when they've hit it big, and there are many who have come out very late in their careers (or life).
But otherwise, if he is gay and if he is not coming out, then it's his personal choice (disambiguation: Sexuality is not a choice, but coming out is). — There will be other great gay actors who will be out before he will, and there are many who aready have. We the gays just have to wait a little. I do admit the wait is sometimes difficult :\
On another note, there are many gay people who beyound industry fear may have personal reasons not to come out. If that's the case, then it's just as understandable. So, most gays clamoring for their favourite actor to come out might not realize that many closeted actors very possibly have personal (=family) reasons not to come out yet.
Nevertheless, young talented gay guys and gals aspiring to be actors should never be discouraged from pursuing their dream. The "It Gets Better" project and coming out are important, because then many gay youths who feel alone and desperate would see that there is reason for them to live. Oh, and yes, we just can't force anyone to come out against their will, unless they are flaming hypocrites.
My personal opinion is that Zachary Quinto's coming out has taken the heat off other actors who are suspected of being gay. The activism of Dan Choi, "It Gets Better", the coming out of many others (Jake Shears is out from the outset, for example) also means that there are many kids who because of these guys' courage have decided to spare their own life.
esmaspäev, 2. juuli 2012
Eesti, eestlaste, ja eestimaalaste rahvaarv. Lihtne aritmeetika. Eee...
Seesinane on siis viitega kõikidele vingatsitele, kes kogu aeg haiget moodi jahuvad teemal, et rahvast on [justkui] vähem ja vähem jne. Kasvõi "Postimehe" selle artikli kommentaarides (mille lahendus on nii totakas, et NoScripti kasutades ja vajalikke arvu servereid lubades ei ole võimalik valida "lemmikpilti". Pohlad. Panin oma kommentaari siia ja see juba kolme kuu pärast ei aegu.).
Niisiis...
Vaadakem ka asja helgemale küljele: viimatise rahvaloenduse esialgne tulemus* 1 294 236 + Soomes olevad 50 000 eestlast = 1 344 236 — millest saab järeldada, et Eesti ja Soome peale kokku pole tegelikult eestimaalaste ja eestlaste rahvaarv eriti vähenenud... Võiks tõdeda, et rahvaarv pole tegelikult eriti isegi kahanenud.
Aga kui lisada juurde kõik teistesse riikidesse läinud "kodueestlased",** või kui pigem kasutada registripõhist rahvaarvu u. 1 340 000 ja lisada sellele juurde 50 000 inimest, siis saab tulemuseks 1 390 000, ning kui võrrelda 2000. aasta rahvaloenduse tulemusega 1 370 052,* siis võib täiesti väita juba, et iive on meil ikka täitsa positiivne :-)
* Statistikaameti andmed
** "Kodueestlaste" all pean silmas neid, kes Eestis sündinud ja üles kasvanud, nii enam-vähem.
Niisiis...
Vaadakem ka asja helgemale küljele: viimatise rahvaloenduse esialgne tulemus* 1 294 236 + Soomes olevad 50 000 eestlast = 1 344 236 — millest saab järeldada, et Eesti ja Soome peale kokku pole tegelikult eestimaalaste ja eestlaste rahvaarv eriti vähenenud... Võiks tõdeda, et rahvaarv pole tegelikult eriti isegi kahanenud.
Aga kui lisada juurde kõik teistesse riikidesse läinud "kodueestlased",** või kui pigem kasutada registripõhist rahvaarvu u. 1 340 000 ja lisada sellele juurde 50 000 inimest, siis saab tulemuseks 1 390 000, ning kui võrrelda 2000. aasta rahvaloenduse tulemusega 1 370 052,* siis võib täiesti väita juba, et iive on meil ikka täitsa positiivne :-)
* Statistikaameti andmed
** "Kodueestlaste" all pean silmas neid, kes Eestis sündinud ja üles kasvanud, nii enam-vähem.
pühapäev, 22. jaanuar 2012
The Way We Were
In reply to a post on an unrelated movie on IMDb.
I guess your parents were hoping that you'd understand the point of "The Way We Were", because in some way, it probably related to them, but weren't able to convey it in any other means than having you watch it. The film is actually more difficult and relates to themes that a ten-year-old might find hard to grasp.
Long story short for "The Way We Were":
If memory of the synopsis of "The Way We Were" (which I haven't seen) read from Wikipedia serves me right, then the point of it was that two people deeply in love with one another had to give up a lot to be together in tenuous times, but eventually split for greener pastures to have a life — or what they thought life meant for them at the time — lest they be forced to be much worse off by events and powers beyound their control.
Time moved on and they met again, being in an age past their prime youth. Reminiscing, they realized that they were actually at their best when staying together when young, yet far too many events had gone past, and they had grown too much apart of one another throughout all that time to be like the way they were.
In my view, the movie probably warns people not to break precious relationships too easily, advising them to ponder the merits of a loving relationship further than just face value. The film also suggests that young people (perhaps by their nature) possess lesser amounts of detachment to recognize the gift of love in their midst.
I guess your parents were hoping that you'd understand the point of "The Way We Were", because in some way, it probably related to them, but weren't able to convey it in any other means than having you watch it. The film is actually more difficult and relates to themes that a ten-year-old might find hard to grasp.
Long story short for "The Way We Were":
If memory of the synopsis of "The Way We Were" (which I haven't seen) read from Wikipedia serves me right, then the point of it was that two people deeply in love with one another had to give up a lot to be together in tenuous times, but eventually split for greener pastures to have a life — or what they thought life meant for them at the time — lest they be forced to be much worse off by events and powers beyound their control.
Time moved on and they met again, being in an age past their prime youth. Reminiscing, they realized that they were actually at their best when staying together when young, yet far too many events had gone past, and they had grown too much apart of one another throughout all that time to be like the way they were.
In my view, the movie probably warns people not to break precious relationships too easily, advising them to ponder the merits of a loving relationship further than just face value. The film also suggests that young people (perhaps by their nature) possess lesser amounts of detachment to recognize the gift of love in their midst.
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.
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.
Tellimine:
Postitused (Atom)