So I've decided that I'm going to give Script Frenzy a go (anybody feel like competing with me?). Of course, I'm pretty certain that if I don't get a least a third to half of it done during the first week (my spring break) there's no way I'm going to win, so I may end up giving up by the 5th. Apparently the weird thing about writing a scrip is all the formatting issues that you have to deal with. Luckily, there's a few free programs that help you to format stuff, so I've been busy exploring the program I've picked over the past few days.
There are a couple that you can use online - perfect for people at a regular job who want to sneak in some writing through the day. Not so perfect for somebody who occasionally has to escape wi-fi signals to get everything done. So I picked one that I can install on my computer. It has a lot of cool things I'm never going to use (storyboarding, production schedules), but I can imagine that would be really nice for somebody making a no-budget film.
Now to find some shinguards.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Castle
I think it's a little bit sad how much time I spend on my blog talking about television shows and movies, but I'm pretty sure I'm okay with being a little bit sad. My most recent find is a show called Castle. It's on ABC, so I don't know how much advertising time it's been getting, but I hope that they're marketing it well, because I can see this show being a keeper.
It's another crime show set in New York city, so those of you that know me are probably wondering why I even like it. Two words: Nathan Fillion. He plays Richard Castle, a best-selling mystery author who recently got bored with his main character and killed him off. He's now looking for new inspiration, and luckily, a killer decides to kill people in the same way that some of the victims in his books have been killed. This introduces him to NYPD detective Kate Beckett, and he's suddenly found something new and entertaining to do - help with cases.
The murders are actually interesting (complex, convoluted - what you'd expect in a mystery novel), but the real fun is the characters (obviously, or why else would I like it?). Fillion plays the role that he is so good at - a very likeable full-of-himself character that has a quip for everything. There have only been two episodes so far, but I hope that this one sticks around.
Mondays, ABC, 10 PM.
It's another crime show set in New York city, so those of you that know me are probably wondering why I even like it. Two words: Nathan Fillion. He plays Richard Castle, a best-selling mystery author who recently got bored with his main character and killed him off. He's now looking for new inspiration, and luckily, a killer decides to kill people in the same way that some of the victims in his books have been killed. This introduces him to NYPD detective Kate Beckett, and he's suddenly found something new and entertaining to do - help with cases.
The murders are actually interesting (complex, convoluted - what you'd expect in a mystery novel), but the real fun is the characters (obviously, or why else would I like it?). Fillion plays the role that he is so good at - a very likeable full-of-himself character that has a quip for everything. There have only been two episodes so far, but I hope that this one sticks around.
Mondays, ABC, 10 PM.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Lesson of the Midterm
If your professor gives you a function that is not a standard "memorize how to take the derivative" function, assume that he made a mistake, forget that dy/dx of log x is not the same as dy/dx lnx and don't waste 40+ minutes trying to find a way around taking the derivative of the function.
In case you're curious, log x = lnx/log (base), so the derivative of logx = 1/log(base) * x. As it turns out, in the problem you end up dividing two derivitaves of a log by each other, so the log(base) drops out, and you're left with the same exact thing as if they were lnx.
And yes, I realize not everybody is going to know what I'm talking about, but some of you will, and that's all that matters.
In case you're curious, log x = lnx/log (base), so the derivative of logx = 1/log(base) * x. As it turns out, in the problem you end up dividing two derivitaves of a log by each other, so the log(base) drops out, and you're left with the same exact thing as if they were lnx.
And yes, I realize not everybody is going to know what I'm talking about, but some of you will, and that's all that matters.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Absurdities
I'm currently watching Gene Kelly in The Three Musketeers when I should be studying. I just can't help it - it's so absurdly hilarious. I think Gene Kelly is trying to be somewhat serious, but it just doesn't work. Everything he does looks to me like the've just expanded the silent scenes from Singing in the Rain - you know, the ones with the overacting and overbearing music. But it's much more entertaining than studying.
Macro is very heavy in algebra and calculus - there's hardly any need to know economic theory, just be able to move variables around. Given enough time, I can easily derive all of the identities that I need to know, but the question is if I'll have enough time to do so. So I have to figure out which ones I need to memorize in order to optimize time. And, of course, I have to keep all of the different models straight, which is perhaps hardest because all of the variables are the same, and there are only slight changes from one to the other.
The nice thing is that the professors decided to actually talk to one another, and all our midterms are in different weeks. Part of me would prefer to just get them over with, but it's nicer for those that aren't as fond of tests as I am. So next week is history, and after that, Micro. Then spring break, which will allow for some parties and game playing. I'm hoping to take another big chunk out of Fable II.
Macro is very heavy in algebra and calculus - there's hardly any need to know economic theory, just be able to move variables around. Given enough time, I can easily derive all of the identities that I need to know, but the question is if I'll have enough time to do so. So I have to figure out which ones I need to memorize in order to optimize time. And, of course, I have to keep all of the different models straight, which is perhaps hardest because all of the variables are the same, and there are only slight changes from one to the other.
The nice thing is that the professors decided to actually talk to one another, and all our midterms are in different weeks. Part of me would prefer to just get them over with, but it's nicer for those that aren't as fond of tests as I am. So next week is history, and after that, Micro. Then spring break, which will allow for some parties and game playing. I'm hoping to take another big chunk out of Fable II.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Loving spring
I love the fact that my window faces the afternoon sun. When I'm wishing that I could take a nap outside in the sun (but won't because it's much too cold), I can pretend that I am by leaving the curtains open and sleeping in the sunshine.
This weekend is the first weekend of soccer tryouts, which means that I have to spend this and next Saturday/Sunday bossing around a bunch of 13 year olds. Should be fun.
Saturday I saw Watchmen, and in general I enjoyed it, although there were a few things that I didn't enjoy too much. If you're interested, I thought this article was really well done (there are spoilers, so you're warned). Basically what it boils down to is this: people who have read the novel will easily see that the director tried his hardest to emulate it, sometimes to the detraction of the film as a stand alone. I saw it with two people who hadn't read the novel, and there were things that I had to explain, although a lot of these were in the beginning when people have to get acclimated to the fact that it's an alternate history.
I also read an interesting article on BSG and feminism.
This weekend is the first weekend of soccer tryouts, which means that I have to spend this and next Saturday/Sunday bossing around a bunch of 13 year olds. Should be fun.
Saturday I saw Watchmen, and in general I enjoyed it, although there were a few things that I didn't enjoy too much. If you're interested, I thought this article was really well done (there are spoilers, so you're warned). Basically what it boils down to is this: people who have read the novel will easily see that the director tried his hardest to emulate it, sometimes to the detraction of the film as a stand alone. I saw it with two people who hadn't read the novel, and there were things that I had to explain, although a lot of these were in the beginning when people have to get acclimated to the fact that it's an alternate history.
I also read an interesting article on BSG and feminism.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Discounting Gnomes
I hate it when the gnomes steal intangible objects - like an hour of my day. Freaking thieving gnomes.
I decided to test an economic theory - well, I guess it's more like an almost assumption - today on some high schoolers. In economics we do something called "discounting the future." This centers around an assumption that consumption (really utility, but they're somewhat interchangeable in economics) today is worth more than consumption tomorrow. So, for example, if you were to postpone consumption today, you would have to be compensated by more consumption at a later date - and how much more consumption you would require is the discount rate. This is very easily seen in things like investments. If there was no interest rate - or if it isn't high enough - very few people would invest money.
Anyways, I tested this as simply as I could, by first asking four teenagers if they would rather have a brand new computer today, or the same brand new computer a year from now, but for 10% cheaper. Of course, I had to add some corallaries that technology will not improve for any computer over the next year. Half said they would take it today and half said next year. But the problem with this situation is that some had functional computers, while others had much less functional computers.
So I decided to change the consumption to something that would be completely used up at the time of consumption and is a luxury item - a nice dinner out. Of coruse, I had to shorten the time period, so I asked if they would rather go out to their favorite eating establishment today at full price, or a week from today and get $20 off. Again, half said today and half said next week. I'd be really intrigued on seeing if discounting is different among age groups, and if different goods bring about different discount rates.
Because something about discount rates just doesn't sit right with me, but I can't really figure out what it is. In Macro we're talking about intertemporal budget constraints, and how, if you could figure out exactly how much money you would make in your life and when, you would end up consuming the same exact amount of money every time period. But that obviously isn't the case with me. My consumption is way down while I'm in school, but it doesn't have to be. I have a lot of loans available to me, which would dramatically increase my consumption now at the price of paying it back later when I have a greater income, but I don't take advantage of it.
So I guess I'll keep asking questions and thinking about discount rates, and maybe (if I'm lucky) I'll figure out a Master's Thesis topic on the way.
I decided to test an economic theory - well, I guess it's more like an almost assumption - today on some high schoolers. In economics we do something called "discounting the future." This centers around an assumption that consumption (really utility, but they're somewhat interchangeable in economics) today is worth more than consumption tomorrow. So, for example, if you were to postpone consumption today, you would have to be compensated by more consumption at a later date - and how much more consumption you would require is the discount rate. This is very easily seen in things like investments. If there was no interest rate - or if it isn't high enough - very few people would invest money.
Anyways, I tested this as simply as I could, by first asking four teenagers if they would rather have a brand new computer today, or the same brand new computer a year from now, but for 10% cheaper. Of course, I had to add some corallaries that technology will not improve for any computer over the next year. Half said they would take it today and half said next year. But the problem with this situation is that some had functional computers, while others had much less functional computers.
So I decided to change the consumption to something that would be completely used up at the time of consumption and is a luxury item - a nice dinner out. Of coruse, I had to shorten the time period, so I asked if they would rather go out to their favorite eating establishment today at full price, or a week from today and get $20 off. Again, half said today and half said next week. I'd be really intrigued on seeing if discounting is different among age groups, and if different goods bring about different discount rates.
Because something about discount rates just doesn't sit right with me, but I can't really figure out what it is. In Macro we're talking about intertemporal budget constraints, and how, if you could figure out exactly how much money you would make in your life and when, you would end up consuming the same exact amount of money every time period. But that obviously isn't the case with me. My consumption is way down while I'm in school, but it doesn't have to be. I have a lot of loans available to me, which would dramatically increase my consumption now at the price of paying it back later when I have a greater income, but I don't take advantage of it.
So I guess I'll keep asking questions and thinking about discount rates, and maybe (if I'm lucky) I'll figure out a Master's Thesis topic on the way.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Also...
What's up with BN not having music or movies? Is it just the one up here or are they all like that now?
Heroes
I am officially caught up on this season of Heroes. I must say, I really enjoyed being able to watch all of the beginning of the season in a row. I think that was really the only problem with it - it was pretty slow to build up (which most people won't enjoy), but once it did, it was awesome. The episodes that have happened since the New Year have been rather cliche and disappointing. Hopefully things will get going, though.
I heard that a lot of people didn't like the early season 3 episodes. I didn't stop watching because of that, but rather because there were other things I had to watch on Mondays. I always planned on catching up and continuing with Heroes. So, I think the problem with the first episodes is that there were a handful of new characters introduced, while others kept dying, or almost dying, or dying and then coming back to life. The problem with all of this is that viewers don't know who to invest in.
For example, much of season 2 was spent investing in DL and Nikki. But whoops, now they're both dead, and their son is pretty much written out of the script (although I have a hope that he'll return).
Another problem is time travel. This is rather key to the show, mostly because they use it as an information gathering device for the characters (either through painting the future or traveling to it), and the more you use time travel, the bigger potential hole you are digging to bury yourself in. I'm getting sick of characters seeing the future, changing it, but then still thinking that other things they've seen will still be true. I'm thinking that they will out of necessity have to keep the time travel/pre-knowledge to a minimum, which means down playing everybody's favorite character and my personal favorite character (who are not the same character).
Hopefully they'll keep the show around. The characters have a lot of room to grow, and I'd like them to have the time to do it. I have a feeling that at the end of this season there is going to be a dynamic change in their setting, and so far no show has really had a chance to explore that setting (the 4400 got close, but it got canceled before it could. X-Men 3 also touched on it, but you can't explore things in a movie the way you can in a show).
I heard that a lot of people didn't like the early season 3 episodes. I didn't stop watching because of that, but rather because there were other things I had to watch on Mondays. I always planned on catching up and continuing with Heroes. So, I think the problem with the first episodes is that there were a handful of new characters introduced, while others kept dying, or almost dying, or dying and then coming back to life. The problem with all of this is that viewers don't know who to invest in.
For example, much of season 2 was spent investing in DL and Nikki. But whoops, now they're both dead, and their son is pretty much written out of the script (although I have a hope that he'll return).
Another problem is time travel. This is rather key to the show, mostly because they use it as an information gathering device for the characters (either through painting the future or traveling to it), and the more you use time travel, the bigger potential hole you are digging to bury yourself in. I'm getting sick of characters seeing the future, changing it, but then still thinking that other things they've seen will still be true. I'm thinking that they will out of necessity have to keep the time travel/pre-knowledge to a minimum, which means down playing everybody's favorite character and my personal favorite character (who are not the same character).
Hopefully they'll keep the show around. The characters have a lot of room to grow, and I'd like them to have the time to do it. I have a feeling that at the end of this season there is going to be a dynamic change in their setting, and so far no show has really had a chance to explore that setting (the 4400 got close, but it got canceled before it could. X-Men 3 also touched on it, but you can't explore things in a movie the way you can in a show).
Monday, March 02, 2009
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Credits
I really enjoy watching credits. Anybody who has gone to the movies with me knows that I like to watch them all the way through to the end, even after any hope of a post credit scene has gone. The same is true of opening credits. These days, there are two types of credits, and both have their strengths and weaknesses.
One type is to show the actors doing stuff, usually along with their names. This is the standard one that most shows do. I find it really interesting to watch the opening credits of new shows and try to guess what's going on in the clips they've shown. You know that they have to be from the first couple of episodes that they've filmed, so you can try to guess the relationships and personalities of all the characters and what will be revealed early on. Recent example of this: Dollhouse.
The other type of credit doesn't show the actors, but it shows something that is meant to put you in the right type of mood to watch the show. An excellent example of this is Weeds or Dexter, but it isn't only in Showtime or HBO - Saving Grace and The Riches did the same thing.
What I don't really like are the shows that just show images of the actors (ie not clips from episodes). This is what the third season of Veronica Mars did, and what Sarah Connor is doing now. Unless it is really stylized, it doesn't get you into the mood to watch the show, which is what all credits should do.
Lastly, a word on theme songs. This is one of the most crucial things a show has to pick, in my opinion. It sets the mood for every viewing, and viewers have to listen to it every week (or every hour if they're watching from dvd). It would be interesting to choose to watch new shows based on their theme songs. I may have to experiment with that. Some of my favorites themes: Buffy, Veroica Mars (pre-Season 3), Firefly, and Star Trek: Enterprise. Dollhouse is slowly getting up on the list, but I think it's a bit too short.
One type is to show the actors doing stuff, usually along with their names. This is the standard one that most shows do. I find it really interesting to watch the opening credits of new shows and try to guess what's going on in the clips they've shown. You know that they have to be from the first couple of episodes that they've filmed, so you can try to guess the relationships and personalities of all the characters and what will be revealed early on. Recent example of this: Dollhouse.
The other type of credit doesn't show the actors, but it shows something that is meant to put you in the right type of mood to watch the show. An excellent example of this is Weeds or Dexter, but it isn't only in Showtime or HBO - Saving Grace and The Riches did the same thing.
What I don't really like are the shows that just show images of the actors (ie not clips from episodes). This is what the third season of Veronica Mars did, and what Sarah Connor is doing now. Unless it is really stylized, it doesn't get you into the mood to watch the show, which is what all credits should do.
Lastly, a word on theme songs. This is one of the most crucial things a show has to pick, in my opinion. It sets the mood for every viewing, and viewers have to listen to it every week (or every hour if they're watching from dvd). It would be interesting to choose to watch new shows based on their theme songs. I may have to experiment with that. Some of my favorites themes: Buffy, Veroica Mars (pre-Season 3), Firefly, and Star Trek: Enterprise. Dollhouse is slowly getting up on the list, but I think it's a bit too short.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Time Wasting
Usually I don't mind review. Okay, that's a lie, but usually I can get over it without being too frustrated, but class last night really tested this.
One of the cool things about microeconomics is that while you have two sides of markets - producers and consumers - looking at how they consume and produce is remarkably similar. Utility and production have many of the same properties, and both are subject to budget constraints. What this means in terms of learning about it is that once you have consumer theory down, it's a very small leap to get to producer theory. Ideally, you shouldn't have to spend much time going over producer theory, except to point out where words are different, and to point out a few things with costs (you don't really look at the average cost of utility like you do the average cost of production).
Unfortunately, this didn't happen. Instead of quickly going over producer theory and moving on to something a little more interesting, we spent just as much time going over producer theory as we did consumer theory. I really can't figure out the need to do this. I mean, once you've talked about minimizing cost in one setting, you've talked about it in the other.
What's more, all of us have gone over it before in previous economic classes (it really doesn't change that much from one level of theory to another - you just get to go a little deeper). Oh well, I guess it just means that I won't have trouble keeping up with the material. At least the homework he gives us is interesting to do - I have that to look forward to.
One of the cool things about microeconomics is that while you have two sides of markets - producers and consumers - looking at how they consume and produce is remarkably similar. Utility and production have many of the same properties, and both are subject to budget constraints. What this means in terms of learning about it is that once you have consumer theory down, it's a very small leap to get to producer theory. Ideally, you shouldn't have to spend much time going over producer theory, except to point out where words are different, and to point out a few things with costs (you don't really look at the average cost of utility like you do the average cost of production).
Unfortunately, this didn't happen. Instead of quickly going over producer theory and moving on to something a little more interesting, we spent just as much time going over producer theory as we did consumer theory. I really can't figure out the need to do this. I mean, once you've talked about minimizing cost in one setting, you've talked about it in the other.
What's more, all of us have gone over it before in previous economic classes (it really doesn't change that much from one level of theory to another - you just get to go a little deeper). Oh well, I guess it just means that I won't have trouble keeping up with the material. At least the homework he gives us is interesting to do - I have that to look forward to.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Tempting
I'm very tempted to travel over to SF this weekend to check out WonderCon, but I don't think it'd be much fun by myself. Still, the idea is very tempting.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Blerg
It's been raining for four straight days, and I want it to stop just long enough for me to get a good run in. But I know as soon as I get ready and walk outside, the wind and rain will start up again. Oh well, I suppose we need as much rain as we can get.
I have the house to myself until later this evening (and have since Sunday). It's been nice to be able to make a mess and not have to clean it up immediately like I usually do. It's also been nice to have the downstairs to myself. I've gotten through three movies in as many days, mostly due to the fact that there's nobody down here making noise. Wednesday and Thursday I'm housesitting for another family, so I'll have a place to escape to while this house is packed with people.
You know, there is one good thing about all the marketing for V Day - the cheap candy the day after. I'm stocked up for a month, at least!
I have the house to myself until later this evening (and have since Sunday). It's been nice to be able to make a mess and not have to clean it up immediately like I usually do. It's also been nice to have the downstairs to myself. I've gotten through three movies in as many days, mostly due to the fact that there's nobody down here making noise. Wednesday and Thursday I'm housesitting for another family, so I'll have a place to escape to while this house is packed with people.
You know, there is one good thing about all the marketing for V Day - the cheap candy the day after. I'm stocked up for a month, at least!
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Temptation
I know that if I go outside to run, it will be freezing. But if looks so nice and warm from here. You'd think I would have learned this lesson long ago during Spokane springs.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Stuck in class
I'm seriously about to hit a guy in one of my classes over the head with my book. He's got a serious breathing problem in that his normal breathing sounds like me after I've run a couple miles. Or it sounds like he's breathing through a tube, I can't quite decide.
Anyways, I noticed this the first week, and it's quite distracting to me. So the next week I moved, knowing that if I had a problem, I should be the one to change. But he decided to sit right in front of me. Now this was only a little better than him sitting next to me. But there are four rows of desks in the classroom, and I was in the third, so this week, I figured that if I sat in the very back row, he would stay in the second row (where he had sat the previous two weeks).
But no. He again sat directly in front of me. So now I'm going to do an experiment during break. I'll move a desk down and if, when he comes back, he sits in front of me, I'll know something's up.
Anyways, I noticed this the first week, and it's quite distracting to me. So the next week I moved, knowing that if I had a problem, I should be the one to change. But he decided to sit right in front of me. Now this was only a little better than him sitting next to me. But there are four rows of desks in the classroom, and I was in the third, so this week, I figured that if I sat in the very back row, he would stay in the second row (where he had sat the previous two weeks).
But no. He again sat directly in front of me. So now I'm going to do an experiment during break. I'll move a desk down and if, when he comes back, he sits in front of me, I'll know something's up.
The real difference between American and British
"For the American system of manufactures was, above all, a totally unsentimental approach to the productive process in industry, one in which purely commercial considerations prevailed. The British long consoled themselves with the belief that standardization and mass-production techniques inevitably resulted in an inferior product. Unhappily, from their point of view, they persisted in this belief long after it ceased to contain even an element of truth."
- Why in America? by Nathan Rosenberg, originally published in Yankee Enterprise, the Rise of the American System of Manufactures in 1981
- Why in America? by Nathan Rosenberg, originally published in Yankee Enterprise, the Rise of the American System of Manufactures in 1981
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
I'm doing my happy dance
I feel that it's necessary to share this: Joss Whedon (Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Dr. Horrible) is back in television, this time with a show starring Eliza Dushku (Faith from Buffy and Angel, also Tru from Tru Calling).
Show starts Friday, 9:00 pm, on Fox. Right after Sarah Conner which stars another actress that Joss found. You think they did that on purpose?
In celebration of this new show, I'm going to be doing some posts between now and Friday about why Joss Whedon is the man, and why I'm very worried that this show is on Fox.
Also, thank goodness that the scheduling people didn't screw up and put it during BSG. I would have had to make a tough decision if that was the case (BSG starts at 10 pm).
Show starts Friday, 9:00 pm, on Fox. Right after Sarah Conner which stars another actress that Joss found. You think they did that on purpose?
In celebration of this new show, I'm going to be doing some posts between now and Friday about why Joss Whedon is the man, and why I'm very worried that this show is on Fox.
Also, thank goodness that the scheduling people didn't screw up and put it during BSG. I would have had to make a tough decision if that was the case (BSG starts at 10 pm).
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Lack of Sleepies
I don't really understand my lack of affinity with going to sleep lately. I find myself surfing the internet, going back to pages that I just looked at 10 minutes ago (with nothing new on them), just too put off going to bed. Usually sleep is one of my most tried and true methods of procrastination. I routinely had to get up at 6 am during college because I had put off doing homework for my 8 am class by going to bed.
Perhaps the first step to recovery is admitting I have a problem, and this post will be the first step. And to continue on my path of recover, I'm going to go to bed now.
That is unless I put in disk three of season six of Buffy. If there's anything that's procrastination fodder, it's rewatching old television seasons (especially if there are vampires/magic/butt-kicking involved).
Perhaps the first step to recovery is admitting I have a problem, and this post will be the first step. And to continue on my path of recover, I'm going to go to bed now.
That is unless I put in disk three of season six of Buffy. If there's anything that's procrastination fodder, it's rewatching old television seasons (especially if there are vampires/magic/butt-kicking involved).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
