Monday, April 28, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Meat for Vegetarians
PETA has offered a 1 million-dollar prize to anybody who is able to come up with an in vitro chicken meat product. The prize will go to the lab that produces a, “product that has a taste and texture indistinguishable from real chicken flesh. In fact, the product has to satisfy a panel of 10 meat-eating individuals sourced from a professional focus group services provider.” This prize will add incentives to the dozens of companies, research institutes, and labs where technologies like this are being pursued.But don’t take my word for it, check it out here.
While I’ve had differences with PETA in the past, like when they said they would stop animal testing even if it produced a cure for AIDS; I think this prize is one of their better ideas (not that they have a great deal of good ideas to choose from.) It’s the first step in what I see as a future trend of animal-less meat that I’m sure will dominate future markets; eventually, the price of growing meat in a lab or factory will be cheaper then raising animals for slaughter (though how people will view this product is a mystery to me, though I expect it will be initially negative.)
I still think PETA’s crazy, but at least they are moving a way from assaulting people in fur coats and handing out horror comics to kids, to something that could actually promote their cause. To PETA’s credit, they seem to have realized people won’t stop eating meat, and they’ve adapted to it.
These technologies have great potential: ultimately cheaper food products, lower energy cost of ‘making’ meat products, starving parts of the world can now have protean in their diet (as they no longer have to raise and care for animals.) Huge amounts of land now used for pastures can now be used for something else (which lowers the cost of everything.) If these technologies prove viable, it will mean veal and other high quality meat can be produced anywhere in the country cheaply; not having to worry about good whether for animals, slaughterhouses, complicated butchering, storage, and long transportation.
Yeah, I exited about this new trend; if PETA keeps up this up, I might even donate some money (I’m kidding, of course, I still think their 99.99 percent crazy.)
Some Good Medical News
Thought some positive news from the world of medicine would provide some needed contrast:
"U.S. Childhood Cancer Death Rate Declines Sharply"
The cancer death rate for children in the United States has declined sharply -- down 20 percent from 1990 to 2004 -- thanks to better treatment of leukemia and other cancers, health officials said on Thursday.
...The cancer death rate for U.S. children was 34.2 per million for children up to age 19 in 1990, but fell to 27.3 per million in 2004, the CDC said. This death rate has declined 1.7 percent per year during this period, according to the CDC.
"It's not that we're having less cancer diagnosed. The incidence rates, the new-case rates are the same. It's just that we're getting better survival," the CDC's Dr. Lori Pollack said in a telephone interview.
"'Dramatic' Fall in Measles Deaths"
Measles deaths in Africa fell by 91% between 2000 and 2006, figures from the World Health Organization show. The drop, from an estimated 396,000 to 36,000, means the United Nations target to cut measles deaths by 90% by 2010 has been hit four years early.
...
Overall global measles deaths fell by 68% - from an estimated 757,000 to 242,000 - over the six year period, a WHO report showed.
"U.S. Cancer Death Rates Continue to Fall"
They found important declines in deaths from lung, prostate and colorectal cancers in men, as well as in breast and colon cancer among women. Lung cancer deaths were still on the rise among women but this increase slowed, according to the report."The significant decline in cancer death rates demonstrates important progress in the fight against cancer that has been achieved through effective tobacco control, screening, early detection, and appropriate treatment," U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Julie Gerberding said in a statement.
“US Life Expectancy”
US life expectancy - both at birth and at age 65 - continues to increase year after year. As of 2003, it is at 80 years at birth and 20 years at 65 for women. For men, it is 75 years at birth and 17 at age 65.
Here is the mother-lode of the US data (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus06.pdf. Warning: This is a HUGE file, all sorts of data on 559 pages). I will be looking for 2007 data in due course of time.
“Child mortality 'at record low'”
Fewer children under the age of five are dying, thanks to immunisation programmes and anti-malaria measures, the UN children's agency, Unicef, says. Worldwide, the number of young children who died in 2006 dropped below 10 million for the first time, it said.
Note that these are lows in terms of absolute numbers. That means that in terms of relative numbers or percentages, the story is even better.
I found all these at It's Getting Better All the Time.
"U.S. Childhood Cancer Death Rate Declines Sharply"
The cancer death rate for children in the United States has declined sharply -- down 20 percent from 1990 to 2004 -- thanks to better treatment of leukemia and other cancers, health officials said on Thursday.
...The cancer death rate for U.S. children was 34.2 per million for children up to age 19 in 1990, but fell to 27.3 per million in 2004, the CDC said. This death rate has declined 1.7 percent per year during this period, according to the CDC.
"It's not that we're having less cancer diagnosed. The incidence rates, the new-case rates are the same. It's just that we're getting better survival," the CDC's Dr. Lori Pollack said in a telephone interview.
"'Dramatic' Fall in Measles Deaths"
Measles deaths in Africa fell by 91% between 2000 and 2006, figures from the World Health Organization show. The drop, from an estimated 396,000 to 36,000, means the United Nations target to cut measles deaths by 90% by 2010 has been hit four years early.
...
Overall global measles deaths fell by 68% - from an estimated 757,000 to 242,000 - over the six year period, a WHO report showed.
"U.S. Cancer Death Rates Continue to Fall"
They found important declines in deaths from lung, prostate and colorectal cancers in men, as well as in breast and colon cancer among women. Lung cancer deaths were still on the rise among women but this increase slowed, according to the report."The significant decline in cancer death rates demonstrates important progress in the fight against cancer that has been achieved through effective tobacco control, screening, early detection, and appropriate treatment," U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Julie Gerberding said in a statement.
“US Life Expectancy”
US life expectancy - both at birth and at age 65 - continues to increase year after year. As of 2003, it is at 80 years at birth and 20 years at 65 for women. For men, it is 75 years at birth and 17 at age 65.
Here is the mother-lode of the US data (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus06.pdf. Warning: This is a HUGE file, all sorts of data on 559 pages). I will be looking for 2007 data in due course of time.
“Child mortality 'at record low'”
Fewer children under the age of five are dying, thanks to immunisation programmes and anti-malaria measures, the UN children's agency, Unicef, says. Worldwide, the number of young children who died in 2006 dropped below 10 million for the first time, it said.
Note that these are lows in terms of absolute numbers. That means that in terms of relative numbers or percentages, the story is even better.
I found all these at It's Getting Better All the Time.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
The InnerSpace Foundation
Technological and scientific foundations, institutes, and groups seem to be popping up like rabbits lately, which is a very good thing (especially considering that most of the institutes are private.) Here’s the newest one: The InnerSpace Foundation.“The IF takes the position that the most rapid timelines to solving humanity’s most serious problems — including providing complete and lasting cures for the most diseased and disabled — will be accomplished through widespread improvement of memory and mind, rather than through the best efforts of people who are well-meaning but of naturally limited abilities.”
- Dr. Pete Estep
The logic goes like this: you live in New York and want to get to the west coast, but you only have a car that goes 25 mph. Instead of just trucking out west in your inferior vehicle, the InnerSpace Foundation claims it is better to improve the car, for it can go up to a 100 mph; ultimately saving time and energy.
The IF is seeking the improvement of human intelligence through artificial means. The organization currently has two prizes in place, one for the improvement of memory, and one for cognitive-learning ability.
“The IF Prize for Learning will be awarded for the successful development and demonstration of a device similar in function to a flash drive (a.k.a. thumb drive) for computers. This device will store standardized information that can be accessed by the brain (sometimes referred to as “downloading”) by thought alone (volitional access). This will allow someone to “learn” information in a completely revolutionary way. The other device will also be similar to a flash drive but will write or store a person’s memory information (sometimes referred to as “uploading”), which can be subsequently retrieved by thought.”
These technologies seem a long way off (considering we don’t currently understand how intelligence works) It might make more sense to just to start going across country at 25 mph. I have no professional knowledge to base this on, but the technology doesn’t seem feasible within the near future.
Still the idea of auxiliary memory (and cognitive improvement) is interesting, and is talked about briefly in Objectivist David Veksler’s article: Our Techno-Utopian Future: Fallacies and Predictions.
The human brain is affected by what it is exposed to; even the physical shape of the brain is altered with experience. People that learn to read will possess differences then those who don’t; children who have learned to talk will have a vastly different brain then those who don’t (which has happened due to extreme isolation and abuse.) In the same sense, new technologies, especially like the ones listed above, will likely change the brain chemistry; how this affects thought and behavior is still unknown.
So a device that records memory for the brain might result in the part of the brain responsible for memory becoming smaller, and other areas becoming more developed.
Technologies like this will likely be created in the future; in fact, one could argue that it is already starting to happen (who remembers phone numbers anymore? There all in my cell-phone.) Keep in mind, that one of humanities first auxiliary memory devises was the written word; which is one of humanities greatest achievements, and radically altered how men dealt with the world and information.
These new technologies are a natural progression of our desire to store and keep the information and creations of our minds. We are looking at the potential for technologies that might be as profound to the human experience as the written word.
But I’m getting way ahead of myself; the question is weather these technologies are possible within the foreseeable future, and weather they will result in an improvement in human creativity, intelligence, and success. It seems, even if one could successfully create these technologies, there seems no guarantee that they will result in better performance.
Still, I am glad some intelligent people are working on this; ultimately, no research is wasted, and this one seems an exiting avenue to explore.
- Ryan
P.S. – On a side note; those who say we are going to become cyborgs say that it will start slowly with technologies like this. They would also argue that the trends that lead to cyborization are already well-underway.
The Economics of College
I don’t always agree with Thomas Sowell (on issues of Immigration, for instance) but the man is a great economist; able to both explain economic concepts in a straightforward manner, and apply them to everyday life. He’s wooed me yet again with a three part article about college, subsidies, resources, and values.The Economics of College, Part I
The Economics of College, Part II
The Economics of College, Part III
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Scientific Skepticism of Old
Here are some good quotes of technological/scientific skepticism of the past:
“..so many centuries after the Creation it is unlikely that anyone couldfind hitherto unknown lands of any value.” - committee advising Ferdinandand Isabella regarding Columbus’ proposal, 1486
“I would sooner believe that two Yankee professors lied, than that stonesfell from the sky” - Thomas Jefferson, 1807 on hearing an eyewitnessreport of falling meteorites.
“Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil?You’re crazy.” - Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to hisproject to drill for oil in 1859.
“Louis Pasteur’s theory of germs is ridiculous fiction.” - PierrePachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872
“The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from theintrusion of the wise and humane surgeon.” - Sir John Eric Ericksen,British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria1873.
“Such startling announcements as these should be depreciated as beingunworthy of science and mischievious to to its true progress” - SirWilliam Siemens, 1880, on Edison’s announcement of a successful light bulb.
“We are probably nearing the limit of all we can know about astronomy.” -Simon Newcomb, astronomer, 1888
“Fooling around with alternating current is just a waste of time. Nobodywill use it, ever.” - Thomas Edison, 1889
“The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science haveall been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that thepossibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of newdiscoveries is exceedingly remote…. Our future discoveries must belooked for in the sixth place of decimals.” - physicist Albert. A.Michelson, 1894
“It is apparent to me that the possibilities of the aeroplane, which twoor three years ago were thought to hold the solution to the [flyingmachine] problem, have been exhausted, and that we must turn elsewhere.”- Thomas Edison, 1895
“The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances, knownforms of machinery, and known forms of force can be united in apracticable machine by which men shall fly for long distances through theair, seems to the writer as complete as it is possible for thedemonstration of any physical fact to be.” - astronomer S. Newcomb, 1906
“Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.” - MarechalFerdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, 1911
“Caterpillar landships are idiotic and useless. Those officers and menare wasting their time and are not pulling their proper weight in the war”- Fourth Lord of the British Admiralty, 1915, in regards to use of tanksin war.
“Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action andreaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum againstwhich to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out dailyin high schools.” - 1921 New York Times editorial about RobertGoddard’s revolutionary rocket work.
“The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Whowould pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?” - DavidSarnoff’s associates in response to his urgings for investment in theradio in the 1920s.
“All a trick.” “A Mere Mountebank.” “Absolute swindler.” “Doesn’t knowwhat he’s about.”
“What’s the good of it?” “What useful purpose will itserve?” - Members of Britain’s Royal Society, 1926, after a demonstrationof television.
“This foolish idea of shooting at the moon is an example of the absurdlengths to which vicious specialisation will carry scientists.”-A.W. Bickerton, physicist, NZ, 1926
“There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever beobtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered atwill.” — Albert Einstein, 1932
“The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone whoexpects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms istalking moonshine” - Ernst Rutherford, 1933
“The whole procedure [of shooting rockets into space]…presentsdifficulties of so fundamental a nature, that we are forced to dismiss thenotion as essentially impracticable, in spite of the author’s insistentappeal to put aside prejudice and to recollect the supposed impossibilityof heavier-than-air flight before it was actually accomplished.” Richardvan der Riet Wooley, British astronomer, reviewing P.E. Cleator’s “Rocketsin Space”, Nature, March 14, 1936
“Space travel is utter bilge!” -Sir Richard Van Der Riet Wolley, astronomer
“Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons.” - PopularMechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949
“I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talkedwith the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is afad that won’t last out the year.” - The editor in charge of businessbooks for Prentice Hall, 1957
“Space travel is bunk” -Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal ofBritain, 1957, two weeks before the launch of Sputnik
“There is practically no chance communications space satellites will beused to provide better telephone, telegraph, television, or radioservice inside the United States.” -T. Craven, FCC Commissioner, 1961
“But what… is it good for?” - Engineer at the Advanced ComputingSystems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.
“There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” - KenOlson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp.,1977
Of course, there are many good skeptics, and good things to be skeptical about (in fact. I am willing to say that most new ideas are not completely valid, if at all.) Many will be surprised to find many great thinkers and scientists listed above (Thomas Edison, Jefferson, Einstein); just shows us that bad skepticism is not only the purview of the unthinking and unimaginative (The fact that these men where wrong in these instances didn’t take away from their virtues, by the way. In fact, some quotes above, even though they are wrong, are ligitimate thoughts somewhat taken out of context.)
By the way, I found all these quotes at Accelerating Future.
“..so many centuries after the Creation it is unlikely that anyone couldfind hitherto unknown lands of any value.” - committee advising Ferdinandand Isabella regarding Columbus’ proposal, 1486
“I would sooner believe that two Yankee professors lied, than that stonesfell from the sky” - Thomas Jefferson, 1807 on hearing an eyewitnessreport of falling meteorites.
“Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil?You’re crazy.” - Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to hisproject to drill for oil in 1859.
“Louis Pasteur’s theory of germs is ridiculous fiction.” - PierrePachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872
“The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from theintrusion of the wise and humane surgeon.” - Sir John Eric Ericksen,British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria1873.
“Such startling announcements as these should be depreciated as beingunworthy of science and mischievious to to its true progress” - SirWilliam Siemens, 1880, on Edison’s announcement of a successful light bulb.
“We are probably nearing the limit of all we can know about astronomy.” -Simon Newcomb, astronomer, 1888
“Fooling around with alternating current is just a waste of time. Nobodywill use it, ever.” - Thomas Edison, 1889
“The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science haveall been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that thepossibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of newdiscoveries is exceedingly remote…. Our future discoveries must belooked for in the sixth place of decimals.” - physicist Albert. A.Michelson, 1894
“It is apparent to me that the possibilities of the aeroplane, which twoor three years ago were thought to hold the solution to the [flyingmachine] problem, have been exhausted, and that we must turn elsewhere.”- Thomas Edison, 1895
“The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances, knownforms of machinery, and known forms of force can be united in apracticable machine by which men shall fly for long distances through theair, seems to the writer as complete as it is possible for thedemonstration of any physical fact to be.” - astronomer S. Newcomb, 1906
“Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.” - MarechalFerdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, 1911
“Caterpillar landships are idiotic and useless. Those officers and menare wasting their time and are not pulling their proper weight in the war”- Fourth Lord of the British Admiralty, 1915, in regards to use of tanksin war.
“Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action andreaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum againstwhich to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out dailyin high schools.” - 1921 New York Times editorial about RobertGoddard’s revolutionary rocket work.
“The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Whowould pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?” - DavidSarnoff’s associates in response to his urgings for investment in theradio in the 1920s.
“All a trick.” “A Mere Mountebank.” “Absolute swindler.” “Doesn’t knowwhat he’s about.”
“What’s the good of it?” “What useful purpose will itserve?” - Members of Britain’s Royal Society, 1926, after a demonstrationof television.
“This foolish idea of shooting at the moon is an example of the absurdlengths to which vicious specialisation will carry scientists.”-A.W. Bickerton, physicist, NZ, 1926
“There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever beobtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered atwill.” — Albert Einstein, 1932
“The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone whoexpects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms istalking moonshine” - Ernst Rutherford, 1933
“The whole procedure [of shooting rockets into space]…presentsdifficulties of so fundamental a nature, that we are forced to dismiss thenotion as essentially impracticable, in spite of the author’s insistentappeal to put aside prejudice and to recollect the supposed impossibilityof heavier-than-air flight before it was actually accomplished.” Richardvan der Riet Wooley, British astronomer, reviewing P.E. Cleator’s “Rocketsin Space”, Nature, March 14, 1936
“Space travel is utter bilge!” -Sir Richard Van Der Riet Wolley, astronomer
“Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons.” - PopularMechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949
“I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talkedwith the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is afad that won’t last out the year.” - The editor in charge of businessbooks for Prentice Hall, 1957
“Space travel is bunk” -Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal ofBritain, 1957, two weeks before the launch of Sputnik
“There is practically no chance communications space satellites will beused to provide better telephone, telegraph, television, or radioservice inside the United States.” -T. Craven, FCC Commissioner, 1961
“But what… is it good for?” - Engineer at the Advanced ComputingSystems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.
“There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” - KenOlson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp.,1977
Of course, there are many good skeptics, and good things to be skeptical about (in fact. I am willing to say that most new ideas are not completely valid, if at all.) Many will be surprised to find many great thinkers and scientists listed above (Thomas Edison, Jefferson, Einstein); just shows us that bad skepticism is not only the purview of the unthinking and unimaginative (The fact that these men where wrong in these instances didn’t take away from their virtues, by the way. In fact, some quotes above, even though they are wrong, are ligitimate thoughts somewhat taken out of context.)
By the way, I found all these quotes at Accelerating Future.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
‘Ghost in the Shell’ to be made into movie
I love these stories; both the comic and the anime series are incredible (though I wasn’t a huge fan of the movies, didn’t like the “mood.”)It’s a fair bet that Spielberg and DreamWorks (who are producing the film) will bring in the great action and style, and maybe even the political and social intrigue; but I don’t know if DreamWorks will do justice to the philosophical underpinnings, which is an important part of the stories.
After all, the very title “Ghost in the Shell” is riddled with though-provoking goodness.
Friday, April 18, 2008
2008 Movie Preview
Here is a quick list of the biggest movies yet-to-come this year:
Iron Man, Staring the ever talented Robert Downy Jr., promises to be the first big hit of the summer. Its hero, an inventor and industrialist, might make for a different kind of superhero movie.
Nobody quote knows what to think about Speed Racer; based on the Japanese cartoon. Though the Wachaski Brothers (The Matrix, V for Vendetta) deserve some trust in matters of style.
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian looks good in the previews, but so did the original, which turned out to be luke warm at best. The sequel looks less metaphorical then the original, a focus on story (and fleshing out the otherwise boring main cast) could save this film.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal skull brings back Harrison Ford to his crowning role. I don’t know weather this film will bring back the magic and the adventure of the original, or become a shallow remnant of its past glory; but I for one am exited.
Initial reports of Sex and the City suggest that it’s going to bomb; though how much those can be trusted can’t be said.
The summer’s animation tour starts of with DreamWorks’s Kung Fu Panda; which might be good, though DreamWorks has produced too much mediocre animation to be trusted.
You Don’t Mess with the Zohan is another Adam Sander vehicle that will likely offer the same kind of comedy we’ve seen before in a different place; though it might be good for a few laughs.
The Happening is M. Night Shaymalan’s newest film, which looks like another movie that tries to build a premise off surprise endings (though I will give Shaymalan kudos for some stylistic choices.) This one centers on a mysteries environmental catastrophe (which is undoubtedly the result of human action.)
Edward Norton becomes Bruce Banner in The Incredible Hulk. This sequel to the long-winded release several years ago is going to fix some of the flaws of the original, while still being true to the character. There is some good buzz around this film; though many are thinking what I am thinking, that The Hulk is just not that interesting of a character.
Get Smart is a comedy spy-film, a remake starring Steve Corel; though it is too early to tell if it will sink or swim.
Pixar’s 2008 release is Wall-E. This marks Pixar’s first tryst into satire; it stars a lovable robot Wall-E, as he tries to single-handedly clean up Earth after it is destroyed by consumerism and a short sited Wal-Mart like cooperation called Buy-In-Large. I don’t like Pixar’s anti-capitalist direction, though their focus on quality story-telling and characters might make me forgive them.
Wanted is an action film starring an amoral group of assassins cleaning up the world; there is nothing in this film that looks particularly original, is success seems tentative.
Will Smith is Hancock; a down-on-his-luck superhero who causes more damage then he's worth, advertisements have yet to reveal what kind of depth this movie might have.
Hellboy II: The Golden Army brings back the most lovable anti-Christ you’ll ever meet; this time with hosts of new characters and a much wider world. The first one wasn’t bad, though far from spectacular; the sequel might develop the world better then the original, and round out the characters.
Mamma Mia! is a comedy/musical in the same league as Hairspray; and will probably entertaining in the same way (which is not a bad thing.)
The real superhero treat of 2008 will likely be The Dark Knight; the sequel to Chris Nolan’s Batman Begins. These films bring the character of Batman of to where he was always supposed to be. This is the most buzzed movie of the year, and with one of the most brilliant viral campaigns ever conceived, it promises to be successful as well.
Capping off an unremarkable summer for animated movies (with the possible exception of Wall-E) comes Space Chimps; another sarcastic animated film about talking animals.
The X-Files: I want to believe is another sequel; and I want to believe it will be good, though it is far to early to tell.
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor reunites Brendan Frasier and the original Mummy cast, this time in Asia (with Jet Lee being the new Mummy.)
Tropic Thunder is a high-budget comedy about the making of a Vietnam action film; initial reports show promise, though again, it's too early to tell.
Taken promises to be an entertaining, though cliché’, action film; made better by the fact that it stars Liam Neeson.
Madagascar 2: Escape from Africa might generate a few laughs, but in the end I doubt it will be memorable.
In November, the next Bond film entitled Quantum of Solace brings back our favorite spy in his new-more realistic-style.
Also in November, the sixth Harry Potter film, directed by the same man who did the fifth. It’s a fair bet tat the series will keep up its high production values and strong characterization and story.
Disney will also release Bolt, an animated film centered on a dog that thinks he’s a superhero.
Punisher: War Zone is the sequel to the somewhat successful original, this time starring a new Frank Castle, and a more stylistic world.
No real information has come out on the remake on The Day the Earth Stood Still; weather it will be a high quality remake (like war of the worlds) or more like Nicole Kidman’s remake of the body snatchers, remains to be seen.
Iron Man, Staring the ever talented Robert Downy Jr., promises to be the first big hit of the summer. Its hero, an inventor and industrialist, might make for a different kind of superhero movie.
Nobody quote knows what to think about Speed Racer; based on the Japanese cartoon. Though the Wachaski Brothers (The Matrix, V for Vendetta) deserve some trust in matters of style.
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian looks good in the previews, but so did the original, which turned out to be luke warm at best. The sequel looks less metaphorical then the original, a focus on story (and fleshing out the otherwise boring main cast) could save this film.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal skull brings back Harrison Ford to his crowning role. I don’t know weather this film will bring back the magic and the adventure of the original, or become a shallow remnant of its past glory; but I for one am exited.
Initial reports of Sex and the City suggest that it’s going to bomb; though how much those can be trusted can’t be said.
The summer’s animation tour starts of with DreamWorks’s Kung Fu Panda; which might be good, though DreamWorks has produced too much mediocre animation to be trusted.
You Don’t Mess with the Zohan is another Adam Sander vehicle that will likely offer the same kind of comedy we’ve seen before in a different place; though it might be good for a few laughs.
The Happening is M. Night Shaymalan’s newest film, which looks like another movie that tries to build a premise off surprise endings (though I will give Shaymalan kudos for some stylistic choices.) This one centers on a mysteries environmental catastrophe (which is undoubtedly the result of human action.)
Edward Norton becomes Bruce Banner in The Incredible Hulk. This sequel to the long-winded release several years ago is going to fix some of the flaws of the original, while still being true to the character. There is some good buzz around this film; though many are thinking what I am thinking, that The Hulk is just not that interesting of a character.
Get Smart is a comedy spy-film, a remake starring Steve Corel; though it is too early to tell if it will sink or swim.
Pixar’s 2008 release is Wall-E. This marks Pixar’s first tryst into satire; it stars a lovable robot Wall-E, as he tries to single-handedly clean up Earth after it is destroyed by consumerism and a short sited Wal-Mart like cooperation called Buy-In-Large. I don’t like Pixar’s anti-capitalist direction, though their focus on quality story-telling and characters might make me forgive them.
Wanted is an action film starring an amoral group of assassins cleaning up the world; there is nothing in this film that looks particularly original, is success seems tentative.
Will Smith is Hancock; a down-on-his-luck superhero who causes more damage then he's worth, advertisements have yet to reveal what kind of depth this movie might have.
Hellboy II: The Golden Army brings back the most lovable anti-Christ you’ll ever meet; this time with hosts of new characters and a much wider world. The first one wasn’t bad, though far from spectacular; the sequel might develop the world better then the original, and round out the characters.
Mamma Mia! is a comedy/musical in the same league as Hairspray; and will probably entertaining in the same way (which is not a bad thing.)
The real superhero treat of 2008 will likely be The Dark Knight; the sequel to Chris Nolan’s Batman Begins. These films bring the character of Batman of to where he was always supposed to be. This is the most buzzed movie of the year, and with one of the most brilliant viral campaigns ever conceived, it promises to be successful as well.
Capping off an unremarkable summer for animated movies (with the possible exception of Wall-E) comes Space Chimps; another sarcastic animated film about talking animals.
The X-Files: I want to believe is another sequel; and I want to believe it will be good, though it is far to early to tell.
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor reunites Brendan Frasier and the original Mummy cast, this time in Asia (with Jet Lee being the new Mummy.)
Tropic Thunder is a high-budget comedy about the making of a Vietnam action film; initial reports show promise, though again, it's too early to tell.
Taken promises to be an entertaining, though cliché’, action film; made better by the fact that it stars Liam Neeson.
Madagascar 2: Escape from Africa might generate a few laughs, but in the end I doubt it will be memorable.
In November, the next Bond film entitled Quantum of Solace brings back our favorite spy in his new-more realistic-style.
Also in November, the sixth Harry Potter film, directed by the same man who did the fifth. It’s a fair bet tat the series will keep up its high production values and strong characterization and story.
Disney will also release Bolt, an animated film centered on a dog that thinks he’s a superhero.
Punisher: War Zone is the sequel to the somewhat successful original, this time starring a new Frank Castle, and a more stylistic world.
No real information has come out on the remake on The Day the Earth Stood Still; weather it will be a high quality remake (like war of the worlds) or more like Nicole Kidman’s remake of the body snatchers, remains to be seen.
EXPELLED
Ben Stein is hosting a documentary, supposedly it is going to have the biggest debut of any documentary ever; called Expelled: No intelligence allowed. Here is a brief summery:
"'Expelled' calls attention to the plight of highly credentialed scholars who have been forced out of prestigious academic positions because they proposed Intelligent Design as a possible alternative to Charles Darwin’s 150-year-old theories about the origins of life. Instead of entertaining a debate on the merits of competing theories, the scientific establishment has moved to suppress the ID movement in a “systematic and ruthless” way at odds with America’s founding principles, the film asserts."
I am fine with ‘intelligent design’ being played around with in discussion, or in philosophy classes, but it isn’t science. The “Theory” of intelligent design does not meet any of the requirements necessary to be called a ‘scientific’ theory; it is un-testable, un-empirical, it is merely a philosophical assertion based on the shortcomings of evolutionary theory. If intelligent design qualifies as a scientific theory; then so must astrology.
Intelligent Design is not persecuted because people refuse to give it a title it doesn’t deserve.
This is not to say the scientific community-and higher education-don’t have serous flaws; in many respects, the “science establishment” deserves harsh criticism, but not because it doesn’t accept intelligent design.
"'Expelled' calls attention to the plight of highly credentialed scholars who have been forced out of prestigious academic positions because they proposed Intelligent Design as a possible alternative to Charles Darwin’s 150-year-old theories about the origins of life. Instead of entertaining a debate on the merits of competing theories, the scientific establishment has moved to suppress the ID movement in a “systematic and ruthless” way at odds with America’s founding principles, the film asserts."
I am fine with ‘intelligent design’ being played around with in discussion, or in philosophy classes, but it isn’t science. The “Theory” of intelligent design does not meet any of the requirements necessary to be called a ‘scientific’ theory; it is un-testable, un-empirical, it is merely a philosophical assertion based on the shortcomings of evolutionary theory. If intelligent design qualifies as a scientific theory; then so must astrology.
Intelligent Design is not persecuted because people refuse to give it a title it doesn’t deserve.
This is not to say the scientific community-and higher education-don’t have serous flaws; in many respects, the “science establishment” deserves harsh criticism, but not because it doesn’t accept intelligent design.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
For Animation Geeks Only
Disney and Pixar have released their Animation line up for the next few years. My favorite are “Up” and “Newt.”
Without further ado (by the way, I found this at aintitcool.com):
Without further ado (by the way, I found this at aintitcool.com):
WALT DISNEY ANIMATION STUDIOS/ PIXAR ANIMATION STUDIOS RELEASE SCHEDULE
2008 – 2012:
2008:
WALL•E (Domestic Release Date: June 27th, 2008)Pixar Animation StudiosDirector/Screenwriter: Andrew StantonProducer: Jim MorrisCo-Producer: Lindsey CollinsSound and Character Voice Designer: Ben BurttComposer: Thomas Newman, with an Original Song Performed by Peter GabrielVoice Talent: Fred Willard, Jeff Garlin, Sigourney Weaver, John Ratzenberger, Kathy Najimy
What if mankind had to leave Earth and somebody forgot to turn off the last robot?
Academy Award®-winning writer-director Andrew Stanton (“Finding Nemo”) and the inventive storytellers and technical geniuses at Pixar Animation Studios transport moviegoers to a galaxy not so very far away for a new computer-animated cosmic comedy about a determined robot named WALL•E.After hundreds of lonely years doing what he was built for, WALL•E (short for Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class) discovers a new purpose in life (besides collecting knick-knacks) when he meets a sleek search robot named EVE. EVE comes to realize that WALL•E has inadvertently stumbled upon the key to the planet’s future, and races back to space to report her findings to the humans (who have been eagerly awaiting word that it is safe to return home). Meanwhile, WALL•E chases EVE across the galaxy and sets into motion one of the most incredible comedy adventures ever brought to the big screen.
Joining WALL•E on his fantastic journey across a universe of never-before-imagined visions of the future is a hilarious cast of characters including a pet cockroach, and a heroic team of malfunctioning misfit robots.
BOLT (Domestic Release Date: November 26th, 2008, Disney Digital 3-D™)Walt Disney Animation StudiosDirectors: Chris Williams, Byron HowardProducer: Clark SpencerVoice Talent: John Travolta, Miley Cyrus, Susie Essman
For super-dog Bolt (voiced by John Travolta), every day is filled with adventure, danger and intrigue – at least until the cameras stop rolling. When the canine star of a hit TV show is accidentally shipped from his Hollywood soundstage to New York City , he begins his biggest adventure yet – a cross-country journey through the real world. Armed only with the delusions that all his amazing feats and powers are real, and with the help of two unlikely traveling companions – a jaded, abandoned housecat named Mittens (voiced by Susie Essman), and TV-obsessed hamster in a plastic ball named Rhino – Bolt discovers he doesn’t need superpowers to be a hero. Miley Cyrus (“Hannah Montana”) brings her vocal talents to the role of Penny, Bolt’s human co-star on the television series.
2009:
UP (Domestic Release Date: May 29th, 2009, Disney Digital 3-D™)Pixar Animation StudiosDirector: Pete DocterCo-Director: Bob PetersonProducer: Jonas RiveraWriter: Bob PetersonVoice Talent: Ed Asner, Christopher Plummer, John Ratzenberger, Jordan Nagai
From the Academy Award®-nominated team of director Pete Docter (“Monsters, Inc.”) and co-director Bob Peterson comes “Up,” a comedic adventure taking off (and lifting spirits) in summer 2009. Carl Fredricksen spent his entire life dreaming of exploring the globe and experiencing life to its fullest. But at age 78, life seems to have passed him by, until a twist of fate (and a persistent 8-year old Wilderness Explorer named Russell) gives him a new lease on life. “Up” takes audiences on a thrilling journey where the unlikely pair encounter wild terrain, unexpected villains and jungle creatures. When seeking adventure next summer – look “Up.”
TOY STORY in 3-D (Domestic Release Date: October 2nd, 2009)Pixar Animation StudiosDirector: John LasseterProducers: Ralph Guggenheim, Bonnie ArnoldComposer: Randy NewmanVoice Talent: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Don Rickles, Jim Varney, Wallace Shawn, John Ratzenberger
Originally released by Walt Disney Pictures in 1995, “Toy Story” was the first feature film from Pixar Animation Studios and director John Lasseter. The film went on to receive Oscar® nominations for Best Original Score, Best Original Song, and Best Original Screenplay, and earned Lasseter a Special Achievement Award (Oscar®) “for the development and inspired application of techniques that have made possible the first feature-length computer-animated film.” The 3-D version of this landmark film is being personally overseen by Lasseter with his acclaimed team of technical wizards handling all the necessary steps in the conversion process.
THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG (Domestic Release Date: Christmas 2009)Walt Disney Animation StudiosDirectors: John Musker, Ron ClementsProducer: Peter Del VechoComposer: Randy NewmanVoice Talent: Anika Noni Rose, Keith David, Jenifer Lewis, John Goodman
A musical set in the greatest city of them all, New Orleans , “The Princess and the Frog” marks Disney’s return to the timeless art form of traditional animation. The film teams Ron Clements and John Musker, creators of “The Little Mermaid” and “Aladdin,” with Oscar®-winning composer Randy Newman to tell the most beautiful love story ever told…with frogs, voodoo, and a singing alligator.
TOY STORY 2 in 3-D (Domestic Release Date: February 12th, 2010)Pixar Animation StudiosDirector: John LasseterCo-Directors: Lee Unkrich, Ash BrannonProducers: Helene Plotkin, Karen Robert JacksonComposer: Randy NewmanVoice Talent: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Joan Cusack, Kelsey Grammer, Don Rickles, Estelle Harris, Jim Varney, Wallace Shawn, John Ratzenberger
Originally released in 1999, “Toy Story 2” went on to become one of the most popular animated features of all time. The film picks up as Andy is heading off to Cowboy Camp and the toys are left to their own devices. When an obsessive toy collector named Al McWhiggin (owner of Al’s Toy Barn) kidnaps Woody, and Woody learns that he’s a highly valued collectable from a 1950s TV show called “Woody’s Roundup,” the stage is set for a daring rescue attempt by the gang from Andy’s room. The film introduced such other memorable characters from “Woody’s Roundup” as Jessie the cowgirl, Bullseye the horse, and the Prospector.
TOY STORY 3 (Domestic Release Date: June 18th, 2010, Disney Digital 3-D™)Pixar Animation StudiosDirector: Lee UnkrichProducer: Darla K. AndersonWriter: Michael ArndtComposer: Randy NewmanVoice Talent: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Joan Cusack, Don Rickles, Wallace Shawn, Estelle Harris, John Ratzenberger, Ned Beatty
The creators of the beloved “Toy Story” films re-open the toy box and bring moviegoers back to the delightful world of Woody, Buzz and our favorite gang of toy characters in “Toy Story 3.” Lee Unkrich (co-director of “Toy Story 2” and “Finding Nemo”) directs this highly anticipated film, and Michael Arndt, the Academy Award®-winning screenwriter of “Little Miss Sunshine,” brings his unique talents and comedic sensibilities to the proceedings.
RAPUNZEL (Domestic Release Date: Christmas 2010, Disney Digital 3-D™)Walt Disney Animation StudiosDirectors: Glen Keane, Dean WellinsProducer: Roy Conli
In this new telling of the classic fairy tale, “Rapunzel,” audiences will be transported to a stunning CG fantasy world complete with the iconic tower, an evil witch, a gallant hero and, of course, the mysterious girl with the long golden tresses. Expect adventure, heart, humor, and hair…lots of hair, when Rapunzel unleashes her locks in theaters for the 2010 holiday.
2011:
NEWT (Domestic Release Date: Summer 2011, Disney Digital 3-D™)Pixar Animation StudiosDirector: Gary RydstromProducer: Richard HollanderWriters: Gary Rydstrom, Leslie Caveny
What happens when the last remaining male and female blue-footed newts on the planet are forced together by science to save the species, and they can’t stand each other? That's the problem facing Newt and Brooke, heroes of ”newt,” the Pixar film by seven-time Academy Award® winner for sound Gary Rydstrom, and director of Pixar's Oscar nominated short, "Lifted." Newt and Brooke embark on a perilous, unpredictable adventure and discover that finding a mate never goes as planned, even when you only have one choice. Love, it turns out, is not a science.
THE BEAR AND THE BOW (Domestic Release Date: Christmas 2011, Disney Digital 3-D™)Pixar Animation StudiosDirector: Brenda ChapmanProducer: Katherine SarafianVoice Talent: Reese Witherspoon, Billy Connolly, Emma Thompson
A rugged and mythic Scotland is the setting for Pixar’s action-adventure "The Bear and the Bow.” The impetuous, tangle-haired Merida , though a daughter of royalty, would prefer to make her mark as a great archer. A clash of wills with her mother compels Merida to make a reckless choice, which unleashes unintended peril on her father’s kingdom and her mother’s life. Merida struggles with the unpredictable forces of nature, magic and a dark, ancient curse to set things right. Director Brenda Chapman (“The Prince of Egypt,” “The Lion King”) and the storytelling wizards of Pixar conjure humor, fantasy and excitement in this rich Highland tale.
2012:
CARS 2 (Domestic Release Date: Summer 2012, Disney Digital 3-D™)Pixar Animation StudiosDirector: Brad Lewis
All the world’s a racetrack as racing superstar Lightning McQueen zooms back into action, with his best friend Mater in tow, to take on the globe’s fastest and finest in this thrilling high-octane new installment of the “Cars” saga. Mater and McQueen will need their passports as they find themselves in a new world of intrigue, thrills and fast-paced comedic escapades around the globe. “Cars 2” is being directed by Brad Lewis, producer of the Oscar®-winning film “Ratatouille.”
KING OF THE ELVES (Domestic Release Date: Christmas 2012, Disney Digital 3-D™)Walt Disney Animation StudiosDirectors: Aaron Blaise, Robert WalkerProducer: Chuck Williams
Legendary storyteller Phillip K. Dick’s short story (his only experiment in the fantasy genre) becomes the basis for this fantastic and imaginative tale about an average man living in the Mississippi Delta, whose reluctant actions to help a desperate band of elves leads them to name him their new king. Joining the innocent and endangered elves as they attempt to escape from an evil and menacing troll, their unlikely new leader finds himself caught on a journey filled with unimaginable dangers and a chance to bring real meaning back to his own life.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Awareness Test
I thought this was kind of fun. It also tells us something about the human brain; I suppose I’ll have to talk about that later.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Bad Moon Rising
Did you know that The Washington Times was founded by a far-right religious cult leader that thinks he is both a king and a messiah? I didn’t either.
Check out the video here.
Check out the video here.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Who Benefits?
In Soviet Russia, there were certain rules on how one was to produce glass, factories where paid according to the amount of glass it produced, measured in square-feet. The result of this was that factories, in an attempt to get paid while providing the worst possible product, made glass that was almost paper thin. Eventually, the Soviet government realized its mistake, and started paying factories based on how much the glass weighed. Factories then started producing glass that was nearly an inch thick and nearly impossible to see through.
Can you imagine shopping at your local hardware store, and having only these two options available to you? Of course not, in a free-economy, the best glass for the best value wins; and that depends on the choices and desires of the costumer, not a government.
The very nature of a government controlled economy radically changes incentives, by changing who are awarded and who are not, and how. Even the most well intentioned controls produce these results; while it is in the nature of a free-economy that those who benefit are the ones who are the most productive and who provide the best goods and services.
Or, to put it more simply, controlled economies reward corruption, while freer economies reward virtues. This doesn’t only happen in controlled economies as extreme as Soviet Russia, but in all places where coercive power leaks into human action or benefits are obtained not through productive work, but by other means.
Imagine two hospitals, one that exists in a perfectly free economy, and one socialized. How do these hospitals stay afloat?
The free-market hospital must be paid by costumers; they achieve costumers by providing service, the better the service, the more costumers and the more money.
The socialized hospital also needs money, but how do they get it? In the end, no matter which way it is shaped, it achieves money through a coercive government. Money is achieved, not through pleasing costumers, but by pleasing bureaucrats. And just like the Soviet glass factories, the various hospitals will try to stay afloat by providing the worst possible service but appearing to provide adequate service.
Some of you might be saying, ‘but doesn’t free-market-hospital try to do the same thing?’ The answer is, No; and even if it did it wouldn’t succeed. Imagine if you went to Starbucks and you received a large coffee, but they only fill your cup up half way to save money and increase profit; most costumers would be angry at this, and take their business to Coffehut or Jamba Juice; Starbucks then loses money by not providing as much value as its competitors, any such business venture is doomed to failure.
In the same sense, free-market-hospital A must compete with free-market-hospitals B, D, and E; free competition does not allow most corruptive behavior to survive. Costumers of these hospitals will seek the best care at the cheapest price; and just like we are with coffee and automobiles, we get very picky about it.
A free-market-hospital will survive because it is one of the most productive (and by extension, makes people the happiest) while the socialized-hospital is exactly the opposite, it succeeds by virtue of how bad it is.
The socialized-hospital that is most successful is the one that is the most politically connected, that can cut the most corners on care, which can accept the most patients while providing the most inadequate care. Appearance is what matters to the socialized hospital; it prospers by its ability to deceive.
Tell me, what is the incentive of a socialized-hospital to provide the best, most time and cost effective care? Why should it try to improve itself?
But that’s not the worst of it, it becomes much more personal. The best doctors, the ones that really care and do a good job, will be the ones who achieve the least benefits; while the lazy, unscrupulous doctors will be paid according to how many patients they accept and how well they jip their service. The natural result of this is that the best doctors will quit, or be disheartened, and great minds will avoid entering the field altogether. In the end, the patients pay for it.
Any system that rewards vice and punishes virtue is immoral on its feet. There is no way to structure a controlled economy that does not face these problems, because it shifts incentives from where they should be to where they don’t belong; while the vast democracy of a free-market puts rewards precisely where they should go, to those who most deserve them.
Can you imagine shopping at your local hardware store, and having only these two options available to you? Of course not, in a free-economy, the best glass for the best value wins; and that depends on the choices and desires of the costumer, not a government.
The very nature of a government controlled economy radically changes incentives, by changing who are awarded and who are not, and how. Even the most well intentioned controls produce these results; while it is in the nature of a free-economy that those who benefit are the ones who are the most productive and who provide the best goods and services.
Or, to put it more simply, controlled economies reward corruption, while freer economies reward virtues. This doesn’t only happen in controlled economies as extreme as Soviet Russia, but in all places where coercive power leaks into human action or benefits are obtained not through productive work, but by other means.
Imagine two hospitals, one that exists in a perfectly free economy, and one socialized. How do these hospitals stay afloat?
The free-market hospital must be paid by costumers; they achieve costumers by providing service, the better the service, the more costumers and the more money.
The socialized hospital also needs money, but how do they get it? In the end, no matter which way it is shaped, it achieves money through a coercive government. Money is achieved, not through pleasing costumers, but by pleasing bureaucrats. And just like the Soviet glass factories, the various hospitals will try to stay afloat by providing the worst possible service but appearing to provide adequate service.
Some of you might be saying, ‘but doesn’t free-market-hospital try to do the same thing?’ The answer is, No; and even if it did it wouldn’t succeed. Imagine if you went to Starbucks and you received a large coffee, but they only fill your cup up half way to save money and increase profit; most costumers would be angry at this, and take their business to Coffehut or Jamba Juice; Starbucks then loses money by not providing as much value as its competitors, any such business venture is doomed to failure.
In the same sense, free-market-hospital A must compete with free-market-hospitals B, D, and E; free competition does not allow most corruptive behavior to survive. Costumers of these hospitals will seek the best care at the cheapest price; and just like we are with coffee and automobiles, we get very picky about it.
A free-market-hospital will survive because it is one of the most productive (and by extension, makes people the happiest) while the socialized-hospital is exactly the opposite, it succeeds by virtue of how bad it is.
The socialized-hospital that is most successful is the one that is the most politically connected, that can cut the most corners on care, which can accept the most patients while providing the most inadequate care. Appearance is what matters to the socialized hospital; it prospers by its ability to deceive.
Tell me, what is the incentive of a socialized-hospital to provide the best, most time and cost effective care? Why should it try to improve itself?
But that’s not the worst of it, it becomes much more personal. The best doctors, the ones that really care and do a good job, will be the ones who achieve the least benefits; while the lazy, unscrupulous doctors will be paid according to how many patients they accept and how well they jip their service. The natural result of this is that the best doctors will quit, or be disheartened, and great minds will avoid entering the field altogether. In the end, the patients pay for it.
Any system that rewards vice and punishes virtue is immoral on its feet. There is no way to structure a controlled economy that does not face these problems, because it shifts incentives from where they should be to where they don’t belong; while the vast democracy of a free-market puts rewards precisely where they should go, to those who most deserve them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
