Newtered History

January 17, 2012 //

Last night, Newt Gingrich desperately pandered to an FNC South Carolina debate crowd by deifying Andrew Jackson. The praise came to a climax with this gem:

Andrew Jackson had a pretty clear-cut idea about America’s enemies: Kill them.

The statement drew uncomfortable silence, some boos from the back and a few uneasy chuckles.

JUST KIDDING! Much of the crowd went wild with applause, of course. Reportedly, some even began chanting “Kill them, kill them!”

(YOU CAN JUMP TO THE “KILL THEM” COMMENT AT 1:38)

There are likely a gang of left-leaning news sites and blogs that will indulge on Andrew Jackson’s actual legacy, and why Gingrich’s remark was either insensitive or unbelievably ignorant- so I’ll just sum it up briefly. Andrew Jackson had three rather famous “enemies” throughout his political and military career; as discussed, there were the British during the American Revolution, then the Native Americans and at one point even South Carolina. (While not actually attempting to “kill” the latter-most, he did make a lifelong nemesis out of his own Vice President over the issue.)

If Gingrich continues to go down this path, the world of political pandering is his oyster! Some alternatives Newt might consider for future speeches:

Charles Manson had a pretty clear-cut idea about America’s disenfranchised youth: Give them a family.

Elliot Spitzer had a pretty clear-cut idea about family values: Connect with local young women.

Fannie Mae had a pretty clear-cut idea about how every American could own a home: Give them loans.

You see, if your audience doesn’t know anything about the thing you’re talking about other than what you tell them, you can make them agree with just about everything! It’s like a golden formula for making a handful of middle-aged white people scream with delight.

This morning, I really hope that Newt Gingrich opened a history book, read about Andrew Jackson and then fired someone on his staff. Otherwise- WTF?

Categories politics

The Macy’s Parade

November 29, 2011 //

Last Thursday, I got to experience first hand the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. It’s one of those events that you don’t really consider a part of who you are until it comes around and reminds you that you’d miss it if it wasn’t there. From 69th St. in Manhattan, the parade has less glamor and pizazz than the song-and-dance TV version, but certainly gives evidence to how it grew up to be a star and has remained such an endearing tradition.

As a result of going to the parade and being a renowned shutterbug, every relative I have has requested the photos I snapped. While I haven’t had the time to properly sift through all of the pics, I was able to put together this little guy.

The music is from Brian Setzer’s Nutcracker Suite, and the sappiness is from watching too much TV as a kid.

Categories terribly unimportant

Buzzing the Tower

November 8, 2011 //

An asteroid unconscionably named 2005 YU55 will pass the earth by less than 200,000 miles today. Not impressed? Here’s an animated gif from NASA that illustrates how incredibly close that really is to our beloved planet.

The flyby should begin at about 6:28 p.m. ET over North America, however those without telescopes won’t see it. On a cosmic scale, it’s tiny (only the size of an aircraft carrier) and very, very dark-colored.

Amazing.

Categories science

Jack Links Spot

October 25, 2011 //

In September, I found out that a spot I submitted via tongal.com was selected as an online ad for Jack Links Beef Jerky. You can see it here on Tongal.

Tongal is a brilliant little company that uses international crowdsourcing to build ad campaigns for participating brands. They help independent video content creators sell original ads through a competition-style pitch process, essentially acting as an ad agency who’s talents include, well, everyone. See? Brilliant.

Categories work

Forced Hiatus

October 4, 2011 //

October is taking shape- and it’s shape is writing, editing, super-fast production turn-arounds and a wedding. That means that, despite misbehaving neutrinos, dark matter physicists winning a Nobel and a new MySpace business plan just waiting to be scrutinized, I probably won’t be talking about anything at length.

Instead, I’ll leave you with an image from ALMA, the world’s largest radio telescope that just yesterday showed us the first glimpses of its incredible view of the universe.

Categories reality, science, technology

7 Billion

August 30, 2011 //

Make room...

That’s more or less how many people are in the world right now.

If all the arable land on earth were dispersed equally, we would each receive 1.1 acres.

When at rest, our combined body heat produces about 770 gigawatts- enough to power Great Britain for 14 days.

At the 2009 global GDP of $58.26 trillion USD, that’s $8,322.86 in annual income for every man, woman and child, if we shared and worked equally. At this rate, a family of four would earn $33,291.44 annually. In the U.S., the poverty line for a family of four is $22,350.

If you gave the world a Coke, and they threw the empty 12 oz. aluminum cans into a big pile, that pile would weigh around 125,000 U.S. tons (113,750 metric tons). The largest aircraft carrier in the U.S. Navy’s fleet weighs 105,000 U.S. tons when fully loaded.

There are about 1,210 billionaires in the world, or 0.000017% of the total population. These people control 7.7% of everything. 1,111 of them are men.

Unless you’re at sea, there is an average of 122 people within a mile of you at this moment.

Oh, and there’s a 1 in 5,882,352 chance than one of them is a billionaire.

NOTE: All of the math here was done by me, and I will vouch for none of it.

Categories reality

A follow up on that crazy new journalism idea…

August 24, 2011 //

Remember when I wrote about Qwiki, journalism and metadata? Well apparently, there’s a thing called XBRL (eXtensible Business Reporting Language) that uses sets of data to “report” business information (like transactions, price fluctuation and SEC filings) completely automatically. It appears that XBRL essentially works a little like XML and HTML, and until recently was basically only useful to the financial industry as a means of cost-efficient data entry.

According to New Scientist, a site called MarketBrief has started converting XBRL data into news reports with an automated process that “[slots] them into pre-defined sentences.”

Not exactly the human touch I was hoping for, but still interesting enough to keep an eye on. Business data is probably more along the lines of what an automated system could currently categorize with an acceptable degree of journalistic confidence- but a system with the power to sort real-time data into human communication could be the starting point of a much larger infrastructure of information. XBRL could be a great learning tool for a much larger dataset that could be used by teachers and news sources to develop information distribution systems that automatically customize themselves to the consumers’ level of interest and expertise on the subject.

For the record- I’m in no way supporting a form of journalism devoid of human reporters- only a system in which different subjects can be consumed by people with varying degrees of access and comprehension. If anything, I would imagine that such a system would actually strengthen careers in journalism writing, as subject matter would be open to much more diverse audiences.

I’m keeping my eye on this one…

Categories journalism, technology

Private Space

July 21, 2011 //

Today, Atlantis landed, marking the end of the shuttle era for the United States. We have no clear replacement, despite NASA’s ongoing work to develop one. Our government is to blame- specifically our representatives, who have gone from ignoring our country’s space initiatives to actually voting to de-fund them.

The past five years have been unnerving to me as a person who follows and supports the U.S. space program. As our government slowly begins to rely on private enterprise to continue our efforts beyond the planet, I feel us shifting from an age of unrelenting wonder to an age of lax profiteering. Like defense, social security and health care, I believe that some services of our civilization belong in the hands of the people rather than a small group of businesses. I want to believe that there is a corporation out there that’s collectively philanthropic enough to develop a space program that is beneficial to science with the same ballsy, impartial ideology as NASA, however history makes it a little hard to take the notion seriously.

To those who say that a government-funded space program is economically superfluous, look at the technology that surrounds you and consider where it came from. Chances are, some aspect of nearly every piece of modern technology began with a NASA scientist within the last 50 years staring up at the heavens and writing down a crazy idea. CAT scans, microchips, GPS and really any small, battery-powered devices you use have their roots in NASA research. Upon their invention, most of the initial concepts for these technologies had very little if any financial viability for years. Unlike corporations, NASA researches and develops concepts despite their ability to be sold as services or products, effectively making grander discoveries that lead to massive leaps in consumer technology.

Aside from improving our lives with stuff, consider what effect the Apollo missions have had on your sense of national pride, the movies you watch and the encouragement you give your kids. Space exploration isn’t a luxury, it’s a catalyst. When we walk the frontier, our minds react with new concepts that ultimately drive us. We’re better when we’re facing the unknown. And it seems to make us feel better. I can’t imagine that a private space program will invoke the same spirit of unity and sense of adventure that a socially funded program does. A corporation that breaks new scientific ground has the ability to control it. It’s not a product of the people; it’s the property of a board.

I believe that history has taught us that our societal goals are ultimately more profound than our financial goals. All the stuff that really lasts, like air travel, mass communication and education, seems to be fueled by publicly funded initiatives that branch out into the private sector; but rely on the public domain for the majority of their advancement. Space exploration is no exception. If we want to be anything more than a terrestrial civilization, we need to do it together and avoid handing it to a group of businesses. Because of the traditionally incredible expense of pushing our boundaries, profit margins might keep us floating around where we’ve already been- just above the earth.

Categories economics, politics, science, sociology, technology

A Fringey Thought: The Lonesome Lag

July 11, 2011 //

What if there’s a higher order of natural selection that relates to groups of sentient species? What if we’re at a disadvantage for only having one on our planet, or for not knowing of any others elsewhere?

This article by Richard Curtis on Echofrog got me thinking: perhaps humanity’s technological conquest is becoming self-indulgent because we’re somewhat convinced as a species that we’re alone. And perhaps the result of that shared concept is affecting us on an sociocultural evolutionary level.

Mass communication could be perceived as species unification, or a way of loosening the grip of perceived terrestrial boundaries; like nationalism, cultural divides and language. However, it’s secondary effect seems to be a growing affinity for one’s self, and the expression of the self (like social media). The problem with the dichotomy is that it’s inherently counter-intuitive on a species scale. Unification on a global level could be nullified with dispersion on an individual level. In other words, the moment we learn that we’re not all that different and can work together, we might not do it out of fear of corrupting our personal selves.

If we were aware of another species capable of at least our own level of cognitive behavior, we might develop more competitively as a whole- and more uniformly. The idea of individuality might come as a secondary ideal to the benefits of working as a coherent group. We can see this on a smaller scale if we look at the Cold War: U.S. and Soviet Union technology flourished over a very short time as the two inherently different cultures competed for sociological dominance. Competition made us stronger, faster and more competent as groups, and the U.S. improved it’s unification as a nation to effectively “win” the cultural battle.

If there are other intelligent lifeforms throughout the universe, having no available competitive species significant enough to challenge us could be stagnating humanity’s evolution on a cosmological scale. We have no other variation of thought process, biological design or technological advancement to compare ourselves to, and thus might not be performing as competitively as other species with a sentient co-species or space-faring neighbor. Our process of species unification isn’t taking place under the guidance of survival as a unit among many units, but rather as a singular, lonesome group that struggles with self-destruction rather than contention.

While there’s no way of doing any more than putting this through the theoretical ringer, thinking of mankind as one of many might be healthy for us as a means of advancing ourselves into a new stage of sociological development. We as a species are at a point of cognition that transcends looking at what’s directly in front of us for guidance (we do study quantum physics), and might do ourselves a favor by applying the concept of “what if” to our existence as a society. Think of what we might accomplish if we believe that we can find and meet our neighbors if we just build a craft to get us there. The level of generosity and cooperation it would likely take for humans to achieve interstellar exploration could be the stepping stone to a higher order of civilization.

Categories fringe, science, sociology, technology

Fool ‘em once, shame on you…

June 27, 2011 //

Last week, someone asked me why I haven’t posted about Final Cut Pro X. My first reaction was “Dude… you actually read my blog?” (Thanks, Mark.) Next, I questioned whether my opinion on FCP X would be different than any of the thousands already out there- and whether it would be worth posting. As it turns out… I’m a moderate in the debate- but that seems to be the minority.

I’ve edited in Final Cut Pro since 2001. I’ve built four systems surrounding the platform, often having convinced clients or employers to switch from other non-linear editing (NLE) systems. I love FCP, and decided to at least give the software a try before assuming what most of my colleagues have sworn to. Now that I’ve seen it, I totally understand their concerns. And there are quite a few of them. However, I also see a few things that could be the vague framework of a new take on NLE. It just isn’t ready for primetime- in fact, it’s 3 a.m. infomercial kinda ready. So ultimately, my future with FCP is a waiting game.

But I sort of have the time. Most pros don’t.

And that’s part of the reason why I think the future of Final Cut as a professional tool truly remains questionable. To get a sense of what I’m talking about, take a look at Josh Mellicker’s amateur-friendly blog post on DVcreators.net (a canonical site for digital video professionals). Scrolling through the comments, I found this:

I suspect that killing FCP7 is the thing that’s going to cause the most harm to Apple in the pro realm.

We were planning on upgrading our edit bays at work, and adding two more, here in a few months. New Macs, new monitors, the works, and of course we would have been sticking with Final Cut.

Except now we can’t. FCPX simply won’t work for us. The things missing aren’t features, they’re functions. We can’t go with FCP7 while Apple gets FCPX up to speed, because Apple pulled it – so there is no way for us to actually add those two additional bays.

Putting off the purchase until Apple fixes FCPX to at least be usable isn’t an option, either. Who knows when exactly that will be? Apple hasn’t actually made any official announcements about adding anything, except a few snippets they gave to David Pogue. Even if we had a set date, trying to delay this project isn’t really a possibility when you get corporate budgets and purchasing involved.

No, we’re getting new edit suites this summer. It just looks like now they won’t be Final Cut suites.

Yep. Herein lies the real disconnect on Apple’s part. The post world can’t sit around waiting for Apple to finish their product- and they have alternatives.

While the changes and omissions are frustrating, the anger among the pros seems to come from Apple’s total lack of information leading up to the release, and then subsequent scorched earth attempt to force everyone to upgrade by removing all prior versions from the market. It feels like a totalitarian move from a company that might have gotten a little too powerful in this business. Quite frankly, Apple’s mindset alone might convince post houses to switch to another product- even if upcoming releases of FCP X turn out to be as amazing as they claim the current version to be. Simply put: video professionals can’t rely on a company that’s “innovate or die” mentality disrupts their business model.

So, for me, switching to FCP X might be an option down the road for personal projects, but I’m not certain how long it will stay on my CV.

Categories consumer culture, tech

Follow “CORY JAY CALHOUN”