Monthy Archive: June 2006
« May 2006 | Main | July 2006 »

If you read this blog, PLEASE sign in to my guest book on frappr. No personally identifying information is needed, so this is risk-free. Just provide a name (even a nickname), your zip code, and any statement you want to make ("hi" is sufficient).

If you want to know more about me, click here.

June 06, 2006

Life : Still here

Been distracted lately, and so have missed my three times per week goal for this blog. So it goes. I do have some things I want to blog on as soon as I have mind-share to spend on this.

Posted by Steven at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Life : Voting Machines

Today was a primary election in California (where members of various political parties choose their candidates), and in addition there were several direct measures on the ballot (mostly tax and bond issues for various causes).

What I found interesting was the new voting machines. California used to use the punch-card ballots which caused so much trouble in Florida in 2000. After that fiasco, the State of California (as well as its constituent counties) had been casting around for the best solution which meets such a diverse set of constraints that when the process started there was no voting system which met all of the legal requirements. Even in the last election, there were counties where the combination of the requirements of the counties and the requirements of the state invalidated all available systems.

The device I got to use today was clearly a compromise in the worst possible sense of that word. It was fundamentally a touch-screen voting machine. You sign in and get an authorization card from the poll workers. The card just ensures that you only vote once and vote only on the questions you are authorized to vote on (so members of a political party can only vote on their own candidates). You stick the card into the voting machine and it displays on a screen the candidates and questions in large print. You touch the screen to mark your vote, with the ability to go back and review and change your votes before committing to them.

After you commit is where things get interesting. The voting machine has bolted onto its side a paper tape printer (like a cash-register printer) encased in clear plastic set up so you can read the last 30cm of the tape. When you commit your vote on the touch screen, it then prints out what you voted for on the paper tape and you have to confirm that what was printed was what you meant to vote. Actually, the ballot was long enough that it comes out as multiple pages so you have to do this multiple times. You can at this point go back and change your vote, causing the cycle to begin again. Once you say "yes" to all pages, it prints out a final page which is a pixel encoded version of the same thing. Because the printer is relatively slow, it at least doubled (if not tripled) the time it took me to vote.

I understand the reason for this. Having a "paper trail" for all votes makes sense (bits are too vulnerable). Likewise, if you do have a paper trail, I can understand wanting to allow the voter to confirm that it matches what they intended. Still, when I actually had to use it, the whole thing seemed rather contrived. One of my co-workers regularly votes by absentee ballot so that they don't need to worry about making it to the polling place (they live far enough from work that this is an issue). I'm starting to wonder if they have the right idea.

Posted by Steven at 09:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

June 20, 2006

Movies : A Prairie Home Companion

Writers and Directors in Hollywood have been fighting for decades about the "possessory credit" – who gets to say "a film by…" (or equivalent) in the opening credits. On the one hand, who doubts that "Psycho" is an Alfred Hitchcock film (as opposed to Robert Bloch or Joseph Stefano, the writers)? On the other hand, who doubts that "The Odd Couple" is a Neil Simon film (as opposed to Gene Saks, the director)? Then there are cases like "Carrie" – should it be labeled a "Steven King" film after the writer or a "Bran De Palma" film after the director? Each profession has practitioners who are able to leave an indelible mark on their work, leaving no doubt as to whose work it is; yet coming up with industry rules to cover these "I know it when I see it" issues has proven impossible and too frequently has ended up in court.

Thus I start this review with the observation that the movie "A Prairie Home Companion" is without a doubt "owned" by its director, Robert Altman; not its writer Garrison Keillor, creator of the radio program from which it gets its name. Altman is famous for many things in his films: large casts of characters (check), complex overlapping dialog where characters either talk over each other or where there are multiple conversations going on screen at the same time (check). He is also known for using character as opposed to story to carry his themes. The plots of Altman films are often thin meandering affairs where not much actually happens, but where you understand the various characters' points of view quite well (check).

Most of all, Altman films are often not about what they seem to be about. M*A*S*H was not about the Korean War. Nashville was not about country music. Prêt-à-Porter was not about fashion. And "A Prairie Home Companion" is not about a radio show. It isn't even set in the real-world radio show of that name, as is evidenced by the fact that many of the fictional characters from the radio show appear as real people in the film. No, as with many of his other films, Altman presents us with a stylized version of some reality as a setting for characters who have something else to say.

This is important to understand as I have seen many negative reviews by critics who seem to have gone to the screening expecting this movie to be come kind of concert film – showing the production of the actual show – and were confused and disappointed when it did not meet those expectations. No, this film is something quite different.

As to what this film is actually about, that's another matter. I think I understand it; but am hesitant to express my opinions here because I fear they would lead people astray. It is a film about X; but quite unlike any other film about X which has ever been made. Were I to say what X is, I suspect I would discourage people from seeing the movie that would very much enjoy it, and might attract people who would be bored by the experience. The film's greatest virtue is its uniqueness and any simple statement here would not do it justice.

To be honest, it took me a while to form my own opinion about the movie. When I got home I felt like I had to wait for my brain to reset after the experience (in part because I too had gone to it with incorrect expectations). In the end I have decided that this is a truly great film, and want to actually go out and see it again soon (now that I know what to expect). My recommendation to others – if you go to the movie without expectations of what it will be, you are likely to enjoy it.

Posted by Steven at 06:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

June 27, 2006

TV : One can only hope….

Folks know I am a fan of writer J Michael Straczynski ("Babylon 5", "Jeremiah", etc.). I also appreciate what Bryce Zabel tried to do with "Dark Skies" and the TV series (not the movies) "The Crow". I had also heard rumors (even JMS indirectly mentioned it) that JMS and Zabel had made a pitch to Paramount to run a new Star Trek TV series back in 2004 (as "Enterprise" was dying), although details were sketchy at best … until now.

Last week Zabel posted on his blog the full 14 page pitch he and JMS made to Paramount. The post can be found at:

http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/2006/06/spaced_out_star.html

And the pitch itself can be found at:

http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/files/ST2004Reboot.pdf

If you are at all a fan of what Start Trek was and might have been, I encourage you to read this.

The essence is that they proposed to do a "Battlestar Galatcica" with the original series. The original "Battlestar Galatcica" was a somewhat corny TV series from the 70's. It has some good ideas; but has not aged well, either in terms of style or content. When Ron Moore and David Eicks proposed to revive the series in 2002, they "re-imagined it" – retelling essentially the same story with the same characters; but done in a more modern style and a more modern tone. Enough of the original series was kept to provide a framework; but within that framework they used their freedom to create something new, something better. The result in my opinion is one of the better shows on TV today.

Now imagine doing the same thing with Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the original "five year mission" – keeping the framework of the original story and characters; but otherwise abandoning continuity with the original series, movies, and subsequent series, opening up the freedom to tell the story in a more modern style and tone, and with (this is JMS after all) a real five-year arc that tells a consistent story across the whole five year mission (and beyond). For details, read the pitch.

I have to admit, as I read the pitch, I found myself getting excited, even shouting "Yes!" at some points. This is Trek as it should have been, as it could still be if the studio was interested. If there was a petition I could sign to support this, I would.

Posted by Steven at 05:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)