Hello, internet!
Today’s blog assignment is to basically blog about something. Not anything in particular, just 250 words on some topic. So... I need a topic.
I think I’ll talk about why I like making movies so much. Yeah. That sounds like a good enough topic.
First of all, I have startling news for you. Ready? You don’t actually live in reality. You see, reality (and I know this is incredibly clichéd, but whatever) is in the eye of the beholder. What you experience is your brain’s way of interpreting the world. You experience a computer in front of you, but you have no way of knowing that it’s actually there. You assume that it is, because your brain is telling you that it is receiving tiny electrical impulses, transmitted along myelin shafts from nerve endings in your retina, your inner ear, your olfactory receivers, and your temperature, pain, and pressure nerves in your hands.
So. Your reality may or may not be accurate. We will never know.
And now, a question: How do we communicate? If I have a fantastic idea, or concept, or belief, and I really really really need to convey it to you, how do I do that? I could tell you? Sure, I could tell you. You will hear my voice, your brain will automatically transcribe it into text, and, along with cues from my visual appearance as I talk and the minute changes in pitch and timbre, your brain will decide what I’m trying to convey, and you will generate your own opinion.
Text and pitch variations. Not an incredibly efficient way to communicate. Effective, yes. The best? No.
So I need to communicate better. How do I do this? Well, the best way to communicate in theory would be to manipulate your reality so that you truly experience what I have to say.
Now, that is patently ridiculous. Not only is it practically impossible for me to take total control over your understanding of the world, it’s more than a little creepy.
So what am I to do? I really really really need to express myself.
Well, how about this? I’ll create a reality, not impose it on you, but rather present to you, and you can experience it as you wish. I’ll do this by putting you in a dark room with no distractions, and manipulate your visual and auditory experience. You can watch and listen if you want, or you can get up and walk away.
What will I present to you, if you care to watch? I will manufacture an experience, capture it, and modify it to convey my point.
Thus, we have film.
Think about it. Film, even digital video, can convey so much more information than text, mono oral audio, or still pictures. One single frame of digital video contains over 300,000 pixels, each of which can be one of over 16 million colors. Furthermore, each pixel changes its color almost 30 times a second (29.97 to be exact), faster than the human eye can detect. Furthermore, straight video is augmented by sound. Six separate speakers, each emitting a distinct separate audio track, synchronized perfectly with the video, with a range that can replicate the entire gamut of human hearing.
Pretty amazing, huh?
Video is an illusion. The illusion of motion. You see 24 or 30 pictures flashed in front of you, and you believe that the car that was on the left side of the frame actually moved to the right side. Video is the illusion of life. You perceive that what is happening
Monday, April 27, 2009
Action!
Hello, internet! And welcome to the exciting world of technology. A wondrous realm, where dreams become reality, where the future begins, and where you and I will someday expend our entire lives. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the singularity.
Tonight I get to blog about something. 250 words. What to talk about...?
I know! Today was the Chemistry wizard show. I got to use the really cool school camera. Even though I know no one will actually read this all the way through, I’d like to take a moment to talk about why it is such a freakin’ awesome camera.
First, it comes with threaded neutral density and polarized filters, which screw in to the lens. It also comes with a crazy huge wide angle, or fisheye lens, that weights, like, two pounds. It also has built-in neutral density filters in 1, 1.3, and 2 increments. This means that you can open the aperture way up, but cut down on light without affecting exposure to decrease the depth of field. Speaking of depth of field, this thing must have at least a 1” CCD or CMOS chip. Coupled with the length of the lens, I bet you could get some pretty sweet DOF out of that thing.
I also really like how the zoom, gain, aperture, and focus are on manual analogue dials and rings. This means that there is no banding in the gradation of any of these setting, as there is on my wee little handycam. The optical image stabilization has multiple float settings, which means that I can control the amount of shake I get. Oh, and there’s a bayonet-mounted lens hood, which means that you can clamp on gels and filters.
I want that camera soooo bad.
And... Cut.
Tonight I get to blog about something. 250 words. What to talk about...?
I know! Today was the Chemistry wizard show. I got to use the really cool school camera. Even though I know no one will actually read this all the way through, I’d like to take a moment to talk about why it is such a freakin’ awesome camera.
First, it comes with threaded neutral density and polarized filters, which screw in to the lens. It also comes with a crazy huge wide angle, or fisheye lens, that weights, like, two pounds. It also has built-in neutral density filters in 1, 1.3, and 2 increments. This means that you can open the aperture way up, but cut down on light without affecting exposure to decrease the depth of field. Speaking of depth of field, this thing must have at least a 1” CCD or CMOS chip. Coupled with the length of the lens, I bet you could get some pretty sweet DOF out of that thing.
I also really like how the zoom, gain, aperture, and focus are on manual analogue dials and rings. This means that there is no banding in the gradation of any of these setting, as there is on my wee little handycam. The optical image stabilization has multiple float settings, which means that I can control the amount of shake I get. Oh, and there’s a bayonet-mounted lens hood, which means that you can clamp on gels and filters.
I want that camera soooo bad.
And... Cut.
Monday, April 20, 2009
The Tree of Life
Hello, internet! It’s raining outside.
So. Gender. First of all, what the heck is gender? Gender is a point of view from which you participate in society. Gender is how masculine or feminine you are, but it seems to me that there are genders outside of the male to female gradation. Gender is how you act in the presence of others. Are you submissive? Dominant? Are you attracted to them? Do you feel awkward or threatened by their gender?
Now the tough question... My own gender. First of all, who made my gender? Who decided it?
This is a hard question to answer. I think that when I was born, I already had, encoded within me, a specific gender. I knew that I was very gender neutral, with a slight feminine side and submissive tendencies. I knew that when the time came, I would be attracted to men, and that I would have no interest whatsoever in cross dressing.
Well, I didn’t consciously know these things. When I was born all I knew was... Actually, I don’t really remember knowing anything immediately after I was birthed. But my gender was built into me nonetheless, just like the fact that I would have curly hair, a slight lisp, and greenish-hazel eyes was encoded into me as well.
But then there’s the flip side. I had all of these things built into me at the start, but I had no clue how to behave based on these things. I didn’t know what it meant to be masculine or feminine. All these things I learned through my social experiences. I learned that women generally wear dresses, makeup, earrings, stay at home and wear pearls. I learned wrong, as you can see. I also learned that men are macho, play football, don’t express their feelings, bully, and make money. I learned very very wrong.
So that is what gender is to me.
Boom.
So. Gender. First of all, what the heck is gender? Gender is a point of view from which you participate in society. Gender is how masculine or feminine you are, but it seems to me that there are genders outside of the male to female gradation. Gender is how you act in the presence of others. Are you submissive? Dominant? Are you attracted to them? Do you feel awkward or threatened by their gender?
Now the tough question... My own gender. First of all, who made my gender? Who decided it?
This is a hard question to answer. I think that when I was born, I already had, encoded within me, a specific gender. I knew that I was very gender neutral, with a slight feminine side and submissive tendencies. I knew that when the time came, I would be attracted to men, and that I would have no interest whatsoever in cross dressing.
Well, I didn’t consciously know these things. When I was born all I knew was... Actually, I don’t really remember knowing anything immediately after I was birthed. But my gender was built into me nonetheless, just like the fact that I would have curly hair, a slight lisp, and greenish-hazel eyes was encoded into me as well.
But then there’s the flip side. I had all of these things built into me at the start, but I had no clue how to behave based on these things. I didn’t know what it meant to be masculine or feminine. All these things I learned through my social experiences. I learned that women generally wear dresses, makeup, earrings, stay at home and wear pearls. I learned wrong, as you can see. I also learned that men are macho, play football, don’t express their feelings, bully, and make money. I learned very very wrong.
So that is what gender is to me.
Boom.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Ortiz Cofer writes about how her perception of her own body was shaped by outside sources. Everything from the way she defined her skin color to the weight that she perceived she should weigh. Most of it was enforced by “media images”. The best example of this was her incessant desire to have the body of Wonder Woman. Wonder Woman was feminine, yes, but she could also lift a bazillion times her own weight. Isn’t she wonderful? One of Ortiz’s body image issues growing up was her weight, and thus, her physical ability.
Let’s see... Ortiz also envied Talking Susie, the doll with those luscious locks of golden love.
Actually, almost all of Ortiz’s visions of herself were defined by the media in one way or the other. Girls should be pretty. American girls should be white. Girls should be feminine, but not skinny. They should be shapely and womanly, with bulges and curves in all the right places.
Whoa. That’s all I have to say. Aren’t you proud of me for keeping this post really short?
;-)
Thursday, April 16, 2009
The Speed of Silence
Hello, internet. I’m really really tired, so I’ll cut right to the chase.
I have a lot to say about gay marriage. I’ve written three papers on it, and I am also very affected by it as well. Let’s see...
First of all, I would like to lay out a situation that, luckily, I don’t believe has ever happened to anyone I know, although a few of my family members live in continuous fear of its occurance:
Let’s pick two dudes who like each other very much. How about Ted and Fred. Ted has a very nice, supporting family, who has embraced him and his 30 year relationship with Fred. Fred’s family, however, disowned him when he came out, and refuses to speak to him.
Ted and Fred are driving home one night from dinner. Wham! They get into a rather serious accident. Ted is pretty bloodied up, and Fred is out cold. The ambulances take them to the hospital, where it is discovered that Ted only had a couple of nasty cuts and a few broken ribs, but Fred has a broken arm, a fracture in his collarbone, and internal bleeding. He needs surgery right away. Of course, Ted says to the doctors “Give him the surgery!” The doctors respond that only immediate family can make decisions about major surgeries. So Ted calls Fred’s family. “Well, its just another homo we don’t have to worry about,” is the response he gets. So Ted, who has lived with Fred for over twice the length of the average marriage in America, has to sit and watch his life partner die.
A month passes, and as Ted is sadly cleaning up his house, he gets a phone call. Its Fred’s family’s lawyer. It turns out that, since Fred was responsible for their money, Fred’s family had inherited everything. The house, the car, the furniture, and, worst of all, custody of their 5 year old adopted daughter. Of course, Fred’s family hates Ted, so he will never see his property and daughter again.
Now I know that you’re saying to yourself, “This could never happen.” But it does, repeatedly, happen. Furthermore, it is a fear that lives in almost every same-sex couple’s hearts.
It seems kind of silly to me to be having a grammatical quibble over whether or not the word marriage applies to just hetero couples or to gay couples as well.
The facts, it turns out, actually support gay marriage. Gay couples who are at the point in their relationship that they would, given the chance, marry, are significantly more likely to stay together in a relationship than a straight couple. Furthermore, children raised by same-sex couples have nearly identical “success” rates to children raised in “traditional” marriages (in fact, the former are slightly less likely to engage in crime, drugs, etc).
So, before I get over 500 words, I would just like to say that I support civil marriage between same-sex couples.
Good night, and good luck.
I have a lot to say about gay marriage. I’ve written three papers on it, and I am also very affected by it as well. Let’s see...
First of all, I would like to lay out a situation that, luckily, I don’t believe has ever happened to anyone I know, although a few of my family members live in continuous fear of its occurance:
Let’s pick two dudes who like each other very much. How about Ted and Fred. Ted has a very nice, supporting family, who has embraced him and his 30 year relationship with Fred. Fred’s family, however, disowned him when he came out, and refuses to speak to him.
Ted and Fred are driving home one night from dinner. Wham! They get into a rather serious accident. Ted is pretty bloodied up, and Fred is out cold. The ambulances take them to the hospital, where it is discovered that Ted only had a couple of nasty cuts and a few broken ribs, but Fred has a broken arm, a fracture in his collarbone, and internal bleeding. He needs surgery right away. Of course, Ted says to the doctors “Give him the surgery!” The doctors respond that only immediate family can make decisions about major surgeries. So Ted calls Fred’s family. “Well, its just another homo we don’t have to worry about,” is the response he gets. So Ted, who has lived with Fred for over twice the length of the average marriage in America, has to sit and watch his life partner die.
A month passes, and as Ted is sadly cleaning up his house, he gets a phone call. Its Fred’s family’s lawyer. It turns out that, since Fred was responsible for their money, Fred’s family had inherited everything. The house, the car, the furniture, and, worst of all, custody of their 5 year old adopted daughter. Of course, Fred’s family hates Ted, so he will never see his property and daughter again.
Now I know that you’re saying to yourself, “This could never happen.” But it does, repeatedly, happen. Furthermore, it is a fear that lives in almost every same-sex couple’s hearts.
It seems kind of silly to me to be having a grammatical quibble over whether or not the word marriage applies to just hetero couples or to gay couples as well.
The facts, it turns out, actually support gay marriage. Gay couples who are at the point in their relationship that they would, given the chance, marry, are significantly more likely to stay together in a relationship than a straight couple. Furthermore, children raised by same-sex couples have nearly identical “success” rates to children raised in “traditional” marriages (in fact, the former are slightly less likely to engage in crime, drugs, etc).
So, before I get over 500 words, I would just like to say that I support civil marriage between same-sex couples.
Good night, and good luck.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
A Waka Waka Doo Doo... Yeah.
Hello, internet! Tahuwaiila-a tahuwaiiwaiila! Ehu hene la-a pili-ko a-loo a-lao! Pu tutui a-itito-ela! Hanu lipo ita pa-alai! Aaah-wae, taah, ho-alau!
In the beginning of “What Is Marriage?”, Wolfson spends a significant amount of page space to developing his definition of marriage. Why? I’ll tell you why.
Wolfson’s argument is that same-sex couples have just as much right to get married as straight couples do. He shows all of the benefits of marriage, and how they are denied to all gay couples, and thus, the hardships they have to go through to work around their lack of basic relationship rights.
In the beginning, though, we don’t know that this is his argument. All we know is that he is explaining what marriage is. I like his definition of marriage, although it does leave room for a few quirky situations that I haven’t yet fully developed my opinion on (such as under-age marriage, inter-generational marriage, bigamy, etc). Not that there’s anything wrong with his definition. It’s just a little loose.
Anyways, we build up to a point where we feel that we know what marriage is. Boom. Gays don’t have access to this. Why? Wolfson doesn’t go into that. The obvious question hanging in the air is WHY? WHY don’t gays get this right? In the end, because there is no logic supporting it, it seems like restricting gays from marriage is a pretty bad decision.
QED.
In the beginning of “What Is Marriage?”, Wolfson spends a significant amount of page space to developing his definition of marriage. Why? I’ll tell you why.
Wolfson’s argument is that same-sex couples have just as much right to get married as straight couples do. He shows all of the benefits of marriage, and how they are denied to all gay couples, and thus, the hardships they have to go through to work around their lack of basic relationship rights.
In the beginning, though, we don’t know that this is his argument. All we know is that he is explaining what marriage is. I like his definition of marriage, although it does leave room for a few quirky situations that I haven’t yet fully developed my opinion on (such as under-age marriage, inter-generational marriage, bigamy, etc). Not that there’s anything wrong with his definition. It’s just a little loose.
Anyways, we build up to a point where we feel that we know what marriage is. Boom. Gays don’t have access to this. Why? Wolfson doesn’t go into that. The obvious question hanging in the air is WHY? WHY don’t gays get this right? In the end, because there is no logic supporting it, it seems like restricting gays from marriage is a pretty bad decision.
QED.
Monday, April 13, 2009
The Marriage-Mobile
Hello, internet!
Good golly, this article really got my goat. Not only do I disagree with just about everything in it, but the author bent fact to suit his needs. For example: “In absolute numbers, there are more white children growing up in single-parent households than black children.” Well, duh! There are more white kids overall than black kids. Percentage-wise, the very opposite is true. Santorum did this kind of thing repeatedly.
So let’s not talk about him. Let’s talk about Dr. Wade Horn, and his metaphorical airplanes. I don’t like his analogy. I think it’s totally off. The processes of raising children are not all identical trips to the same pre-defined place. Marriages aren’t “yes” or “no” things. True, there are definitely “successful” marriages, and there are definitely “failed” marriages. We call those “divorces”. But there are all other sorts of marriages. It’s not even a gradated scale from point A to point B. I think of it more as a three dimensional object that you can climb around.
Let me come up with a more accurate metaphor...
OK, got one.
Marriage to me is like two people painting a picture together: a team. Both people have to work well together and be able to cooperate. The success of their marriage is judged on the artfulness of their picture. There are some that have obviously succeeded, and some that have obviously failed. But other than those sad outliers, just about every other picture is up for interpretation. I may not like couple x’s picture, but they may love it and feel incredibly proud about it.
Furthermore, to extend my metaphor and go way over my word limit, just because I don’t like couple x’s painting or I think it’s pretty ugly doesn’t mean I have the right to tell them to never paint again. If they both really like their picture, then they’re free to hang it in their living room and look at it all the time. They may not win any awards for it, but I can’t stop them from keeping the picture.
OK. That’s the end of my rant. Good bye!
Good golly, this article really got my goat. Not only do I disagree with just about everything in it, but the author bent fact to suit his needs. For example: “In absolute numbers, there are more white children growing up in single-parent households than black children.” Well, duh! There are more white kids overall than black kids. Percentage-wise, the very opposite is true. Santorum did this kind of thing repeatedly.
So let’s not talk about him. Let’s talk about Dr. Wade Horn, and his metaphorical airplanes. I don’t like his analogy. I think it’s totally off. The processes of raising children are not all identical trips to the same pre-defined place. Marriages aren’t “yes” or “no” things. True, there are definitely “successful” marriages, and there are definitely “failed” marriages. We call those “divorces”. But there are all other sorts of marriages. It’s not even a gradated scale from point A to point B. I think of it more as a three dimensional object that you can climb around.
Let me come up with a more accurate metaphor...
OK, got one.
Marriage to me is like two people painting a picture together: a team. Both people have to work well together and be able to cooperate. The success of their marriage is judged on the artfulness of their picture. There are some that have obviously succeeded, and some that have obviously failed. But other than those sad outliers, just about every other picture is up for interpretation. I may not like couple x’s picture, but they may love it and feel incredibly proud about it.
Furthermore, to extend my metaphor and go way over my word limit, just because I don’t like couple x’s painting or I think it’s pretty ugly doesn’t mean I have the right to tell them to never paint again. If they both really like their picture, then they’re free to hang it in their living room and look at it all the time. They may not win any awards for it, but I can’t stop them from keeping the picture.
OK. That’s the end of my rant. Good bye!
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Hello, internet! To assemble QuippyOpening®, insert Tab A into Slot B, folding along the dotted line. Cut off all excess, and glue in place. Let sit for at least 2 hrs, making sure it does not collapse or loose form. To use, insert at beginning of blog, and inflate to fill 250 word limit.
Yesterday, we talked about Transcendentalism. Transcendentalism is revering nature as the divine and supreme being, and experiencing life and religion personally, as opposed to being told how to experience it.
Gilbert stated that Eustace was very much a NOT transcendentalist, but I would disagree. She based her argument off of the fact that most transcendentalists sat around on their beautiful green butts all day talking about how much they love a single blade of grass. Eustace was the exact antithesis of that. He didn’t experience nature, he lived nature.
But just because transcendentalists sit on grass (and in some cases don’t even see the grass, but rather just think about how great it would be to sit on grass) doesn’t mean that sitting on grass is what transcendentalism is all about. Eustace loved nature because it was beautiful.
In the very end of the book, there’s a specifically poignant scene in which Eustace is driving at night, and he comes upon a family of deer, one of whom is standing in the middle of the street. Eustace jumps out of the car, and starts shouting at the deer, “I love you, brother!”
Eustace believes that he is a part of nature, that nature is inherently divine, and that he can directly commune with nature himself. If that isn’t transcendentalism, then I don’t know what is.
This post is non-refundable. VA / CA Refund.
Yesterday, we talked about Transcendentalism. Transcendentalism is revering nature as the divine and supreme being, and experiencing life and religion personally, as opposed to being told how to experience it.
Gilbert stated that Eustace was very much a NOT transcendentalist, but I would disagree. She based her argument off of the fact that most transcendentalists sat around on their beautiful green butts all day talking about how much they love a single blade of grass. Eustace was the exact antithesis of that. He didn’t experience nature, he lived nature.
But just because transcendentalists sit on grass (and in some cases don’t even see the grass, but rather just think about how great it would be to sit on grass) doesn’t mean that sitting on grass is what transcendentalism is all about. Eustace loved nature because it was beautiful.
In the very end of the book, there’s a specifically poignant scene in which Eustace is driving at night, and he comes upon a family of deer, one of whom is standing in the middle of the street. Eustace jumps out of the car, and starts shouting at the deer, “I love you, brother!”
Eustace believes that he is a part of nature, that nature is inherently divine, and that he can directly commune with nature himself. If that isn’t transcendentalism, then I don’t know what is.
This post is non-refundable. VA / CA Refund.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Title
Hello, everyone! I'M toy ins out a new toy 7h, & converts my han2_ri+ing 1 _ n to text. So far i t hasn't Worked Well . But We ill see hou it mLsters the entire blog .
Just kidding. There's no way I'd use that for the entire blog. Today I have the fine honor of talking to you all about The Last American Man, why Lil Gilbert decided to write the book, and what I'm supposed to have gotten from the book.
To explain myself, I'd like to refer to a specific part of the book. Eustace Conway is talking to someone who just realized he sat through a Eustace talk when he was little. He mentions that Eustace's talk changed his life. Eustace is overjoyed to hear this. Then the other man clarifies: He now conserves water. Whoo. Eustace is rather unhappy about this. Yes, conserving water is a good thing, but that wasn't the point.
So what was the point? The point is that we should not have to worry about conserving water. We should leave our cities and go into the woods where there is no water shortage. And I think that this is very important to the point Gilbert is trying to make. Yes, reducing, reusing, and recycling is good, but it just eliminates the symptoms, not the cause of the problem. Gilbert doesn’t want us all to walk into the woods and live off of the land. If there’s anything to be learned from Eustace’s journey, it’s that NOT everyone can live off of the land. Gilbert wants us to get the sense that when we think we’re being, say, environmentally friendly, or ruffin’ it out in the wilds of Eagle Creek Park, we’re just taking baby steps. Try bigger things, like changing your life from a box to a circle, or try truly communing with nature.
Thanks for reading! I’ll See you real Soon!
Just kidding. There's no way I'd use that for the entire blog. Today I have the fine honor of talking to you all about The Last American Man, why Lil Gilbert decided to write the book, and what I'm supposed to have gotten from the book.
To explain myself, I'd like to refer to a specific part of the book. Eustace Conway is talking to someone who just realized he sat through a Eustace talk when he was little. He mentions that Eustace's talk changed his life. Eustace is overjoyed to hear this. Then the other man clarifies: He now conserves water. Whoo. Eustace is rather unhappy about this. Yes, conserving water is a good thing, but that wasn't the point.
So what was the point? The point is that we should not have to worry about conserving water. We should leave our cities and go into the woods where there is no water shortage. And I think that this is very important to the point Gilbert is trying to make. Yes, reducing, reusing, and recycling is good, but it just eliminates the symptoms, not the cause of the problem. Gilbert doesn’t want us all to walk into the woods and live off of the land. If there’s anything to be learned from Eustace’s journey, it’s that NOT everyone can live off of the land. Gilbert wants us to get the sense that when we think we’re being, say, environmentally friendly, or ruffin’ it out in the wilds of Eagle Creek Park, we’re just taking baby steps. Try bigger things, like changing your life from a box to a circle, or try truly communing with nature.
Thanks for reading! I’ll See you real Soon!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)