Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Wither the Jesus Tomb

Ben Witherington posts a detailed refutation of the arguments related to the so-called Jesus tomb. Among the many problems with the claims is the simple fact that Jesus, while a special name to us, was in fact a quite popular name, one of the most common in Judea of that time. So to be ecstatic about finding something indicating a son of Jesus is about as spectacular as finding an inscription today about somebody being the son of Paul. Being the son of Paul does not mean you're the son of Paul McCartney.

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Entertainment and the Net

I've written before that I'm a big fan of Babylon 5. I just watched the B5 movie In the Beginning online. I won't link to it; sooner or later Warner will find it and it will be taken down, and I don't want to help find it. But this illustrates a simple point about the relationship between the entertainment industry and the internet. Rather than spending the money and effort to scour the net for copies of their material, they should post it themselves on their own sites, in a way that helps them make money.

Warner is putting up B5 episodes online, a few at a time. The movies, none except the pilot. Why? Why not put the whole series online, along with the movies? It's stupid. Granted, B5 isn't a hugely popular show (not everyone has the my sophisticated taste), but still there are a lot of fans out there who want to watch the stuff. If Warner won't give the fans what they want, guess what? Those fans will go elsewhere.

This is the thing the industry has never grasped. The popularity of file sharing services like Kazaa and eDonkey isn't so much that they are free--though obviously that's part of it--it's that they give the consumer what he or she wants. For music, the consumer base has always been about the single. Back in the days before CDs, consumers could buy singles and get exactly the songs they wanted. Buying the album was optional, reserved for the real fans of the band who wanted to get not only the well-known material but the more obscure. Once CDs came out, the single was phased out and the consumer was forced to buy whole albums. The industry loved it, obviously. They were in control and gave out their product on their terms, and the consumer could do nothing about it.

But by the turn of the century, consumers could again get the singles through Napster and its successors and not waste their money on whole CDs just to get the one song they wanted. The consumer now had a response, so if the industry wouldn't give them what they wanted they would get it another way. How did the music industry respond? They eventually relented and came up with online services like Pressplay, that allowed consumers to download songs, on the industry's terms. You could download, but not burn the song to a CD or copy to an MP3. Some artists even went so far as to only allow downloads of whole albums. In short, they responded with the arrogance of still demanding that the consumer access their product on their terms, customer be damned. That arrogance only served to drive the non-sanctioned services to greater and greater popularity. Ultimately, it took a company not part of the business (Apple) to come up with a legal service that people actually wanted to use. And guess what, it worked because it gave the consumer what they wanted.

Yet, the entertainment world still hasn't learned. For some shows currently on TV, the producers are waking up and allowing distribution over the web. But plenty of other shows are not available that way. So, where does Fox, for example, think fans of The Simpsons who missed last week's episode are going to go? To fox.com? That probably the first place, but they won't find it. So it's off to other places where Fox doesn't want the consumer to go. For older shows, it's the same thing.

Honestly, it's very simple. If you don't want people watching your shows on YouTube or something, put them up on your own site. But why do I doubt they will get it?

Friday, February 23, 2007

More on Torture and 24

Badger Blues responds to my earlier response to his post on the morality of torture in 24. I want to clarify that I don't necessarily take the "ticking bomb" scenario of this season of the show as realistic. I was just taking it as is and trying to make a point about moral absolutism, which I am uncomfortable with.

I don't have an answer to my own questions, either. Ben presents another example from Hollywood, from the movie Kingdom of Heaven. It reminds of the real-life example of Dietrich Bonhöffer. He was German and Christian pastor during the Third Reich who opposed Hitler, and took part in the conspiracy to kill the dictator. As a Christian pastor, he certainly believed in the immorality of murder. Yet he also saw the evil Hitler and his regime carried out around him. Was he wrong to want to kill Hitler, or was Hitler's evil so great as to justify what would otherwise be immoral?

I don't have an answer, and I don't think there is an unambiguous one. But that's the problem with absolutism of any persuasion: it simplifies complex situations into seemingly simple ones, ignoring all the subtleties that are actually there. That's one of the myriad reasons I dislike the Christian Right, who want to reduce everything to a choice between an absolute, inflexible right and true choice (which is whatever they say it is), and everything else.

Monday, February 19, 2007

Torture and 24

Badger Blues has a long post about torture and its use in the TV show 24. As a matter of morality, I absolutely agree with Blues' perspective. I do not and cannot condone the use of torture, and its convoluted legal arguments to justify it. But as I agree, I also run into the same dilemna I always do. Is morality an absolute? Is immorality sometimes justified?

Consider the scenario presented by this season of 24. Islamic terrorists have gotten hold of 5 nuclear bombs and have brought them to Los Angeles. One has been set off and one has been defused (hope I'm not spoiling anything for anyone), leaving three out there ready to be used. Torturing one of the terrorist operatives is immoral, yes. But at the same time it may be the only way to get information vital to the search for the bombs.

Is it more moral to stand on the high ground knowing that it may allow the bombs to go off, or is it more moral to do everything in your power to get the information, even it if means torturing the person? I understand that's the kind of question administration supporters use to justify torturing anyone and everyone, which is typically a contrived and bogus argument. It is the immediacy of the threat posed in the 24 scenario that makes this different. This is not torture for the sake of a fishing expedition to find some information the victim may or may not have. This is torture for the sake of getting information the victim must have in order to avert a known, imminent catastrophe.

Put it another way. Let's say Atta had been arrested on 9/10/2001 by an FBI who knew some planes would be hijacked the following day but didn't know the flight numbers or the identity of the hijackers. In that circumstance, would it have been wrong to torture Atta to give up that information in a desperate attempt to avert 9/11?

Friday, February 16, 2007

Sale of Sex Toys Illegal

Last year, I linked to a story about a new law in South Carolina that would ban the sale of sex toys. I didn't realize these toys were such a threat. Today I came across a circuit court decision that upheld a similar law in Alabama:
In a unanimous opinion, a three-judge panel for the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an Alabama statute banning the commercial distribution of sex toys, saying that there is no fundamental right to privacy raised by the plaintiff's case against the law.
The rationale is that "the sale of sex toys was more similar to 'prostitution' than to private, consensual sex, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the Alabama law." I don't really think this absurd story needs much commentary, does it? Well, I did find a pretty good one:
To paraphrase Andrew Orlowski's brilliant quip about the INDUCE Act, under this law one could stroll down Alabama's southern streets selling semiautomatic rifles and dildos, and be arrested for the dildos.
I'm so glad to see we have our priorities straight.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

God, Darwin Clash Again in Kansas

For the fourth time, the Kansas Board of Education is going to debate what is and is not science. I've commented several times on this blog about the battle over intelligent design in the classroom. My opinion hasn't really changed. Regardless of personal opinion on the discussion, can't everyone in the Kansas debate recognize that constantly re-debating the question, and redefining science every couple years, after each election, is not only silly but ultimately more confusing to the students? I know it will never happen, because posing for their power bases is more important than actually addressing issues, as in all politics, but both sides really should try to find an accomodation.

I've argued before that what Dover, PA came up with is pretty good. The Dover solution was to ackowledge that not everyone believes evolution and that some believe in intelligent design, but to use language that differentiates intelligent design from science, and to also acknowledge the simple, and seemingly indisputable, point that evolution is a theory like every thing else in science. So it's a solution that acknowleges the existence of intelligent design, but keeps the science classes teaching science. Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. As I said, it'll never happen. But if politicians actually cared about solving problems and doing something, it might.

Labels:

Movie Review: The Departed

Acclaimed director Martin Scorsese's latest opus is The Departed, a gangster story set in Boston rather than his more typical New York. The movie tells the story of two moles, one a cop who has infiltrated Frank Costello's gang and gotten close to the man, and another a man close to Frank Costello who has infiltrated the police force and is working his way up the ranks. Leo DiCaprio plays Bill Costigan, the undercover cop. Matt Damon plays Colin Sullivan, the mole in the police force. Jack Nicholson plays Costello Both Costello and the police know they each have moles in their organizations and the movie plays out as a cat and mouse game with each increasingly desperate to avoid detection.

I have to be honest, I've never been a huge Scorsese fan. He's certainly made his share of great movies: Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and the severely under appreciated Age of Innocence, among others. But he's also made his share of duds and disappointments. Admittedly when he's good, he's awesome. Unfortunately there's too much inconsistency in his body of work for me to be a rabid fan.

I'm not really sure where I would rank this film. The acting is phenomenal. Scorsese pulls together a superb cast--DiCaprio, Damon, Nicholson are the leads, but in support are Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin, Mark Wahlberg, and a solid list of character actors--and they all give top notch performances. There's not a slouch in there. The one knock I would give would be for Wahlberg (who, ironically, is the only actor in the cast to get an Oscar nomination), but it wouldn't be for his performance but rather the way his character was written, which just seemed a bit too much over the top.

One note, though, to both the cast of this film and any future film set in Boston. Not every person who lives in Boston speaks with a Boston accent. I lived there for six years. Granted some do, but why does just about every male actor with a significant speaking part attempt the accent? Unsurprisingly, Damon and Wahlberg--both from Boston--do the best. It's pretty annoying when everyone in the cast is trying to do it, not always consistently, and certainly not always successfully. I've definitely heard worse, but still.

While the acting is fantastic, the directing seems a bit unfocused. The film meanders around. The opening act is confused and kind of sloppy. There even seem to be scenes from the future. We meet and have a few scenes of Leo in the office of the undercover force as a clean faced kid where he gets his assignment and accepts it, but in the middle there's a scene of him visiting his dieing mother where he's got the beard and hard look that we will see later during his time with the gang. There is a token female in the cast, who happens to fall for both moles, but she is so poorly drawn it seems her only purpose is to be on the receiving end of a sex scene with DiCaprio.

The film is so sloppily assembled, they don't even wrap obvious things up. Near the end, DiCaprio and token woman have a scene where Costigan gives her a package that she is not to open unless something happens to him. This is a big scene. What's in the package? Who knows. The movie immediately forgets there ever was a package. I understand the idea of the MacGuffin, but this is ridiculous.

And the ending, while having a very good closing shot (the Massachusetts State House roof, suggesting Sullivan's ambitions, gleaming in the distance shown through an apartment window, with a rat walking across the balcony railing) comes out of nowhere.

The writing isn't too bad. Writing is the one area of film that I think has been consistently suffering for years. So many good actors, so many good directors, so many big budgets to allow film makers to indulge their visions, but writing consistently lets movies down. As I said, I thought the gruff character Wahlberg plays was too over the top. And the token female is, well, a token. But that happens all the time. Other than that, the writing was good.

So, in the end, I can praise the film for the quality of acting. But not much else.

Labels: ,

Monday, February 12, 2007

Political Wire: Clinton Says She's Most Electable

So Hillary thinks she's the most electable of the 2008 Democratic aspirants. What exactly does that mean? John Kerry got that label in 2004, and look where it got him. What makes a candidate "electable"? Isn't it having an agenda that addresses people's concerns and conveys the message that this candidate can get things done that will make the country better? Being "electable" is something that is earned on the campaign trail, not something bestowed by opposing strategists.

Saturday, February 10, 2007

Adult Stem Cell Advances

Michael Fumento writes on recent advances in the use of adult stem cells for treatments. With all the attention given to embryonic stem cells, adult cells are often forgotten. Yet they are the ones actually being used to treat diseases.

Monday, February 05, 2007

NFL 2006 Super Bowl Thoughts

Another season in the books. Another season ending in a fairly boring Super Bowl. We haven't had a good one since 38, which ironically was billed as a snooze-fest in the making before becoming the most exciting game of at least the last 10 years. The Bears were just not worthy opponents. The Colts didn't play spectacular football, but they didn't need to against such a lousy team.

Last year's Super Bowl champion was not necessarily even the best team in its own division (Bengals arguably were), nor were they the best edition the franchise had fielded in recent years. This year's champion isn't the best team the Colts have had in the last five years. Yet, where those better Colt teams failed, this inferior version won it all. We seem to be heading into another lull with no clearly dominant teams, much like we had after the Broncos faded and before the Patriots became dominant in 2003.

Manning won the MVP, but that just shows the meaningless-ness of the award. It should have gone to Rhodes. In the fourth quarter with the game still close, at least on the scoreboard, and the Bears with still a theoretical chance of winning, Rhodes just bludgeoned Chicago into submission with run after run right down the gut. Manning only threw something like 2 passes in the fourth quarter.

Speaking of Manning, the big story line will be how this win validates his career. Come on. If Manning never won a Super Bowl, he would still be listed among the great quarterbacks of all time. The validation that comes out of this game is for Tony Dungy. This is a coach who had to wait a long time to get a head coaching job, then saw his tremendous success in Tampa Bay clouded by the early playoff exits that eventually got him fired. To add insult to injury, his replacement in Tampa took what was essentially Dungy's roster and won the Super Bowl with it in his first season, seemingly confirming that Dungy was what stood in the Bucs' way. Winning it himself this year validates his career.

The Colts should be very glad they won it this year, because their window may have just closed. Don Banks has a pretty good assessment of the upcoming off-season and all the changes it could well bring to Indy. It isn't pretty. They must start to pay the price for all the money they've invested in their marquee offensive players, with hits coming in the secondary, linebackers, and defensive line.

The sight of Don Shula running the gauntlet of Colts players with the Lombardi trophy and a goofy grin on his face was kind of funny. I did notice that he was introduced as the coach of the Dolphins; not mentioned was his career as coach of the Colts, which included one Super Bowl trip and laying the foundation for the only other Colt Super Bowl win in Super Bowl 5. In fact, he was in much the same boat as Dungy, watching his replacement with the Colts take his roster to the title in his first season. It was Miami, I know, but still it seemed a bit strange to not acknowledge his historic connection to the franchise that had just won the Super Bowl.

Labels:

Sunday, February 04, 2007

NFL 2006 Super Bowl Prediction

So far my predictions for the post-season have been about as accurate as my predictions during the season. But you have play things to the buzzer, right? So who will win the Super Bowl?

Short answer: Colts.

Long answer: the Colts.

The Bear offensive problems are well documented and oft discussed. They are capable of putting up a lot of points. It is sometimes forgotten that for the first month or so of the season, when Grossman was Good Rex every game, the Bears were the highest scoring team in the league. But that was September. Grossman hasn't had a game when he's been Good Rex for 60 minutes since then. So when the passing game is on, they can keep up with the best offensive teams, including Indy. But the rest of the time, it falls to the defense.

And the Bear defense, while very good, is living somewhat on reputation. They showed a clear decline toward the end of the season and are capable of giving up a lot of points. They've lost a couple of key players to injury, and that has left exploitable gaps in the defense. They are particularly vulnerable in the secondary, and the Colts have some some ability at deep passing.

For the Colts, the offense may not be as splashy or out of this world as it was in recent years, but it's still quite good. They can take on any defense the league can dish up, and deal with it. Ask New England, who some will argue is a better defense than Chicago's.

Finally, let's face it, the NFC stinks. It's so bad a conference, the second best team was 10-6. One or both of the AFC wild card teams would have had an excellent chance of winning the NFC. The Bears may have been 13-3, but in the four games against the AFC they were 2-2, and only one of those wins (against the Bills) was a game that reinforced the notion that the Bears can hang with the AFC.

The game won't be a blowout. This isn't San Diego-San Francisco. The Bear defense will have success against Manning and the Colt offense and will keep Chicago in the game. But that just puts the pressure on Grossman to step up and win it, and he won't. I'm thinking it will be a more like a Patriot win, 4 points or so. Let's call it 21-17.

Labels:

New Blogger

Ann Althouse has made the switch to the new Blogger, and is having lots of issues. I haven't made the switch yet because of problems like that. Let everything settle, then I'll move. Being able to put labels on my posts or getting a feed for comments on each post (I'm lucky to get one comment in a month) just doesn't seem a priority. I don't have a big blog so it probably wouldn't be a problem, but there's no reason to rush.

But I do feel oddly sympathetic to the folks over at Blogger:
[T]he bug was identified yesterday and a fix is being coded as I type this. It's non-trivial, and has to do with the new way feeds are generated in the new version of Blogger. We apologize deeply for this - please understand that Blogger was completely re-built from the ground up, and we're ironing out all the bugs in the new version as fast as we can. Blogs with lots of posts and comments were delayed from migrating precisely to avoid these types of things, and we definitely fixed a bunch of issues in that meantime, but unfortunately we missed this one. Bugs are a reality of software development, and once found they're always fixed ASAP.

Fingers crossed, this fix will be rolled out today or tomorrow at the latest. For the time being, please let your readers know that we're incredibly sorry about this, and that they should visit your blog in their browsers (not their newsreaders) for the next day or two until this is fixed.

Again, you have our deepest apologies for this - thanks for your continued patience.
Let's just say I have become very familiar, particularly in the last week, with where they're coming from. Rewriting large chunks of code and getting lots of bugs. Been there, done that. Despite extensive testing, still finding problems? There now, still doing that.

My whole project team was in the office all last weekend putting our new stuff in, and fixing lots of problems. The thing runs for the first time Monday morning at 6. I walk into the office a little after 8 AM and I'm not even to my desk (and I'm not far from the elevator) when a lady from my team runs up to me and tells me we've brought down a part of the system. We've been fixing things ever since.

So, yes, I feel a kinship with the Blogger folk right now. I feel your pain. I'm still not switching, though.