Video of the 2010 Winter Olympics
Austin  /  20 Feb 2010  /  1 Comment

So you know (or if you forgot), NBC has a whole slew of various highlights from this year’s Olympics up on their website, nicely divided up and labeled for your convenience. Perfect for people like me, who rarely have the memory capacity to remember to watch them when they originally air — and especially in case you were unaware of the (really quite terrific) mustache competition by the U.S. Bobsled team. Hooray, sports!

Roger Ebert: The Essential Man
Austin  /  19 Feb 2010  /  No Comments

There’s a profile on Roger Ebert up on Esquire by Chris Jones; I’m only contributing to the mass spread of it to emphasize that it really is a great article, perhaps the most candid look at his life since his series of speech-disabling surgeries.

I’ve been reading Ebert’s journal regularly since last year. It’s compelling, thoughtful writing, and some of his entries — my favorite being his struggle with alcoholism — don’t even concern movies. And that he’s capable of doing this kind of writing makes this statement from the Esquire article all the more true:

We have a habit of turning sentimental about celebrities who are struck down — Muhammad Ali, Christopher Reeve — transforming them into mystics; still, it’s almost impossible to sit beside Roger Ebert, lifting blue Post-it notes from his silk fingertips, and not feel as though he’s become something more than he was. He has those hands. And his wide and expressive eyes, despite everything, are almost always smiling.

There is no need to pity me, he writes on a scrap of paper one afternoon after someone parting looks at him a little sadly. Look how happy I am.

$150,000
Galen  /  17 Feb 2010  /  1 Comment

So, according to a new study, men’s height can have a significant influence on their success in the only quantifiable measure of dating we have: the online one.

The study, still under peer review before publication, analyzed 22,000 online daters and found that women put a premium on income and height when deciding which men to contact, said Dan Ariely, a Duke behavioral economist who worked with University of Chicago researchers on the project.

For example, the study showed a 5-foot-9-inch man needs to make $30,000 more than a 5-foot-10-inch one to be as successful in the dating pool.

So, at $30,000 an inch, Mason being 5′ 10″, and me at 6′ 3″, that makes me $150,000 more valuable to women than Mason.

What? It’s science!

Why You Shouldn’t Let Someone Who Doesn’t Play Video Games Run a Video Game Company
Mason  /  17 Feb 2010  /  No Comments

If you keep up at all with the video game industry, you’ll have heard something about EA’s “Project Ten Dollar” (ironically named, since it actually costs $15). I was curious and had to do some reading up and was immediately put off by the vague description of the project as a way to get more money from used sales.

Project Ten Dollar works something like this: When someone buy a new game, they also get a code that gives them access to more content for free. If you don’t have this code, you have to pay $15 to get the same content. This is ridiculous. Last week, I bought an entire game for less than what EA plans on charging for part of one.

Kotaku reader doubtful puts it best:

I can’t wait for car companies to try this business model.

Buy it new, and you can use the radio and the air conditioner. But if you sell it to someone, they’ll have to spend extra to unlock those features.

It blows my mind because in no other industry would you have a legion of zombies actually supporting dick moves like this.

The advantage of buying used is obvious; it’s cheaper. Sure, you have to wait a while, but for games with no online multiplayer, that’s no big deal. I simply can’t spare the $60 for a new game, and there’s nothing to stop this price from rising. What’s an awesome way to get a few extra bucks toward a newer game? Sell your old ones, of course. I generally avoid selling to GameStop because they only offer something like $0.0352 per game, but the local game store in Boulder is very reasonably priced. Unless I win the lotto soon or my long-lost crazy aunt Harriet dies, I’m probably going to stick to used games for a while, and I sure won’t be paying more for extra content.

Newsflash: Most Members, Music of the Who are Pretty Old
Mason  /  08 Feb 2010  /  4 Comments

This is an issue I’m surprised nobody has been drawing more attention to. I was unaware that no matter what you do, no matter how timeless people say your music is, that every one of us someday will become old. I’m glad the New York Times didn’t skirt around this most serious of issues in their recent article about the Who’s Super Bowl halftime show. More people need to wake up and realize that sometimes old people aren’t as good at doing things they were really good at when they were younger, including the now mid-sixties members of the Who. Thank you, Jon Pareles New York Times, for writing this article that simply needed to be written.

“Supabah”
Galen  /  07 Feb 2010  /  No Comments

From time to time, I like to reminisce with Ze Frank and his quite interesting analysis on aspects of American life. Like, conveniently, the Super Bowl, or “Supabah”, from the February 1st, 2007 episode.

Dad, Joe Henderson said his family’s celebrating supabuh this Sunday. Can we go?

Timmy, it’s not supabuh, it’s Super Bowl, and you know our family doesn’t celebrate Super Bowl.

What’s a Super Bowl?

Well, it’s kind of like an ordinary bowl, but it’s filled with the most wonderful things you can imagine.

Like Cocoa Puffs?

No, Timmy. Beer.
The Iconic Photos Blog
Austin  /  06 Feb 2010  /  No Comments

Hmmm, is there really anything more to say about a blog of iconic photos? Probably not, but it’s worth kicking back and going through, as the explanations behind the images are sometimes the most fascinating part. A few of my favorites: Yousef Karsh’s Winston Churchill portrait, Harold Edgerton’s bullet going through an apple, and probably most of all, Johnny Cash being awesome.

Why I’ve Learned to Love eBay
Mason  /  06 Feb 2010  /  1 Comment

I’ve had fairly negative feelings for eBay for a very long time after a few bad transactions, but my newfound love for buying video games for very reasonable prices has turned my frown into still a frown because now I have no money.

…OF WHAT I REALLY AM.
Mason  /  04 Feb 2010  /  No Comments

I think it’s important to keep track of the history of the Internet, but maybe CollegeHumor takes it too far with this video which shows every single vandalism ever on Nickleback’s Wikipedia page.. It’s amazing how many ways someone can edit a Wiki to say something sucks. Warning: most of this video is full of bad language.

Scale Models of Vintage Cars in Recreated Settings
Austin  /  02 Feb 2010  /  1 Comment

This is very neat: Michael Paul Smith built scaled sets for 50’s and 60’s model cars, photographing them as real scenes — “a dream-like reconstruction of the town I grew up in.” No Photoshop, just excellent camera work and a good eye for detail. (via Coudal)

Academy Announces Best Picture Nominations, Film Nerd Complaining Now in Session
Austin  /  02 Feb 2010  /  No Comments

Yep, the Best Picture nominees are out, and with it blogs everywhere will ask if Avatar will win this, too (personal two cents: I hope not).

But there’s an interesting inclusion here: Up, last summer’s Pixar darling. It’s the first time an animated film has been nominated for Best Picture since 1991 — almost twenty years — since Beauty and the Beast was last put up for the prize. It’s about time; I’m reminded of this article from last year by John Gruber, in response to Wall-E’s nomination snub:

But why does [the best animated film] category even exist? Animated as opposed to what? Photographed? Animation is merely a technique. Cinema is cinema. The Academy’s rules state that films nominated for best animated feature are still eligible to be nominated for best picture, but don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen. The whole point of this award is to establish a ghetto where “cartoons”, no matter how good, are relegated. Putting WALL-E up against Bolt and Kung Fu Panda rather than letting it compete against Slumdog Millionaire and Benjamin Button is like requiring a 13-year-old chess prodigy to compete only against other children, regardless of whether he could stand his own against adult grandmasters. It’s a dismissive pat on the head.

Not to expect Up to take it this year, but I’ll be rooting for it.

Bonus Oscar Linkage! Some famous Oscar snubs, because I’m a sucker for lists like this.

The xkcd Effect?
Galen  /  01 Feb 2010  /  No Comments

So, the webcomic xkcd has a certain fondness for using a count of Google results (before the comic is written) as an indicator. Accurate or not, the posting of the comic obviously affects the number of results on Google. How much? Consider the latest comic. Now, let’s cock about on Google. Number of results for “poohsticks” (as of this writing): 51,100. Number of results for “strip poohsticks”: 17,200. Which, according to the comic puts it at about n = 34%, or very, very far in the the “Frequent” box. Much more so than strip poker.

Basically, this is all a roundabout way of saying that strip poohsticks needs to become a thing.

Toyota Cars Refuse to Slow Their Roll in Robot-Like Manner
Mason  /  01 Feb 2010  /  No Comments

I’m just going to go out on a limb and say there’s a scene in some action or horror movie the involves cars where some guy is driving and he has to slow down. He taps on the brakes to find no response. He starts jamming his foot down hard and the car still doesn’t slow down. He ends up hitting something, because MACHINES ARE COMING TO LIFE! It turns out this is an actual problem in some cars made by Toyota, which I find terrifying, like when I confuse the pedals in my car… Toyota Slow to See Scope of Problem Even After Fatal Crash .

Love, Disdain, and the Grammys
by Austin Heller
February 1st, 2010

Oh, Grammys. What is it about your mix of mediocrity and occasional awe that I find so irresistible?

Yes, I watched them, partially out of desire for the cheap thrill I get in predicting awards in the arts, but also for that time-tested disparity in quality. Actually, I think I have watched them for the last few years, though most of the shows are so forgettable and disjointed that I have a hard time remembering anything notable related to the festivities. That’s in contrast to, say, the Academy Awards, which, regardless of whether or not I agree with the award winners, usually have at least one memorable comedy bit, as well as a host who can bring the show cohesion.

The Grammys don’t have that, but luckily, they do have live music, and sometimes that makes it worth sitting through. Some of it was great, actually, and as usual the collaborations (Lady Gaga and Elton John, who despite their differences are both weird enough that a duet record would be sorta neat) managed to bring together artists I don’t mentally pair up (or listen to) and eke out some really nice performances. Even the curmudgeon in me who disliked the 3D novelty of the Michael Jackson tribute “mini-film” was able to enjoy the song that accompanied it, which was solidly performed1. That’s the Grammys’ appeal, and easily their best asset: big, grandiose live performances and interesting musician pairings. Cheap thrills, and that’s not a bad thing.

Pictured above like a badass: Neil Young, who just won his first Grammy. 44 years after his first record. For best art direction.

But the awards themselves are, and this year they continued to highlight the ignorance that defines the nominating committee. I mean, that the the winners are mostly determined by Billboard chartings and popularity is nothing new, but some of the choices this year brushed with absurdity. Let’s consider the “Record of the Year” award, which apparently is different than “Song of the Year” because “record” implies “single,” which itself means “song that was released in 2008 but can be rereleased in 2009 and qualify for the 2010 awards.” Maybe that’s being unfair to the idea of singles, but it’s probably how the Grammys select winners so expertly. Consider this: of the five songs that were nominated for Record of the Year, only one was actually recorded in 2009 — the Black Eyed Peas’ “I Gotta Feeling.” It didn’t win, either; that was Kings of Leon, whose song “Use Somebody” came out in September of 2008. Really, guys?

Even if one were to defend the selections for the awards, the ones that are granted placement in the three-hour block aren’t a fair representation of the diversity of music awarded. Why two country performances and two rap performances, when it’s possible to take out one of each and replace them with world or jazz selections? The argument, I’m sure, involves ratings and demographics. I argue classing the Grammys up to cater to a more diverse set of musical interests would help, not hurt, their popularity, and that most people aren’t actually aware in advance of who plays at the show, watching it anyway out of hope they’ll see someone they like. Then again, I’m not the Grammy board.

Whine about it or not though, nothing is going to convince the committee to change their criteria for awards, barring some massive anti-pop sentiment. But if they’re not going to do that, then they should still play up their strengths and improve the presentations and performances. Again, they’re good, sometimes great, but never outstanding. Musically, some of them were, but none were particularly shocking or humorous. That Stephen Colbert won an award for “Best Comedy Album” and didn’t perform seems like an oversight considering how dry the show was. And the brief moments of opera that followed Robert Downey Jr’s appearance were faint but promising traces of what the Grammys could be, if jacked up with humor. For a show that takes itself so seriously, a degree of unorthodox thinking could go a long way in making the non-musical aspects much more enjoyable.

That being said, unorthodox thinking could probably help the musical aspects as well. Consider the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame tribute from last October. Yes, another case of music industry self-indulgence, but a damned well performed one at that. Famous bands backed other singers’ songs, performances naturally segued in and out of each other, and there were surprise veteran musicians joining in for effective pairings2. It’s true that the Grammys and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame look in two different directions — one celebrating recent accomplishments with newer artists, the other lauding its past ones with older acts — but rock and roll has a history of stealing and borrowing from its past to help give it a gentle push. Now’s the time that the Grammys got a good, hard shove.

  1. The occasional moment of brilliance: Smokey Robinson. The man turns 70 years old this month — at least 40 years the senior of some of his fellow musicians onstage — and he sang the living hell out of that song.

  2. Guaranteed best way for the surprise musical guest to make people gasp? Two words: Mick Jagger.