I'm a happy camper

I got a promotion last week. Yeah me. Only draw back is that my job title now officially has the word "engineer" in it. Oh well. lol

Acting Style Star Wars Prequel Trilogy

America has been so over exposed to traditional Hollywood-style method acting and other "realistic acting" styles, we've come to consider any other form of acting as bad. Also, movies that fall outside the traditional Hollywood way of making movies tend to be either jeered or at least under appreciated. The Star Wars prequel Trilogy stands somewhere in the middle. The style of these movies today is considered very Hollywood in the action, filming techniques, etc. However, when the first Star Wars movie was released, it was anything but Hollywood. Hollywood has since adopted the original Star Wars style for its own science-fiction films. Before this point, the classic style of the old 1930's films had long vanished, and there wasn't enough interest in making sci-fi's to create a new genre in Hollywood. So, even though the original Star Wars movies were groundbreaking, the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy films today are very Hollywoodish by today's standards; except for its acting style.

There are several forms of acting. Each is used to tell a story for which it is best suited. "Realistic acting" (Method Acting, and also variations of Stanislavski Acting), have dominated Hollywood since the 1950's.  In particular, Method Acting best tells strong emotional character driven stories. Unfortunately, such styles are used for almost every movie these days. These acting styles do not fit many types of stories. But, us Americans are so accustomed to them, we are adverse to any other acting styles.

There's a quote from George Lucas about the acting style of the Prequel Trilogy: "It's not deliberately camp. I made the film[s] in a 1930s style. It's based on a Saturday matinee serial from the 1930s, so the acting style is very 30s, very theatrical, very old-fashioned. Method acting came in the 1950s and is very predominant today. I prefer to use the old style. People take it different ways, depending on their sophistication."^[001]

Taken in context of filmmaking, without regard for American prejudice, the acting in the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy is very good. The formal acting style (derived from theatrical or stage acting) is used very effectively. It allows the story to be told through a balance between dialog, plot, and character development, rather than being over-driven by character development (as is the case for many Hollywood movies of any genre).

I too used to have a prejudice in favor of "realistic acting". However, the Prequel Trilogy has opened my mind to other forms, not just of acting, but filmmaking in general. I now understand Non-hollywood films and can enjoy them as much as I enjoy Hollywood films. I don't believe I'm alone. I think the Prequel Trilogy is, in part, responsible for the growth of the independent film industry since the 1990's. Thank you George Lucas.

🔗 Keep Exploring Retro and Other Topics!

• 📞 Payphones are OG ~ Movies with a Dial 911 Crisis are Fake (Crazy that there's still over 100K active payphones in US)
• ➡️ Instantly Translate: Pager Code Encoder Tool (Use this to translate any word into an "authentic" numeric pager code.)
• 🐣 Maybe We Are The First (Is Humanity one of the first intelligent species in a still young Universe?)
• 📜 Mongering things (a comprehensive list of monger words) (Highly popular: a fascinating dive into words that "-monger".)

Yesterday

I was in Fresno for my friend's graduation from Fresno State. Afterwards we had a bbq and fairly busy house party. It was a fun, long day. :) The drive was over two hours to get to Fresno. Today, I headed up to my folks place. They live about 1.5 hours from my place, so I'm still debating whether to head home tonight or tomorrow morning.

I did check out the Chocolate Festival in Oakdale today. Kinda lame. Hersey's Chocolate sponsers this thang cuz I guess they used to have a factory there or sumfin. Anyways, the festival doesn't have a whole lot to do with Chocolate, dispite its name.

::que Star Wars theme::

I got in line early for the digital showing of Revenge of the Sith at
Century 22. Big, bold and almost brilliant. I had a lot of fun at the
theater before and during the movie. I really enjoyed it. I felt the
handling of the Emperor and yoda was a little cartoonish, but the movie was
good over all. There was a lot of plot in this movie...kinda feels Lucas
should have made the prequel trilogy on the story of episode 3 alone.

___
Sent with SnapperMail
www.snappermail.com

What a mess

The Bible has many authors, the majority of whom are completely unacknowledged by traditional theology. Modern biblical scholarship widely recognizes that the first five books, the Torah, were compiled from at least four distinct source documents known as J (Yahwist), E (Elohist), D (Deuteronomist), and P (Priestly). While the final text is presented as a singular, harmonious narrative of world history and the Israelite people, it is actually a patchwork of competing documents stitched together long after the events occurred. When you closely track these individual sources, the seams show. The text is filled with direct contradictions, frequently clashing within the exact same story.

Stories of Kingdom of Israel

Each individual tribe within the ancient Israelite alliance likely maintained its own localized oral traditions. These stories functioned as political metaphors, granting divine legitimacy to each group's territory and status. They were never originally intended to be read as literal, chronological history. The push to assemble a unified narrative came later, born of political catastrophe. When the Northern Kingdom of Israel fell to Assyria, and the Southern Kingdom of Judah was subsequently exiled to Babylon, the surviving priestly elites faced an existential crisis. To survive as a conquered people, they merged their disparate traditions into a single history. Because the northern tribes had already been scattered, the final collection heavily favors the perspective of the surviving southern kingdom and its priestly hierarchy.

This composition implies that the grand "United Monarchy" of biblical lore is fundamentally a myth. Modern archaeology indicates that Israel was never a monolithic empire from its inception, but rather a fluid confederation of distinct clans. The historical David was not the ruler of a sweeping superpower; physical evidence suggests he was a regional chieftain ruling a modest, tribal hill-country polity in the south. The Bible itself betrays this fragmented reality by preserving several radically different lists of the tribes across various books. The concept of a vast, centralized nation spanning both the north and the south was an anachronistic fiction, invented centuries later by Judean scribes to give their local tribal lineage a glorious, unifying backstory.  

Reality of Kingdom of Israel

The further, more radical implication is that the early Israelite clans were originally polytheistic. Each tribe aligned with its own protective deities, and a fierce theological civil war ensued. The bitter struggle between the worshipers of Baal and Yahweh survives in the text simply because the Yahwists won the conflict and wrote the history. They framed the defeat of Baal as divine judgment to legitimize their own monopoly on power. Yahweh himself appears to be a composite deity, absorbing the attributes of other regional gods to unify the tribes and expand the authority of the central priesthood.

Traces of this suppressed polytheism still break through the surface of the text. Consider the bizarre narrative of the Nehushtan: Moses crafts a bronze serpent on a pole to heal the people, a relic that the biblical text admits Israelites worshiped for centuries until King Hezekiah destroyed it during a monotheistic purge. This story was almost certainly an editorial attempt to rewrite history, retroactively explaining away evidence of ancestral serpent worship.

Ultimately, both gods and alternative histories vanished at the hands of the victorious scribes. Later generations mistook these highly political, edited anthologies for literal fact, eventually attributing the entire work to Moses. Over centuries of tradition, political propaganda solidified into undeniable divine truth, forming the fragile foundation upon which three major world religions stand today.

References: 101 Myths of the Bible (Book); Kingdom of Israel (Wikipedia); The Primacy of Genesis: Part 10 (Article)

Fighting the Future, One Square Root at a time

Find the square root for Y
Stage One:
1. Determine the largest squared whole number less than Y.
2. Use the square root of the largest squared whole number to be the first part of the answer. Place this number to the left of the decimal place within the answer.
3. Find the difference of Y and the squared whole number.

Stage Two:
1. Multiple the difference by 100, designated as A.
2. Multiple the answer so far by 2 (without the decimal point), designated as B.
3. Multiple B by 10.
4. Give C one of the following values: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9
5. Find D where (B+C)*C equals the greatest value less than A.
6. C becomes the next digit right of the decimal in the answer.
7. Find the difference between of A and D.
8. Repeat Stage Two until the answer reaches the desired number of digits after the decimal.

Example:

PDF File: Example to find the square root of 3

(Sorry, I had to make it a PDF file because html isn't good at showing math equations and I didn't want to scan in my chicken scratch writing. Free Acrobat Reader is a must, but if you don't already have it, go here to get it: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html)

Now, is anyone ever going to use this? Hey, if anyone has seen this method in print, please let me know.

Preface to Square Root

Back when I was in high school, I learned something that isn’t known by very many people. I learned the method to manually find a square root in a way that is similar to long division. This method allows you to find each decimal place with certainty. You can solve to as many places after the decimal point as you want.
I've never found this long method in print anywhere. I’ve found other simpler methods to finding a square root, but they usually involve closing in on the square root by continuously rerunning the same method. You are never left with a perfect answer because you can never be sure if the successive decimal places are correct. I’m also not sure which method is used by calculators (on which we all depend for square roots these days, which is the beginning of Asimov’s vision for our world coming true, but that’s a future blog entry).
I have no clue why this long method works. But, in a very small effort to fight the future, I’m going to show the method here, soon.

UPDATE: Here's the link to the long method of finding square roots: http://fcsuper.blogspot.com/2005/05/fighting-future-one-square-root-at.html#comments

We're returning to where we were.

More than a few years ago, I noticed something weird about how I speak. I realized that I use the word them as a nongender singular objective pronoun instead of him/her (which over specifies gender, when gender either didn't matter or wasn't known to me. Even more weird, I actually often use the contraction 'em to differentiate it from the common plural use of the word them.
At first I thought I was a bit weird. Then I noticed other people use the word them in this way. It's not overly common, but it's out there. Like, "if a stranger comes up next to you in a car, don't get in the car with them no matter what." An english major might tell you that statement is mixing up the subject, but it really is an attempt to apply them in the singular form.
The nice thing about the word 'em is that it is much quicker and easier to say than the artificial sounding P.C. term him/her. I also use themself as the nongender version of him/herself.
Since my realization about this word 'em, I use it intentional instead of him/her except in formal documents. Another thing I've noticed is that I do not use any replacement of he/she. Maybe it's be sounds ignorant to say "They is walking this way." :)
Ok, so is there any takers on helping me start the revolution to get rid of the word him/her? :)

Ok, so thinking about this got me thinking about the complexity of the English language. When I was younger, I used to think that French was strange, with it's unpronounced letters and odd contractions. Of course, English gets many of its habits from French, but it took me a long time to put two and two together. Then one day, I realized that English has just as strange unpronounced letters and even more weird contractions. I'm mean, trying telling a nonenglish speaker that thorough is pronounced "thir-o". Or worse, the same letters that are silence in thorough make the F sound in rough. What the hell? LOL
Along this thought, a phrase popped into my head that I thought would be particularly hard for nonenglish speakers, both in spelling and pronunciation. "We're returning to where we were." We're, where and were. They look pretty much the same, and sound pretty similar, but still distinct. Imagine a french speaker trying to say that three times fast. I think we're, where and were is worse than they're, their and there because at least these have the same pronunciation.

Crenelatory Critique

I’ve noticed that fantasy movies tend to have crenellations with way too many merlons and embrasures. In fact, I’ve seen merlons placed at the tip of a king’s donjon! Now how are a king's men supposed handle that? This display of diminutive crenels has got to stop! If this continues, I just know we’ll soon see exposed penetralias, and draughty keeps in the open streets! And then where will we be?

crenellation, merlon, embrasure, donjon, penetralia, draughty, & keep

I was this close to a bear cub

On one of my visits to Kings Canyon, I ran into this bear cub hanging out along side the road. I was riding with a friend when we noticed it. Told her to go slow so we could get some shots. She drove slow enough four us to get for shots, but she was all scared that momma bear was around. I was like, "We are in a moving car. The momma bear isn't going to get us." Secretly, I was hoping the momma bear would show up! Now that woulda been an exciting story. Ich, I'll settle for this quaint story with a nice picture.

Comments about recent movies

Three movies I’ve seen recently are Sahara, The Interpreter and via DVD When Will I Be Loved.

Sahara was a film following in the footsteps of movies like Indiana Jones. It falls well short of the Indiana Jones standard with too many ah-ha moments carrying the plot. An ah-ha moment is a point in the story where the story can’t proceed without some accidental amazing discovery or insight. Even still, the movie is fun to watch with fairly cleaver action. It’s not going to make it into my DVD collection though.

The Interpreter is a good political thriller film. I especially appreciated Nicole Kidman’s acting. You could see what she was thinking, and feel what she was feeling, even without dialogue; all without over acting. The film’s story isn’t as grandiose as films like Clear and Present Danger. This story and plot were more dialogue driven. This makes Nicole’s and Sean Penn’s great acting essential for turning an ok story into a good movie. There is a chance this DVD will make it into my collection.

When Will I Be Loved sucked. I got the movie for Neve Campbell. I'm not a big fan, but curious. Well, I understand the movie’s title. The title serves as a clue for the final show down at the movie’s end. But, the whole story is so improbable, it is not enjoyable. The movie was less than 1hr and 20min. It would’ve have been a much better story if it was cut down to about 35 minutes. The entire first 45 minutes of the film serve no purpose, though they are meant to develop the story’s characters. Here’s a hint to future film writers: Don’t develop a character without telling the overall story for longer than a couple minutes. Simply having a character do a bunch of stuff just so show personality traits for 45 minutes is extremely poor writing, no matter how cleaver or witty the dialogue or on-screen activity.  Ok, in case you saw this movie and missed the point of the title: The old Duke is lying, but not about the money. Neve's character never said he was lying about the money. He promised to satisfy Neve’s character, but obviously wasn’t up to the task. If you haven’t seen the film, don’t bother finding out what I’m talking about.

Lying Liars face

There's one clue that someone is lying, which can be picked out on very close observation. Because the clue can be so slight, it may require reviewing a video tape of the liar's face in order to see the facial nuances that reveal the lie. Given a long enough interview process, a liar will always reveal their lie by making a quick motion their mouth and/or eyebrows in an ugly manner. When seen on freeze frame, it looks like they are making an ugly face on purpose. In fact, it is subconscious, and often so quick, even the trained observer can miss it in person. It's easy to catch when reviewing video tape though. Since I discovered this, I've been able to identity lies (and truths too) on news programs, interviews, politicians, White House staff, etc.
One of the poor liars in the White House is Condalizza Rice. You can see a complete facial shift between almost any other topic and when she's was talking about "facts" that were used to justify the Iraqi War.
Another liar in his interviews was Scott Peterson. He was pretty good at controlling his facial motions, but he wasn't good enough.
The most recent case I've seen is that lady that found the finger in her food. As I watched her interview, I couldn't see any ugly faces (beyond expected disgust when talking about chewing a finger). Then I re-watched the interview, and there it was, plan as day near the beginning of the interview. She compressed and dropped her lips for a split second right after finishing her response to a question. Caught! :)
How do you tell the difference between normal face twitches and a liar's face? Several ways. Most important is the type of movement, particularly with the lips. Often, one or both corners are pulled down, or the upper lip is pulled up in the middle. The pulling up of the upper lip isn't a great sign because several thangs cause this. However, the pulling down of the corners of the mouth is a sure sign because there really is not other reason for a mouth to be doing that. A second factor is the timing of the ugly face movement. A liar's face usually shows up right before answering a question or immediately following the answer.
Want practice identifying liars' faces? Seriously, watch pundants on Fox News and CNN.

Between the lines

The trouble with getting a new toy for guys is that we want to play with it all the time. Girlfriends get jealous of an inanimate object, you start to drift off at work cuz you aren't getting enough sleep, etc etc. That's kinda were I'm at right now. I think the bags have reformed under my eyes. I'm even a bit more ornery right now. :)

Support for the anti-gay marriage ban

Constitutional Amendment to establish marriage as only applying to a union between a man and a woman is a joke. Well, it’s not intended to be a joke. The topic of same-sex marriage is a point that agitates the Conservative and neocon base of the Republican Party. What makes the associated proposed Constitutional Amendment a joke is that it is very poorly worded. It cannot be passed in its current form because of sloppy language that can easily be abused to legalize heinous behavior. It is not intended to actually be passed, and thus the joke. Nothing about this article is non-legal opinion and shouldn't be taken as legal advice.  Let's look at the proposed amendment.

''Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.''

What is a man and a woman?

It says that marriage can only occur between a man and woman. There are several problems with that statement.

• I’ve said this before; some persons with intersex traits can be both a man and a woman at the same time. Although rare, they create a valid issue. Are we going to tell intersex persons who they can and cannot marry simply because nature didn’t make up its mind? You can argue whether gays are born gay. You cannot argue whether a person was born a with intersex traits.
• The amendment federalizes marriage. No other national law governs who can marry directly. In the absence of clear instruction, “man and woman” is inherently inclusive of incestuous marriage. The old legal rule is that if the Constitution doesn’t specifically make exclusion, it is interpreted as being allowed.
• No Federal law, not even the Constitution itself, can act retroactively. Massachusetts has already legalized same-sex marriage. Those same-sex couples already married under Massachusetts law cannot be unmarried by the federal government. Even if the Amendment passes, it could never apply to those couples. This would create a legal mess as States adjust to this one-time only hyper-minority group. In effect, it would provide status of privilege for these individuals which would not be conferred on any other citizen. By extension, such a position of privilege would require equal rights be applied to everyone under the 14th Amendment. Basically, the existence of this group creates a catch-22 that invalidates (one way or another) any limitation placed on same-sex marriage by the Constitution or any federal law.

Domestic Mess

Now I’ll consider the rest of the wording of that proposed Amendment. The first part of the second sentence of the proposed Amendment basically says that States cannot contradict the Amendment. This is redundant, since no law is allowed to contradict any part of the Constitution. However, the next part of the sentence uses sloppy and obscure language to prevent States from giving rights to nonmarried couples. It is a fairly bizarre phrase. It limits rights of individuals within a relationship to just being friends in the legal sense, regardless of the true nature of the relationship. Just stupid. What about common-law? What about shared property? What about the couple’s children? There’s a million valid “What abouts…” here!

According to the second sentence, no rights of marriage can be given to nonmarried couples, but it makes no provisions for the nature of those relationships. People in nonmarried couples aren’t entitled to seek child support? Nonmarried couples that brake up aren’t allowed to split property as is done with divorce? That second sentence would create a domestic legal mess across the country.

Constitution cannot contradict itself

My third point here is that no law, not even the Constitution itself, is allowed to contract the Constitution. There’s a specific clause in the Constitution that actual says the Constitution cannot contradict itself. The inherent nature of the Constitution makes it unlawful to establish any law that creates a special class of citizen that cannot have the rights granted to other citizens, expect as a means of punishment for crime. This is part of the power behind the 14th Amendment, though not explicitly stated. Any other Amendment that limits the rights of one class of citizen would also have to specially repeal the 14th Amendment in order to be valid itself. The proposed Amendment does not repeal the 14th Amendment, so it is unconstitutional because of its de facto creation of a second class of citizen that has less rights than others.

What a mess!

The proposed Amendment is horribly written. It creates one-time only hyper-minority that have special privileges. It is caught up in a catch-22 that is self defeating and invalidating. It contradicts the 14th Amendment, but does not repeal it, making it unconstitutional. Who wants this thing passed? If the civil rights battle can serve as an indicator, this proposed Amendment (if passed) would ultimately create such a legal mess, it could take half a century to sort out the details, whether enforced, repealed, or found unconstitutional in the courts. The logically conclusion is that it is not intended to pass. It is only used as a tool to rally the Conservative and neocon base of the Republican Party, to sucker more people to giving more support and more money to do more of nothing about the issue. It’s a joke on the true believers and party loyalists. The Amendment is a joke on America.

I'll be joining the 21st century on Thursday

Two days from now, I get Cable broadband...officially marking the moment that I join the 21st century. :) I can hardly wait!