Asha Ali's self-titled debut album was one of my favorite CDs of 2006. Here are video clips of live performances she did of Fire, Fire and These Months on 2006-12-04 on Nyhetsmorgon, TV4 from Sweden.
Fire, Fire:
These Months:
For more, check out her official site and MySpace page.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
New Dog, Same Old Tricks
I'd like to think that we learn from our mistakes so that we don't make them again. Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be the case in at least 2 instances.
One of the most memorable images from the textbook for Sociology 201 class I took in college was this advertisement for Camel cigarettes from the 1950s (click the picture for the full-size version):
While the whole "doctor recommended" thing is pretty bad, the most insidious part of the ad is the extolling of the "30-day test." This probably seemed rather innocuous back then, but based on what we know now, one can only guess how many people's lives were cut short by lifelong addictions that began with this "test."
Thankfully, cigarette use is now on a sharp decline, as a result of changing norms and new laws. But that doesn't mean that the tricks used by cigarette makers to hook new users aren't being used anymore. One current ad campaign for sleeping pills that's running on TV is eerily similar to the old Camel cigarette ad:
The voiceover during the ad explicitly states that using sleeping pills can be addictive, but I guess they're hoping that the whole "free trial" thing will make people not appreciate what they're getting themselves into. While sleeping pills don't appear to be as unhealthy as cancer sticks, and the current generation of sleeping pills aren't as addictive as they once were, they do still carry many risks, and there are better ways to treat sleeping problems. Here's one article that explains some of the basics about what the sleeping pill manufacturers are currently engaged in, as well as a bit at the end about some more healthful alternatives:
Feeding the Sleeping Pill Addiction by Alan Cassels
Everything considered, I wonder if in 50 years the sleeping pill advertisement will be as galling to people as the cigarette advertisement is to us today.
Just as we haven't appeared to have learned our lesson from the addictiveness of cigarettes, so to have we apparently not learned our lesson from the Enron meltdown.
While Enron might be gone, the tactics they used are still alive and well. Here's a clip from The Daily Show from 2004 after the "Grandma Millie" tapes were released, which featured Enron traders detailing exactly what they were doing in California:
Of course, you can't always count on wildfires to limit the energy supply, and those at Enron had no problem creating artificial scarcity. A LA Times article from June 13, 2001 describes in detail what Enron and other energy companies did to increase profits:
Energy Execs Gain Millions in Stock Sales by Jerry Hirsch
Last month, Lynch told The Times that state investigators have uncovered evidence that a "cartel" of power companies shut down plants for unnecessary maintenance to create shortages and thus increase prices and profits. Lynch did not name the companies.
State and federal agencies are investigating the actions of several of the big energy companies, seeking to verify charges that they have conspired to boost prices by limiting construction of power plants, in one case, or by limiting the amount of natural gas available in the power-hungry California market.
I wonder what companies they identified doing this in 2001. Assuming Enron was one, what were the other ones? It appears that while Enron got busted for so egregiously breaking laws, the basic practice is creating artificial scarcity in the energy sector is nothing new. There's a fascinating and depressing article from June 21, 2004 on the website of The New Republic about how oil companies have engaged in this exact practice for at least the past 12 years. But they've maanged to get away with it year after year. Here's the link to this must read article:
Gas Mask by Clay Risen
Unfortunately, even though all the evidence about what's been going on has been available for sometime, very little, if anything, has been done in response.
On Wednesday, May 23, 2007, Congress passed a bill to combat gasoline price gouging. But the bill appears to be rather toothless and doesn't really do anything. Here's one article about the bill's passage:
House OKs Gas Price Gouging Penalties by H. Josef Hebert
But it gets better: The very next day, there was an article in the New York Times about how the oil companies are now using the U.S.'s meager forays into biofuels as yet another excuse to not increase capacity. Link to the article:
Oil Industry Says Biofuel Push May Hurt at Pump
by Jad Mouawad
Sigh. I'm hopeful, but not optimistic, that one day we'll be able to learn from the past so that we stop making the same mistakes over again. And hopefully that day comes before we find ourselves coping with $10 a gallon for gasoline by knocking ourselves out with horse tranquilizers.
One of the most memorable images from the textbook for Sociology 201 class I took in college was this advertisement for Camel cigarettes from the 1950s (click the picture for the full-size version):
While the whole "doctor recommended" thing is pretty bad, the most insidious part of the ad is the extolling of the "30-day test." This probably seemed rather innocuous back then, but based on what we know now, one can only guess how many people's lives were cut short by lifelong addictions that began with this "test."
Thankfully, cigarette use is now on a sharp decline, as a result of changing norms and new laws. But that doesn't mean that the tricks used by cigarette makers to hook new users aren't being used anymore. One current ad campaign for sleeping pills that's running on TV is eerily similar to the old Camel cigarette ad:
The voiceover during the ad explicitly states that using sleeping pills can be addictive, but I guess they're hoping that the whole "free trial" thing will make people not appreciate what they're getting themselves into. While sleeping pills don't appear to be as unhealthy as cancer sticks, and the current generation of sleeping pills aren't as addictive as they once were, they do still carry many risks, and there are better ways to treat sleeping problems. Here's one article that explains some of the basics about what the sleeping pill manufacturers are currently engaged in, as well as a bit at the end about some more healthful alternatives:
Feeding the Sleeping Pill Addiction by Alan Cassels
Everything considered, I wonder if in 50 years the sleeping pill advertisement will be as galling to people as the cigarette advertisement is to us today.
Just as we haven't appeared to have learned our lesson from the addictiveness of cigarettes, so to have we apparently not learned our lesson from the Enron meltdown.
While Enron might be gone, the tactics they used are still alive and well. Here's a clip from The Daily Show from 2004 after the "Grandma Millie" tapes were released, which featured Enron traders detailing exactly what they were doing in California:
Of course, you can't always count on wildfires to limit the energy supply, and those at Enron had no problem creating artificial scarcity. A LA Times article from June 13, 2001 describes in detail what Enron and other energy companies did to increase profits:
Energy Execs Gain Millions in Stock Sales by Jerry Hirsch
Last month, Lynch told The Times that state investigators have uncovered evidence that a "cartel" of power companies shut down plants for unnecessary maintenance to create shortages and thus increase prices and profits. Lynch did not name the companies.
State and federal agencies are investigating the actions of several of the big energy companies, seeking to verify charges that they have conspired to boost prices by limiting construction of power plants, in one case, or by limiting the amount of natural gas available in the power-hungry California market.
I wonder what companies they identified doing this in 2001. Assuming Enron was one, what were the other ones? It appears that while Enron got busted for so egregiously breaking laws, the basic practice is creating artificial scarcity in the energy sector is nothing new. There's a fascinating and depressing article from June 21, 2004 on the website of The New Republic about how oil companies have engaged in this exact practice for at least the past 12 years. But they've maanged to get away with it year after year. Here's the link to this must read article:
Gas Mask by Clay Risen
Unfortunately, even though all the evidence about what's been going on has been available for sometime, very little, if anything, has been done in response.
On Wednesday, May 23, 2007, Congress passed a bill to combat gasoline price gouging. But the bill appears to be rather toothless and doesn't really do anything. Here's one article about the bill's passage:
House OKs Gas Price Gouging Penalties by H. Josef Hebert
But it gets better: The very next day, there was an article in the New York Times about how the oil companies are now using the U.S.'s meager forays into biofuels as yet another excuse to not increase capacity. Link to the article:
Oil Industry Says Biofuel Push May Hurt at Pump
by Jad Mouawad
Sigh. I'm hopeful, but not optimistic, that one day we'll be able to learn from the past so that we stop making the same mistakes over again. And hopefully that day comes before we find ourselves coping with $10 a gallon for gasoline by knocking ourselves out with horse tranquilizers.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
My thoughts on the LOST Season 3 Finale
Much like the Season 3 finale of The Office, my first impression of the LOST Season 3 finale episode was that it was kind of meh. Like everybody else, I figured out pretty early in the episode that the scenes of Jack in L.A. were from the future. I doubt very many people were surprised at the end when Kate got out of the car. I wish this had been a little less obvious so it would have been a surprise at that point, because that would have been pretty cool.
I usually dislike it when a show does an episode set in the future or reveals significant things about what's going to happen since a lot of the fun comes from not knowing what happens and being able to speculate. For example, the Nip/Tuck episode "Conor McNamara, 2026" from Season 4 showed what all the characters were up to 20 years in the future. Now, Nip/Tuck is kind of a guilty pleasure show, but I still thought that revealing what happens to everyone was a big mistake. Not only was the episode the worst of the series, but also it makes the show that much less enjoyable.
After watching again the episode again, though, my opinion of the episode improved dramatically. For one thing, I think the 15 minutes or so where it seemed that Jin, Sayid, and Bernard were dead had a major negative impact on my initial impression of the episode. For another, after finding out for sure that the Jack in L.A. scenes were from the future, I realized that there were still a ton of unanswered questions; there are even more now than before, in fact.
Of the unanswered questions, the most interesting to me is probably the identity of the person who died in the flash-forward. There are some close-up pictures of the obituary from the newspaper over at Lost Screencaps and Easter Eggs, and while it's not possible to make out the whole thing, apparently the entire message has been leaked, and the name in the obituary is John Lantham. This could be a pseudonym or the real name of an established character, or a new character that hasn't been introduced on the show yet. Apparently there's an artist named John Latham that died in 2006 with some ideas that have a lot to do with LOST. For more, check out the Wikipedia page about him.
While arguments can be made that it was John Locke, Michael, or a yet to be introduced character, my guess is that it was Ben Linus that died. When Jack read the obituary he was devastated, to the point that he almost jumped off a bridge. We know that Jack has become obsessed with getting back to the island, and Ben would probably be the person best able to help him accomplish that. Plus, if it was Ben's funeral, then Jack's strong emotions of sadness and regret would juxtapose nicely with his antipathy towards Ben back on the island. As to the identity of the teenage son mentioned in the obituary, perhaps it's Karl, since the identity of his parents haven't been revealed yet.
Also, I'm really interested in seeing how things get to the point in time they are in the flash-forward, and even more interested in seeing what happens after that. I think that would be awesome if the scenes from the flash-forward occur in real time at some point in Season 5, or Season 6 at the latest, leaving at least one full season to see what happens after the small glimpse into the future that we got in this episode.
Unfortunately, Season 4 isn't going to start airing until 2008, so there's still 8 months to speculate on what will happen next. In the meantime, here are a few interesting links:
Lost Screencaps And Easter Eggs
- This site has a bunch of screencap of important and interesting things that range from difficult to impossible to spot during the first viewing.
Liquid Generation: Top 10 Moments of the Lost Season Finale
- What the link says. It's a very good list.
Lost Redux: Damon Lindelof Breaks "Radio Silence" to Reveal Why Charlie Died and More
- An interesting interview with one of the show's producers, including a Q&A about the future of the show.
I usually dislike it when a show does an episode set in the future or reveals significant things about what's going to happen since a lot of the fun comes from not knowing what happens and being able to speculate. For example, the Nip/Tuck episode "Conor McNamara, 2026" from Season 4 showed what all the characters were up to 20 years in the future. Now, Nip/Tuck is kind of a guilty pleasure show, but I still thought that revealing what happens to everyone was a big mistake. Not only was the episode the worst of the series, but also it makes the show that much less enjoyable.
After watching again the episode again, though, my opinion of the episode improved dramatically. For one thing, I think the 15 minutes or so where it seemed that Jin, Sayid, and Bernard were dead had a major negative impact on my initial impression of the episode. For another, after finding out for sure that the Jack in L.A. scenes were from the future, I realized that there were still a ton of unanswered questions; there are even more now than before, in fact.
Of the unanswered questions, the most interesting to me is probably the identity of the person who died in the flash-forward. There are some close-up pictures of the obituary from the newspaper over at Lost Screencaps and Easter Eggs, and while it's not possible to make out the whole thing, apparently the entire message has been leaked, and the name in the obituary is John Lantham. This could be a pseudonym or the real name of an established character, or a new character that hasn't been introduced on the show yet. Apparently there's an artist named John Latham that died in 2006 with some ideas that have a lot to do with LOST. For more, check out the Wikipedia page about him.
While arguments can be made that it was John Locke, Michael, or a yet to be introduced character, my guess is that it was Ben Linus that died. When Jack read the obituary he was devastated, to the point that he almost jumped off a bridge. We know that Jack has become obsessed with getting back to the island, and Ben would probably be the person best able to help him accomplish that. Plus, if it was Ben's funeral, then Jack's strong emotions of sadness and regret would juxtapose nicely with his antipathy towards Ben back on the island. As to the identity of the teenage son mentioned in the obituary, perhaps it's Karl, since the identity of his parents haven't been revealed yet.
Also, I'm really interested in seeing how things get to the point in time they are in the flash-forward, and even more interested in seeing what happens after that. I think that would be awesome if the scenes from the flash-forward occur in real time at some point in Season 5, or Season 6 at the latest, leaving at least one full season to see what happens after the small glimpse into the future that we got in this episode.
Unfortunately, Season 4 isn't going to start airing until 2008, so there's still 8 months to speculate on what will happen next. In the meantime, here are a few interesting links:
Lost Screencaps And Easter Eggs
- This site has a bunch of screencap of important and interesting things that range from difficult to impossible to spot during the first viewing.
Liquid Generation: Top 10 Moments of the Lost Season Finale
- What the link says. It's a very good list.
Lost Redux: Damon Lindelof Breaks "Radio Silence" to Reveal Why Charlie Died and More
- An interesting interview with one of the show's producers, including a Q&A about the future of the show.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
And Christopher Hitchens said women aren't funny!
A few weeks ago there was a roundtable discussion about various barrier options for the U.S. and Mexico border on the Onion News Network. Here's the video clip:
In The Know: The U.S. Moat
Not to be outdone, on last night's The Colbert Report Stephen had a short interview with Bay Buchanan. It's amazing how effortlessly Buchanan meets, if not exceeds, the absurdity of the Onion News Network clip. My favorite part of the interview, though, is probably the audience's reaction to some of Buchanan's comments. Here's the video clip:
And Christopher Hitchens said women aren't funny!
In The Know: The U.S. Moat
Not to be outdone, on last night's The Colbert Report Stephen had a short interview with Bay Buchanan. It's amazing how effortlessly Buchanan meets, if not exceeds, the absurdity of the Onion News Network clip. My favorite part of the interview, though, is probably the audience's reaction to some of Buchanan's comments. Here's the video clip:
And Christopher Hitchens said women aren't funny!
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
LOST Season 3 Finale
I'm really looking forward to watching the LOST Season 3 finale tonight, which starts in about an hour and fifteen minutes. I'm terrible at predictions, and LOST has the most unexpected twists of any show on television, so I won't even try. Instead, I'll just try to enjoy the show while keeping Teferi's words of wisdom in mind: "Can you prepare for the unexpected? No, you cannot. You can prepare only to be surprised."
Better luck next time, Bill Tancer, and congratulations, Jordin Sparks
I don't watch American Idol, and I don't really care who wins. But I am interested in the selection process, and more specifically the use of various tools to predict who will be voted off each week.
The most well known of these tools is probably DialIdol.com, which offers software people can download to speed dial votes for their favorite contestants and, more importantly, monitor the busy signal of the various contestants' phone lines to measure their popularity. This data is then collected and used to predict who will be voted off each week. Even though DialIdol only takes dialed votes, not text votes, into consideration, for the most part DialIdol has been pretty accurate.
Another method used to gauge contestants' popularity on American Idol, as well as other shows where audience votes determine the losers each week is by scouring through data of web searches for each of the contestants. An article posted yesterday on the website of Time magazine explains the basics of this, along with predictions for the Season 6 finale of American Idol. Here's the link to the article:
Advantage Blake Lewis by Bill Tancer
While I don't doubt the usefulness of using search engine data to predict winners and losers on audience participation television programs, I think that Bill Tancer's analysis is flawed, mainly because he's focusing solely on the search engine data and ignoring common sense. While the Season 6 winner won't be announced until later tonight, DialIdol's results are in, and they have Jordin Sparks receiving 50% more votes than Blake Lewis. Considering that Tancer's article is crafted mainly around the pitfalls of search engine data analysis, perhaps he could do the same thing next year about why he was so wrong about this season's American Idol finale. Here are a couple things he might include in his anaylsis.
First, the Stacy Keibler Correction Coefficient (SKCC) sometimes, but not always, is an important factor in audience participation television shows. Most of the people searching for her were men who probably didn't watch, and certainly don't vote, on Dancing With The Stars. If they do watch, it's because their wives watch, and when they saw Stacy Keibler, they went into the other room and searched for pictures of her on the computer. When their wives watched the show the following week, they stayed in the room and read the paper until she came on at which point they put the paper down and were glued to the set. Then when her performance was over they resumed reading the paper, or perhaps they once again went on the computer to search for some more pictures of her. Now, Stacy Keibler is an absolute bombshell who is much more attractive than most women, including most contestants on audience participation programs. Still, most contestants on these shows are still quite attractive, such as Jordin Sparks, but she's certainly no Stacy Keibler.
So perhaps next year when considering search engine data to predict the American Idol or Dancing With The Stars winner, Tancer can use the Modified Stacy Keibler Correction Coefficient (MSKCC), which says that the usefulness of search engine data for a certain female contestant is inversely proportional to her attractiveness. When a contestant is so exceptionally attractive that people who would otherwise have no interest in the program start doing searches for her, as was the case with Stacy Keibler, the search engine data is practically useless for prediction purposes. Conversely, when the attractiveness of the contestant is more in line with the attractiveness of the other contestants, and while still attractive, is not enough to garner a significant number of searches from those who don't watch the show, then the search engine data should be pretty useful, even if those searching are more interested in their looks than their talent relevant to the show they're on. Without even looking anything up, it seems pretty likely that the majority of Dancing With The Stars viewers are adult women, while the majority of people doing searches for Stacy Keibler are men, of all ages. In contrast, I'd think the American Idol demographics skew younger, with more teenagers watching and voting on the show. Just because they're more interested in the various contestants looks than their singing doesn't mean they're not voting for them. Indeed, consider how many singers and bands over the years have become millionaires off the disposable incomes of teenagers used to buy their CDs, even if they don't particularly care for their music.
Second, while search engine data undoubtedly holds clues on how people will vote, it must not be used to the exclusion of common sense. Amazingly, Tancer's article doesn't even mention the 3rd place finisher, Melinda Doolittle. Does Tancer think that now that Melinda has been eliminated that those who voted for her are now simply irrelevant and those that voted for her every week will simply not watch or vote on the Season finale? Imagine if in the 2000 presidential election a few weeks prior to the election Al Gore convineced Nader to drop out, perhaps by promising him the opportunity to head the EPA if he won. If that happened, those who had been Nader supporters would have been anything but irrelevant. Last year on American Idol, after Chris Daughtry and Elliott Yamin were eliminated, those who had voted for them broke towards Taylor Hicks in the finale, making him the winner. Similarly this year, those who voted for Melinda previously should be expected to break towards Jordin. Indeed, if you look at this week's DialIdol data compared to last week's DialIdol data, it appears that Melinda voters broke for Jordin 3 to 1, and that Jordin will be named the new American Idol by a pretty comfortable margin.
Better luck next time, Bill Tancer, and congratulations, Jordin Sparks.
The most well known of these tools is probably DialIdol.com, which offers software people can download to speed dial votes for their favorite contestants and, more importantly, monitor the busy signal of the various contestants' phone lines to measure their popularity. This data is then collected and used to predict who will be voted off each week. Even though DialIdol only takes dialed votes, not text votes, into consideration, for the most part DialIdol has been pretty accurate.
Another method used to gauge contestants' popularity on American Idol, as well as other shows where audience votes determine the losers each week is by scouring through data of web searches for each of the contestants. An article posted yesterday on the website of Time magazine explains the basics of this, along with predictions for the Season 6 finale of American Idol. Here's the link to the article:
Advantage Blake Lewis by Bill Tancer
While I don't doubt the usefulness of using search engine data to predict winners and losers on audience participation television programs, I think that Bill Tancer's analysis is flawed, mainly because he's focusing solely on the search engine data and ignoring common sense. While the Season 6 winner won't be announced until later tonight, DialIdol's results are in, and they have Jordin Sparks receiving 50% more votes than Blake Lewis. Considering that Tancer's article is crafted mainly around the pitfalls of search engine data analysis, perhaps he could do the same thing next year about why he was so wrong about this season's American Idol finale. Here are a couple things he might include in his anaylsis.
First, the Stacy Keibler Correction Coefficient (SKCC) sometimes, but not always, is an important factor in audience participation television shows. Most of the people searching for her were men who probably didn't watch, and certainly don't vote, on Dancing With The Stars. If they do watch, it's because their wives watch, and when they saw Stacy Keibler, they went into the other room and searched for pictures of her on the computer. When their wives watched the show the following week, they stayed in the room and read the paper until she came on at which point they put the paper down and were glued to the set. Then when her performance was over they resumed reading the paper, or perhaps they once again went on the computer to search for some more pictures of her. Now, Stacy Keibler is an absolute bombshell who is much more attractive than most women, including most contestants on audience participation programs. Still, most contestants on these shows are still quite attractive, such as Jordin Sparks, but she's certainly no Stacy Keibler.
So perhaps next year when considering search engine data to predict the American Idol or Dancing With The Stars winner, Tancer can use the Modified Stacy Keibler Correction Coefficient (MSKCC), which says that the usefulness of search engine data for a certain female contestant is inversely proportional to her attractiveness. When a contestant is so exceptionally attractive that people who would otherwise have no interest in the program start doing searches for her, as was the case with Stacy Keibler, the search engine data is practically useless for prediction purposes. Conversely, when the attractiveness of the contestant is more in line with the attractiveness of the other contestants, and while still attractive, is not enough to garner a significant number of searches from those who don't watch the show, then the search engine data should be pretty useful, even if those searching are more interested in their looks than their talent relevant to the show they're on. Without even looking anything up, it seems pretty likely that the majority of Dancing With The Stars viewers are adult women, while the majority of people doing searches for Stacy Keibler are men, of all ages. In contrast, I'd think the American Idol demographics skew younger, with more teenagers watching and voting on the show. Just because they're more interested in the various contestants looks than their singing doesn't mean they're not voting for them. Indeed, consider how many singers and bands over the years have become millionaires off the disposable incomes of teenagers used to buy their CDs, even if they don't particularly care for their music.
Second, while search engine data undoubtedly holds clues on how people will vote, it must not be used to the exclusion of common sense. Amazingly, Tancer's article doesn't even mention the 3rd place finisher, Melinda Doolittle. Does Tancer think that now that Melinda has been eliminated that those who voted for her are now simply irrelevant and those that voted for her every week will simply not watch or vote on the Season finale? Imagine if in the 2000 presidential election a few weeks prior to the election Al Gore convineced Nader to drop out, perhaps by promising him the opportunity to head the EPA if he won. If that happened, those who had been Nader supporters would have been anything but irrelevant. Last year on American Idol, after Chris Daughtry and Elliott Yamin were eliminated, those who had voted for them broke towards Taylor Hicks in the finale, making him the winner. Similarly this year, those who voted for Melinda previously should be expected to break towards Jordin. Indeed, if you look at this week's DialIdol data compared to last week's DialIdol data, it appears that Melinda voters broke for Jordin 3 to 1, and that Jordin will be named the new American Idol by a pretty comfortable margin.
Better luck next time, Bill Tancer, and congratulations, Jordin Sparks.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Jared Diamond on The Colbert Report
Last night's The Colbert Report had one of the best preshow taglines in recent memory: "Paul Wolfowitz is pushed out of the World Bank. Maybe his girlfriend can get him a job at the State Department." More importantly, author Jared Diamond was the guest. Diamond has written 4 books, including Why Is Sex Fun?: The Evolution of Human Sexuality, The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal, Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, and Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Since Diamond's most recent book is Collapse, I'm not sure why they talked solely about Guns, Germs, and Steel. I'm not complaining though, as Guns, Germs, and Steel has been my favorite non-fiction book for some time now.
Here's the video of the interview:
Here's the video of the interview:
Monday, May 21, 2007
Tonight's Deal Or No Deal
I rarely plan on watching Deal Or No Deal, but I often find it difficult to turn the channel if I happen to flip to it while looking for something to watch. I did want to watch tonight's episode, though, since the contestant was Wesley Autrey, the New Yorker who dove onto subway tracks to protect a young man who had fallen on the tracks after having a seizure. They both survived and he was rightly declared a hero. According to his wikipedia page the titles bestowed upon him include "Subway Superman," "The Hero of Harlem," and the "Subway Hero." On the show, Autrey got down to 5 cases with the $1,000,000 and 4 small amounts still in play. He rejected offers of $209,000 and $305,000. Then with 3 cases in play he hit the $1,000,000 case, rejected the $5,000 offer, and with only $25 and $10,000 left, his case was opened and he had the $25 case. Besides the $25, he was also given a new Jeep. Usually I'm indifferent to whether contestants do well or not, until they get to the point where they're getting large offers with a few cases left and only 1 large amount left in play, and knocking it out will leave them with virtually nothing. If they decide to keep going in that situation, my indifference quickly gives way to enthusiastically rooting against them. Tonight's episode was different though, and when it was clear that Autrey was determined to keep going, I wanted him to win big. And I wasn't the only one. Usually the host, Howie Mandel, tries to prod contestants into continuing, as it makes for more compelling television. Tonight though at every offer he pleaded for Autrey to consider what he was risking. When Autrey and his supporters tried to rationalize his risky choices by saying that he wasn't really risking anything since he "came here with nothing," Mandel kept pointing out that he was indeed risking a hell of a lot of money. After Autrey got the offer of $305,000, Mandel went to the button and pointed out that if he pushed the button he was guaranteed that amount, but if he kept going he could leave with as little as $25. He looked so serious pleading with Autrey, I almost expected him to push the deal button for him.
It seems likely that the very traits that made Autrey a well-known hero in the first place - a quick, impulsive judgment to make an action that could very well lead to serious injury or death - are exactly what led to his poor performance on Deal Or No Deal, walking away with only $25 (and then after the game ended a new Jeep as well), when he easily could have won $305,000. If only he would have considered what he was risking and pushed the button at an earlier time, he could have won a lot of money instead of the paltry $25 he ended up leaving with. But obviously if he had thought things through on that subway platform, and after carefully considering his options decided to take the safe course of action and do nothing, he never would have been or Deal Or No Deal in the first place.
And since I probably won't ever write about Deal Or No Deal again, I want to say how much I detest the whole "Now let's see if you made a good deal" charade they do after the contestant makes a deal to see if their case held more or less money than they accepted. I think the only thing that matters is whether or not the contestant made a good decision based on the available information at the time. Autrey received several large offers that I think he should have accepted based on what was left in play. If he accepted one of those offers and then it turned out that his case did hold the $1,000,000, the quality of his decision doesn't change even though it would surely feel like it. It's just like poker, when you're on a draw to a straight or flush, if you're faced with a large bet and the odds say it's not worth it to continue, then that's the correct decision even if you would have made the hand if you would have continued. Imagine the lesson in mathematics Howie Mandel would receive if he showed up at the final table in the main event of the World Series Of Poker and after someone with a draw made a laydown he came up and said, "Now let's see how good of a fold you made." Instead of that charade, I think that after the final decision is made, whether it was to take the deal or an all or nothing decision is made and the contestant ends up with nothing, I think they should playback the advice of the contestant's friends and the crowd, and give their advice a fresh listen now that the contents of every case is known, and the greed to try to win a large amount even if it means not winning anything is no longer a factor. This wouldn't be as entertaining television as the whole "Now let's see if you made a good deal" charade, but it sure would be nice to see the embarassment on the faces of all the people who gave bad advice.
It seems likely that the very traits that made Autrey a well-known hero in the first place - a quick, impulsive judgment to make an action that could very well lead to serious injury or death - are exactly what led to his poor performance on Deal Or No Deal, walking away with only $25 (and then after the game ended a new Jeep as well), when he easily could have won $305,000. If only he would have considered what he was risking and pushed the button at an earlier time, he could have won a lot of money instead of the paltry $25 he ended up leaving with. But obviously if he had thought things through on that subway platform, and after carefully considering his options decided to take the safe course of action and do nothing, he never would have been or Deal Or No Deal in the first place.
And since I probably won't ever write about Deal Or No Deal again, I want to say how much I detest the whole "Now let's see if you made a good deal" charade they do after the contestant makes a deal to see if their case held more or less money than they accepted. I think the only thing that matters is whether or not the contestant made a good decision based on the available information at the time. Autrey received several large offers that I think he should have accepted based on what was left in play. If he accepted one of those offers and then it turned out that his case did hold the $1,000,000, the quality of his decision doesn't change even though it would surely feel like it. It's just like poker, when you're on a draw to a straight or flush, if you're faced with a large bet and the odds say it's not worth it to continue, then that's the correct decision even if you would have made the hand if you would have continued. Imagine the lesson in mathematics Howie Mandel would receive if he showed up at the final table in the main event of the World Series Of Poker and after someone with a draw made a laydown he came up and said, "Now let's see how good of a fold you made." Instead of that charade, I think that after the final decision is made, whether it was to take the deal or an all or nothing decision is made and the contestant ends up with nothing, I think they should playback the advice of the contestant's friends and the crowd, and give their advice a fresh listen now that the contents of every case is known, and the greed to try to win a large amount even if it means not winning anything is no longer a factor. This wouldn't be as entertaining television as the whole "Now let's see if you made a good deal" charade, but it sure would be nice to see the embarassment on the faces of all the people who gave bad advice.
My thoughts on the Season 3 finale of The Office
The Season 3 finale of The Office was the other night, and I went a big 0 for 6 on my predictions. So I think I'll refrain from making any other predictions for a while.
I had low expectations for this episode, since I didn't think they could top the previous season finale, considering how good that was. My initial reaction to the episode was that it was kind of so-so. All the Dwight in charge stuff seemed too much like The Coup redux, which was one of my least favorite episodes of the season. And unlike most episodes, I didn't have the urge to watch it again right away. But after watching it a couple more times, I think this is probably the best episode of the season. That might change, though, depending on how they resolve the unanswered questions in season 4(e.g., What happened to Karen? Are Jim and Pam really going to be dating now or are they just going to be friends or something? And perhaps most importantly, who came out on top in Kevin's calculation of who was better between Pam and Karen?).
Two other things: Am I remembering incorrectly or weren't Martin Freeman, Lucy Davis, and Mackenzie Crook supposed to guest star in an episode at some point this season? And wasn't the documentary supposed to start airing in the show's universe this season? I thought Greg Daniels or someone said that in an interview before the season started. I'm glad it didn't, though, as I think it makes a lot more sense in-show that it wouldn't air until they were done shooting, as it probably costs next to nothing to film and as soon as it started airing there would be total havoc, including that Scranton would be overrun by fans going goo-ga over Jim and Pam.
There were a ton of great quotations in this episode, but here are my favorites:
10. Michael: "Why is my office black?"
Dwight: "To intimidate my subordinates."
9. Pam: "I'm happy for him. I hope he gets the job. I really just want him to be happy. And I know that sounds cliché. And I know saying it sounds cliché sounds cliché. Maybe I'm being cliché, I don't care. 'Cause I am what I am. That's Popeye."
8. Creed: "I find it offensive. Au naturel, baby. That's how I like ‘em. Swing low, sweet chariots."
7. Pam: "Maybe one day I'll find my own Karen. But that is a, um... You know, not... a man. A man version. But, uh, until then, I can hold my head up. I'm not gay."
6. Creed: "I remember. I blogged the whole thing. www.creedthoughts.gov.www/creedthoughts. Check it out."
Ryan: "Last year, Creed asked me how to set up a blog. Wanting to protect the world from being exposed to Creed's brain, I opened up a Word document on his computer and put an address at the top. I've read some of it. Even for the intranet, it's... pretty shocking."
5. Dwight: "Jim, Jim, Jim. Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim."
Jim: "Oh. Hey, Dwight."
Dwight: "I am going to be your new boss. [laughs] It's my greatest dream come true. Welcome to the Hotel Hell. Check-in time is now, check-out time is never."
Jim: "Does my room have cable?"
Dwight: "No. And the sheets are made of fire!"
Jim: "Can I change rooms?"
Dwight: "Sorry, we're all booked up. Hell convention in town."
Jim: "Can I have a late check-out?"
Dwight: "I'll have to talk with the manager?"
Jim: "You're not the manager, even in your own fantasy?"
Dwight: "I'm the owner. The co-owner. With Satan!"
Jim: "Okay, just so I understand it. In your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil."
Dwight: "Yeah, but I haven't told you my salary yet."
Jim: "Go."
Dwight: "$80,000 a year!"
4. Dwight: "Now, let us discuss precipitation. Stanley, when rainfall occurs, does it usually fall in a liquid, solid, or gaseous state?"
Stanley: "Liquid."
Dwight: "Very good. You have earned one Schrute buck."
Stanley: "I don't want it."
Dwight: "Then you have been deducted 50 Schrute bucks."
Stanley: "Make it 100."
Dwight: "Don't you want to earn Schrute bucks?"
Stanley: "No. In fact, I'll give you a billion Stanley nickels if you never talk to me again."
Dwight: "What's the ratio of Stanley nickels to Schrute bucks?"
Stanley: "The same as the ratio between unicorns and leprachauns."
3. David: "Oh, hey, do you have your quarterly numbers?"
Jim: "Yes, absolutely."
David: "And that questionnaire?"
Jim: "Yep."
David: "Sorry to make you fill that thing out."
Jim: "Oh, no, absolutely."
David: "Stupid HR formality. We have this very irritating HR guy here. He's probably the only person you're not going to like. Kendall... ugh."
2. Michael: "David, I did not tell her."
1. Pam: "I haven't heard anything. But I bet Jim got the job. I mean, why wouldn't he? He's totally qualified, and smart. Everyone loves him. And if he never comes back again, that's okay. We're friends, and I'm sure we'll stay friends. We just, we never got the timing right, you know? I shot him down, and then he did the same to me and.... But you know what, it's okay. I'm totally fine. Everything is going to be totally..."
Jim: "Pam... sorry. Are you free for dinner tonight?"
Pam: "Yes."
Jim: "Alright. Then it's a date."
Pam: "I''m sorry, what was the question?"
I had low expectations for this episode, since I didn't think they could top the previous season finale, considering how good that was. My initial reaction to the episode was that it was kind of so-so. All the Dwight in charge stuff seemed too much like The Coup redux, which was one of my least favorite episodes of the season. And unlike most episodes, I didn't have the urge to watch it again right away. But after watching it a couple more times, I think this is probably the best episode of the season. That might change, though, depending on how they resolve the unanswered questions in season 4(e.g., What happened to Karen? Are Jim and Pam really going to be dating now or are they just going to be friends or something? And perhaps most importantly, who came out on top in Kevin's calculation of who was better between Pam and Karen?).
Two other things: Am I remembering incorrectly or weren't Martin Freeman, Lucy Davis, and Mackenzie Crook supposed to guest star in an episode at some point this season? And wasn't the documentary supposed to start airing in the show's universe this season? I thought Greg Daniels or someone said that in an interview before the season started. I'm glad it didn't, though, as I think it makes a lot more sense in-show that it wouldn't air until they were done shooting, as it probably costs next to nothing to film and as soon as it started airing there would be total havoc, including that Scranton would be overrun by fans going goo-ga over Jim and Pam.
There were a ton of great quotations in this episode, but here are my favorites:
10. Michael: "Why is my office black?"
Dwight: "To intimidate my subordinates."
9. Pam: "I'm happy for him. I hope he gets the job. I really just want him to be happy. And I know that sounds cliché. And I know saying it sounds cliché sounds cliché. Maybe I'm being cliché, I don't care. 'Cause I am what I am. That's Popeye."
8. Creed: "I find it offensive. Au naturel, baby. That's how I like ‘em. Swing low, sweet chariots."
7. Pam: "Maybe one day I'll find my own Karen. But that is a, um... You know, not... a man. A man version. But, uh, until then, I can hold my head up. I'm not gay."
6. Creed: "I remember. I blogged the whole thing. www.creedthoughts.gov.www/creedthoughts. Check it out."
Ryan: "Last year, Creed asked me how to set up a blog. Wanting to protect the world from being exposed to Creed's brain, I opened up a Word document on his computer and put an address at the top. I've read some of it. Even for the intranet, it's... pretty shocking."
5. Dwight: "Jim, Jim, Jim. Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim."
Jim: "Oh. Hey, Dwight."
Dwight: "I am going to be your new boss. [laughs] It's my greatest dream come true. Welcome to the Hotel Hell. Check-in time is now, check-out time is never."
Jim: "Does my room have cable?"
Dwight: "No. And the sheets are made of fire!"
Jim: "Can I change rooms?"
Dwight: "Sorry, we're all booked up. Hell convention in town."
Jim: "Can I have a late check-out?"
Dwight: "I'll have to talk with the manager?"
Jim: "You're not the manager, even in your own fantasy?"
Dwight: "I'm the owner. The co-owner. With Satan!"
Jim: "Okay, just so I understand it. In your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil."
Dwight: "Yeah, but I haven't told you my salary yet."
Jim: "Go."
Dwight: "$80,000 a year!"
4. Dwight: "Now, let us discuss precipitation. Stanley, when rainfall occurs, does it usually fall in a liquid, solid, or gaseous state?"
Stanley: "Liquid."
Dwight: "Very good. You have earned one Schrute buck."
Stanley: "I don't want it."
Dwight: "Then you have been deducted 50 Schrute bucks."
Stanley: "Make it 100."
Dwight: "Don't you want to earn Schrute bucks?"
Stanley: "No. In fact, I'll give you a billion Stanley nickels if you never talk to me again."
Dwight: "What's the ratio of Stanley nickels to Schrute bucks?"
Stanley: "The same as the ratio between unicorns and leprachauns."
3. David: "Oh, hey, do you have your quarterly numbers?"
Jim: "Yes, absolutely."
David: "And that questionnaire?"
Jim: "Yep."
David: "Sorry to make you fill that thing out."
Jim: "Oh, no, absolutely."
David: "Stupid HR formality. We have this very irritating HR guy here. He's probably the only person you're not going to like. Kendall... ugh."
2. Michael: "David, I did not tell her."
1. Pam: "I haven't heard anything. But I bet Jim got the job. I mean, why wouldn't he? He's totally qualified, and smart. Everyone loves him. And if he never comes back again, that's okay. We're friends, and I'm sure we'll stay friends. We just, we never got the timing right, you know? I shot him down, and then he did the same to me and.... But you know what, it's okay. I'm totally fine. Everything is going to be totally..."
Jim: "Pam... sorry. Are you free for dinner tonight?"
Pam: "Yes."
Jim: "Alright. Then it's a date."
Pam: "I''m sorry, what was the question?"
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Holy crap
I just visited GiveMeMyRemote.com to see if there was anything about why OfficeTally.com has been down the last few days and I was floored when I saw this:
http://www.givememyremote.com/remote/get-well-soon-jenna-fischer/
Get Well Soon Jenna Fischer
Give Me My Remote sends our best wishes to THE OFFICE’S Jenna Fischer who fractured her lower back in four places after falling down some stairs on Monday. According to PopCandy, Jenna’s best friend and co-star, Angela Kinsey, has been with Jenna throughout the ordeal and Jenna’s husband James Gunn has flown to New York to be with her.
Because of her injury, Jenna had to cancel her appearance last night on Conan. I saw Jenna in the early part of the evening on Monday so the fall must have happened soon after leaving the NBC Upfront party.
So from all of us here at Give Me My Remote, we wish you all the best in your speedy recovery Jenna!!
Leave your well wishes for Jenna here at GMMR and/or her MySpace page.
!!!
For the last few days I've been so excited to watch The Office season finale tomorrow night, but now I doubt I'll be able to enjoy it since one of the stars has suffered such a major injury. The first thing I thought of when I read "fractured back" was paralysis, but according to E! Online:
Jenna was hospitalized Monday night and is now resting in her hotel room until she can regain enough strength to fly home to Los Angeles. She is expected to recover in about four to six weeks.
So the bad news is she'll be in the hospital for 4-6 weeks, but the good news at least there apparently isn't any major permament damage.
It's strange to be affected so much by an injury to someone that you you only know of through a television show, but I wholeheartedly hope for Jenna to have a quick, easy, and full recovery!
http://www.givememyremote.com/remote/get-well-soon-jenna-fischer/
Get Well Soon Jenna Fischer
Give Me My Remote sends our best wishes to THE OFFICE’S Jenna Fischer who fractured her lower back in four places after falling down some stairs on Monday. According to PopCandy, Jenna’s best friend and co-star, Angela Kinsey, has been with Jenna throughout the ordeal and Jenna’s husband James Gunn has flown to New York to be with her.
Because of her injury, Jenna had to cancel her appearance last night on Conan. I saw Jenna in the early part of the evening on Monday so the fall must have happened soon after leaving the NBC Upfront party.
So from all of us here at Give Me My Remote, we wish you all the best in your speedy recovery Jenna!!
Leave your well wishes for Jenna here at GMMR and/or her MySpace page.
!!!
For the last few days I've been so excited to watch The Office season finale tomorrow night, but now I doubt I'll be able to enjoy it since one of the stars has suffered such a major injury. The first thing I thought of when I read "fractured back" was paralysis, but according to E! Online:
Jenna was hospitalized Monday night and is now resting in her hotel room until she can regain enough strength to fly home to Los Angeles. She is expected to recover in about four to six weeks.
So the bad news is she'll be in the hospital for 4-6 weeks, but the good news at least there apparently isn't any major permament damage.
It's strange to be affected so much by an injury to someone that you you only know of through a television show, but I wholeheartedly hope for Jenna to have a quick, easy, and full recovery!
The Office Season 3 Finale
Tomorrow night is the Season 3 finale of The Office. All I know about it for sure is that the title of the episode is The Job. However, I've worked out some predictions for the episode based on some clues from the past few episodes and common sense. These are probably way off, but here are my predictions:
1. Jan will find out that she is pregnant with Michael's baby. (Ok, there haven't been many hints for this except Jan's mood swings and her telling Michael that she felt sick in the car after David Wallace's party at the end of Cocktails. But I accidentally read part of a spoilerish interview with Jenna Fischer where she said that in the season finale Michael and Jan got some lifechanging news. An unexpected pregnancy seems to fit that billl perfectly.)
2. The corporate job that Michael, Jim, and Karen are interviewing for with David Wallace will be offered to Jim.
3. News of this will quickly spread to the Scranton branch, where people will have disparate reactions to the news. Andy and Dwight will start gearing up for the fight to become Michael's new #2. Pam will feel regret for not telling Jim how she felt sooner. And with Jim out of the picture once again, Toby will finally work up the gumption to ask Pam out. Since Jim will be leaving Scranton, she decides she needs to move on, and accepts.
4. Jim is flattered to be offered the job but after thinking about things, particularly Pam's confession in front of everyone that he is the reason she called off her wedding, Jim decides to decline the job, and recommends to David Wallace that he give the job to Karen instead.
5. Karen is offered and accepts the job, ignorant that Jim turned it down. She tells Jim, who acts surprised, and is happy for her. They talk about him moving to New York with her, but after talking things through they mutually decide to breakup, amicably.
6. After driving back to Scranton Jim decides to go to Pam's apartment to tell her that Karen got the job and they're not dating anymore. He rings the doorbell and who should answer the door but Toby Flenderson. Jim's floored but tries to play it cool, and Pam comes to the door and he makes up some excuse for stopping by and leaves.
1. Jan will find out that she is pregnant with Michael's baby. (Ok, there haven't been many hints for this except Jan's mood swings and her telling Michael that she felt sick in the car after David Wallace's party at the end of Cocktails. But I accidentally read part of a spoilerish interview with Jenna Fischer where she said that in the season finale Michael and Jan got some lifechanging news. An unexpected pregnancy seems to fit that billl perfectly.)
2. The corporate job that Michael, Jim, and Karen are interviewing for with David Wallace will be offered to Jim.
3. News of this will quickly spread to the Scranton branch, where people will have disparate reactions to the news. Andy and Dwight will start gearing up for the fight to become Michael's new #2. Pam will feel regret for not telling Jim how she felt sooner. And with Jim out of the picture once again, Toby will finally work up the gumption to ask Pam out. Since Jim will be leaving Scranton, she decides she needs to move on, and accepts.
4. Jim is flattered to be offered the job but after thinking about things, particularly Pam's confession in front of everyone that he is the reason she called off her wedding, Jim decides to decline the job, and recommends to David Wallace that he give the job to Karen instead.
5. Karen is offered and accepts the job, ignorant that Jim turned it down. She tells Jim, who acts surprised, and is happy for her. They talk about him moving to New York with her, but after talking things through they mutually decide to breakup, amicably.
6. After driving back to Scranton Jim decides to go to Pam's apartment to tell her that Karen got the job and they're not dating anymore. He rings the doorbell and who should answer the door but Toby Flenderson. Jim's floored but tries to play it cool, and Pam comes to the door and he makes up some excuse for stopping by and leaves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)