text:
A pro-independence blog by James Kelly - voted one of Scotland's top 10 political websites.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
A challenge flunked
That being the case, it's high time they (as John Major might say) put up or shut up. With such incontrovertible evidence at their fingertips, they should have had no difficulty whatever resolving the series of ten perfectly reasonable and logical objections I raised in relation to statistical evidence purporting to prove a clear social benefit of the general population being widely armed. But were they able to step up to the plate? In fact, did they even go through the motions of engaging with the questions at all? Well...judge for yourself. One link from Kevin in relation to my query about suicide, but other than that, nada - just a million and one ways of changing the subject, descending to the all-too-familiar playground bully-boy tactics by the end of the thread.
Ed's "heck of a" strategy for ignoring the questions was to zone in on my point that the "extraordinary claim" of the gun lobby (namely that the stricter gun laws in the UK somehow put us at more risk than our American cousins, despite the fact that we have a vastly lower gun crime rate) requires extraordinary proof -
"I've seen the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" phrase before. In every case, it has come from someone who has already been shown evidence that far exceeds the evidence for everything else in its category, and yet, it's still never enough. I've reached the point that when I see that phrase used, I pretty much understand it to mean "My mind is made up. Stop trying to confuse me with the facts.""
But of course Ed is conveniently ignoring the observation I went on to make immediately afterwards, which was that while I feel extraordinary levels of proof are required, even something that hits the ordinary standard of proof would be nice to be getting on with. Sadly, in spite of Ed's delusional musings, there has been precious little of that on offer so far. So what would help? Well, how about someone providing serious answers to those ten serious questions? Remember Ed claims to have definitive "facts" on his side, even as he quibbles about the 'proof beyond all doubt' label - so it should be perfectly possible to supply answers demonstrating conclusively that the issues I've raised do not wholly negate the alleged benefits of widespread legal gun ownership (as I strongly suspect they do).
The challenge remains open - I'm naturally not holding my breath.
35 comments:
- Ed "What the" HeckmanJune 10, 2010 at 2:54 PM
You're a loony.ReplyDelete
You've been presented with an abundance of evidence, most of which you flatly REFUSE to acknowledge. Your pathological insistence on ignoring what you don't like cannot make that evidence go away. It just demonstrates the old adage that there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
For example: Your lunatic claim that statistics showing that there were 1,187 murders committed without guns in the U.K. in 2002 "doesn't even begin to prove" that people commit murders without guns. (Emphasis yours)
There can be no better example of your active refusal to acknowledge evidence.
"A person can be persuaded by an abominable argument and remain unconvinced by one that ought to be accepted."
—Antony Flew
Ed - "You're a loony."ReplyDelete
It seems the final words of my post could hardly have been more prophetic - an even more hysterical level of abuse is seemingly now required to distract attention from the failure to even pretend to engage with the ten perfectly logical and reasonable objections I raised in relation to a choice example of 'irrefutable evidence'.
And how bizarre it is of you to complain about me 'refusing to acknowledge evidence' in response to a detailed post in which I asked a series of perfectly logical and legitimate questions about a specific piece of evidence put forward. That's a funny way for me to go about 'ignoring' it - the only ignoring going on is the complete ignoring of those awkward questions.
Tell me, what is it about the questions that makes it so impossible for you to meet the challenge and simply explain why it is they don't pose a problem to your argument? I acknowledged that question 6 was a little more intangible, but as someone steeped in this issue, you must have some kind of ready-made response to the other nine, surely? It seems not...
"For example: Your lunatic claim that statistics showing that there were 1,187 murders committed without guns in the U.K. in 2002 "doesn't even begin to prove" that people commit murders without guns. (Emphasis yours)"
One word : untrue. What I actually said is there for all to see on this thread, so why waste your breath distorting it?
Perhaps it's this philosophy you have in mind -
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it" - Joseph Goebbels
(Although maybe it's a bit harsh to single you out for that when we still have Unix-Jedi around brazenly trying to convince the world that Andrew de Vries was shot dead for being a violent criminal.)
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it" - Joseph GoebbelsReplyDelete
This is the epitome of what the gun control crowd does. They thrive on "The Big Lie"
- Ed "What the" HeckmanJune 10, 2010 at 4:41 PM
Thanks for posting that link, James. I should have done that myself.ReplyDelete
The specific exchange is about 2/3rds of the way down that page. (And I don't really expect more comments to be added, so it should stay there.) Echo doesn't allow linking to specific comments, so readers will have to find it manually. My post with statistics is somewhat long, which should make it easier to spot. James' flat denial that I've been pointing out is immediately below it.
Of course, it's best to read the entire comment thread, including where James tried to "explain" his denial of the evidence, and my response where I found it necessary to revert to giving dictionary definitions of the words I used because of James' deliberate "misunderstanding" of what I wrote.
In short, it is true. Everyone should go read it for themselves.
As for the Goebbels quote: More psychological projection.
demonstrating conclusively that the issues I've raised do not wholly negate the alleged benefits of widespread legal gun ownership (as I strongly suspect they do).ReplyDelete
On what rational basis do you base that suspicion? On what empirical evidence?
Without such a basis your 10 claims are the intellectual equivalent of "nuh uh" and "I know you are but what am I?"
Brazen, Ed, I'll give you that. Let's stop mucking around, shall we? The reason you are lying is this -ReplyDelete
You asked me whether I accepted that without guns, a person with murderous intent can and WILL still kill.
I said no, because while such a person may or may not succeed in killing, they are substantially less likely to do so.
You responded with the 2002 UK murder statistics, which you claimed bore out your original point. I explained that they didn't even begin to do anything of the sort, because you would have had to somehow demonstrate that there wouldn't have been a whole lot MORE killings had guns been to hand more often. Remember what I said - a person with murderous intent may or may not succeed in killing, but they are substantially less likely to do so.
Now, try and somehow square that with your statement above -
Your lunatic claim that statistics showing that there were 1,187 murders committed without guns in the U.K. in 2002 "doesn't even begin to prove" that people commit murders without guns. (Emphasis mine.)
Best of luck.
- Ed "What the" HeckmanJune 10, 2010 at 5:16 PM
That was not my claim. Here is the original (made back on June 4th, about 1/3 of the way down the original comments thread):ReplyDelete
"So even if a person doesn't have a gun available, they can (and will) still find a way to kill."
…later updated to this after I tracked down those statistics:
"So even if a person doesn't have a gun available, they can (and DO) still find a way to kill."
But this is what YOU are arguing against:
"So even if a person doesn't have a gun available, they can (and will) [always] find a way to kill."
They are not the same thing. I didn't even say "frequently" as part of my claim (which still isn't the same thing as "always"), though I obviously could have.
You asked me whether I accepted that without guns, a person with murderous intent can and WILL still kill.ReplyDelete
I said no, because while such a person may or may not succeed in killing, they are substantially less likely to do so.
So you responded with "No" while acknowledging that the correct answer is in fact "Yes." Wow, that's some amazing cognitive dissonance!
you would have had to somehow demonstrate that there wouldn't have been a whole lot MORE killings had guns been to hand more often.ReplyDelete
So the crux of your argument is "I can't prove it, but I THINK there would have been more killings if there'd been more guns."
Wow, you're dazzling me with your intellect Mr. Kelly! Bravo.
- Ed "What the" HeckmanJune 10, 2010 at 5:34 PM
Truly, he has a dizzying intellect.ReplyDelete
"But this is what YOU are arguing against:ReplyDelete
"So even if a person doesn't have a gun available, they can (and will) [always] find a way to kill."
They are not the same thing."
So your only get-out clause here is that when you said "will kill" you actually meant "will kill, but only some of the time"? Well, what a pity you don't clarify that when you first said it, because it would have utterly blown apart the whole argument you were trying to advance.
Alternatively, your defence here is sophistry. Take your pick.
- Ed "What the" HeckmanJune 10, 2010 at 5:57 PMReplyDelete
Dear God. Is the next excuse going to be that when you said "will" you were actually referring to your last will and testament?ReplyDelete
- Ed "What the" HeckmanJune 10, 2010 at 6:12 PM
Speaking of sophistry…ReplyDelete
You took the parenthetical word (will) and elevated it to the primary word in the sentence. Plus, you added "always" to the meaning of will, which is not demanded by the definition. (Though it can sometimes include the concept of always, that's only in definitions which do not apply in this context.)
The primary word in my sentence was "can". And the updated sentence which specifically objected to did not even use the word "will." It used the word "do."
Thank you for that perfect example of "sophistry."
A word of advice, Ed - just take a step back and consider whether you really want to test this fantastical, hair-splitting argument to destruction. Wouldn't it be simpler just to be honest and concede that your characterisation of what I said was not accurate?ReplyDelete
- Ed "What the" HeckmanJune 10, 2010 at 6:25 PM
I am being honest. Your "doesn't even begin to prove" objection was to "can (and DO)." I cannot accept your claim, because your characterization of what I wrote is OBVIOUSLY not accurate. It doesn't even match the plain meaning of what I originally wrote. (As amply demonstrated by yet another deliberate "misunderstanding": "last will and testament".)ReplyDelete
So that's my question to you. Wouldn't it be simpler just to be honest and concede that your characterization of what I wrote was not accurate?
James - I think Ed has pretty well already destroyed your position here and proven that you are guilty of the sophistry you accuse him of.ReplyDelete
Ed - Good job. Mr. Kelly's continued obfuscation & evasion are sad aren't they? At least they're humorous.
- JebTexasJune 10, 2010 at 7:44 PM
As I will keep repeating: The problem here is a lack of logic and critical thinking. Mr. Kelley and many of those that espouse his views are INCAPABLE of rational argument. One has only to follow this thread and those at Kevin's to see the truth of this. Astonishing to see him unable to address the simplest comment, and to change it to something he CAN argue against. We might as well argue with the floor. This is a 2+2=4 situation, and no amount of obfuscation will change the answer.ReplyDelete
"I think Ed has pretty well already destroyed your position here and proven that you are guilty of the sophistry you accuse him of."ReplyDelete
I'm going to try to avoid getting sucked into Mike's pointless drivel-fests in future, but it is worth highlighting this comment, because it's such a textbook example of how the KBFC like to conduct 'debate'. A 'fact' has been 'proved' because we say it has. You have logical objections or questions about those facts? I'm sorry, those are not legitimate objections or questions. Why not? Because they are put forward by a loony who is not arguing honestly. How do you know he's a loony and not arguing honestly? BECAUSE HE DARES TO QUESTION OUR FACTS!!!!!
Genius. Kevin should rename his blog Circular Logic Fix Of The Day. In fact it's a great pity he's not a man of faith, because I'm quite sure he'd have long ago scientifically validated for us the existence of God.
Meanwhile, we've now moved into Day 3 (UK time) of my challenge to the KBFC to demonstrate their claim that they have watertight, comprehensive proof of their case, by engaging seriously with the ten straightforward objections I raised in relation to the alleged proof that legal gun ownership has a social benefit, and by explaining why none of the issues I raised negates (or indeed totally overwhelms) the supposed benefits. Forty-eight hours in, all we've seen is a wall of silence and distraction.
Is anyone going to step up to the plate? Ever?
- AnonymousJune 11, 2010 at 2:17 AM
A 'fact' has been 'proved' because we say it has.ReplyDelete
Amusingly, false. It has been proven because Ed provided all of the substantiation, support, examples, and citations necessary to show that you successfully managed to put your foot, up to your knee, in your mouth, and chewed. He said something, you misunderstood/mischaracterized (possibly maliciously, in both cases) it, and responded based on that flawed reasoning. He called you for your fallacious response, and ever since, you have been running around in circles, beating your little fists against the floor, screaming that you are right, and he is wrong.
Do you want to know why Ed won and you lost? Probably not, but I am going to type it anywise, simply because it has relevance to every other "debate" (and I use that term loosely, given that someone as unarmed as you makes them very one-sided) you have engaged in thus far. He made a statement. He substantiated it. He spelled out the underpinnings of it. And he kept providing more facts to substantiate that statement, even going so far as to provide the definitions of very basic words when it became obvious you still were not understanding what he was saying (hence my belief that misunderstanding was malicious).
You, on the other hand, in all of your furious typing, screaming, railing, arguing, prostelyzing, and Lord-alone knows what else, have never made it past "he made a statement".
Until you can understand that you have to move past that point, until you can grasp that "facts" and "opinions" are not equivalent and are not interchangeable in arguments, and until you show even the barest glimmer of understanding of either logic or basic debating form, you will continue to regularly have your ass handed to you, and you will not even be able to understand why.
Honestly (since you seem to value honesty, which is all manner of ironic from someone who places no value on facts), that is a shameful, pathetic existance to lead, but it is your choice, and you are welcome to it. Just try to stop demanding that we join you in your self-inflicted cess-pool, k?
Ah, Linoge. I think we can safely assume Ed is in some trouble here if one of the KBFC's two Walking, Talking Slabs Of Pure Offensiveness finally feels the need to weigh in on enemy territory. As for me "demanding your presence", I don't know where you get the impression you're remotely welcome. You moan when I prevent you commenting here as well - jeez, will you guys ever get the party line straight?ReplyDelete
In this case I'm grateful for you popping by, though, because you've just provided an even more - indeed, far more - outstanding example of an "it's been proved because I insist WITH CONVICTION that it has been" post.
Ed did indeed make a statement. He then produced some statistics which had no particular relevance to that statement one way or the other. However in classic KBFC fashion he simply asserted that the statistics somehow proved his statement, and then sat back to admire his handiwork. I pointed out his error of logic, but he responded by bizarrely pretending I had instead made the claim that "no murders take place without guns" and that this made me a lunatic. Now, even if we very generously assume that he might have somehow misconstrued my meaning at that point (for that we'd have to buy into his hurried retrospective redefinition of the word 'will'), given that I then clarified what I actually meant and he appeared to understand it, how else can his first post on this thread be interpreted as anything other than a conscious, deliberate, cynical attempt to deceive?
As for this business of "screaming", "railing", "running around in circles", "beating little fists against the floor", etc, etc, all I can see right now from you is a very rattled, angry man spewing out venom, rage and ridicule about a point of pedantry to cover up for the fact that he doesn't feel equipped - for whatever reason - to constructively engage with my ten perfectly reasonable, logical questions. You and your fellow travellers boast endlessly about having proved things beyond dispute, and rail against the world for being too stupid to notice - well, step up to the plate, my man, because the test of authentic proof is that it can stand up to rigorous scrutiny and robust questioning. So what's it to be, Linoge - reason and debate, or the transparent distraction strategy of yet more mindless abuse based on hair-splitting points of pedantry?
I'm guessing the latter.
- Ed "What the" HeckmanJune 11, 2010 at 4:04 AM
It was not necessary for Linoge and JebTexas to weigh in, though I appreciate their input. I didn't feel the need to call for help* because there is no more to write.
As Linoge correctly pointed out, all the ground has been covered. Every detail of this 'discussion' is available for any passerby to examine at their leisure. Your chicanery is laid bare for all to see.
I hope you open your eyes to reality before it blindsides you.
I'm done here.
(* A Note, because James will almost certainly try to distort events again: I did post a link to this page early this morning before I started commenting simply because I saw you had a new post up. As anyone can see, it was not a call for help.)
Why would I be concerned that you'd posted a link? What is there to distort? Odd comment.ReplyDelete
Godspeed, Ed. You take the sunshine with you.
He posted the link in case you decide to LIE about what has been said here, which is not out of the question given your prior behavior.ReplyDelete
Lie about what has been said here? Lie about it where? Here? What would be the point of that? And what was the lie that Ed with his Nostradamus-like powers somehow knew I was going to tell? Very hard to keep track of all this.ReplyDelete
But it wasn't too hard for me to demonstrate there was one deliberate lie on this thread, and it didn't come from me. No wonder Ed has departed the scene.
- AnonymousJune 11, 2010 at 11:55 AM
But it wasn't too hard for me to demonstrate there was one deliberate lie on this thread, and it didn't come from me.ReplyDelete
And that, right there, is why you fail.
You refuse to acknowledge the basic facts regarding the construction of the English language, to the point where you would subvert, distort, and abuse that language in some ham-fisted attempt to "prove" that you were not lying, and, in the same breath, claim that Ed (who has taken the time to actually provide the necessary proof to support his opinion all the way down the underlying definitions of the words at play... unlike, say, you) somehow is lying.
That is why your ten cute little questions are completely meaningless, and completely irrelevant to the discussion at play - throughout that discussion, you have systemically demonstrated that you do not even understand the words you used in those questions, and evne if we were to answer them sufficiently and adequately, even going down to the root definitions of the words at play, you would simply discard our answers as insufficient, simply because you do not want to have to face them.
For example, take my comment of "stop demanding that we join you in your self-inflicted cess-pool" - it had absolutely nothing to do with this weblog, commenting here, or anything of the nature, and yet you maliciously misrepresented those words in order to score some kind of point in your ad hominem attack against me. Congratulations - just another reason why having anything even approximating a conversation with you is pointless.
Discussions over topics are meaningless unless the underlying tenets of those topics are agreed-upon, and given that you have proven a remarkable lack of understanding regarding "facts", "statistics", "the English language", and "truth", the discussion will naturally have to devolve to those points before anything even approximating progress can be made.
The only one with a massive case of projection, as well as a mind-numbing case of ressentiment, here, James, is you, and you prove it, yourself, with almost every single comment.
As Columbo might say - I'm a little confused here, Linoge. You and Ed both told me earlier that it was already absolutely self-evident to the world and his pet chihuahua that my argument has been completely destroyed, obliterated, pulverised, devoured, crucified, etc, etc, etc....ReplyDelete
So why do you feel the need to pop up with yet another epic, venomous and frankly slightly deranged comment? Something isn't adding up.
Let me put this to you. Ed kept urging people to read the relevant thread at Kevin's blog to discover the full extent of my dastardly 'chicanery'. Well, I am - to use the vogue phrase - rather relaxed about that prospect. Indeed, I'm so relaxed about it that (to Ed's obvious and rather amusing frustration) I posted a link to that thread and invited people to look for themselves before it ever occurred to him to do so.
As for your excuses for failing to engage with my perfectly logical objections to Nate's claimed evidence that gun legality helps to prevent crime...dear God. One word - desperate. If anyone had any doubt about my 'circular logic' point, you've just comprehensively removed it. In order to make a debate meaningful (ie. in order for you to feel any sense of obligation to respond to awkward questions that undermine your 'proof') the "underlying tenets of those topics" have to be agreed-upon...by you. In other words, the person asking the question has to first accept your 'proof' before the question can be deemed legitimate. A cynic might suspect that the only question that could ever meet that impossible test would be something along the lines of "now tell me some more about why you're so right?"
Now THAT'S what I call "Reasoned Discourse ©™®".
Is anyone going to step up to the plate? Ever?ReplyDelete
Yup, I've been hitting your softballs out of the park since last summer (along with Kevin, Linoge, UJ and others)
You just keep lobbing them up to get smashed.
Although unfortunately you keep smashing them straight into your own head (while remaining splendidly oblivious of the fact).ReplyDelete
That's an illogical response. (typical for you) As the batter I've been wearing a helmet, whereas you're pitching and are thus exposed to repeated blows to the head. :)ReplyDelete
Point taken, I'll be sure to demand a helmet just to be on the safe side when I'm pitching to...anyone other than you.ReplyDelete
Now, you'd best scurry off and replace your own worn-out helmet.
- AnonymousJune 11, 2010 at 9:09 PM
You are absolutely right, James - I am desperate. I am desperately hoping for some glimmer of understanding regarding the words you keep flinging about with reckless abandon, as if their mere presence or invocation gives power or weight to your "argument", such as it is (namely, "logic", and "reason"). I am desperately hoping for some indication that you can at least identify facts, much less understand them as being facts. I am desperately hoping that someone cannot honestly exist in such a solipsistic and self-righteous world as the one you would have us believe you live in.ReplyDelete
I should thank you, though, for convincing me that I am desperately wasting my time.
To put it very simply for you, James, since you seem hell-bent on continuing to maliciously distort other people's words whenever you perceive the chance to do so, you cannot accept the definition of commonly-used words as an accepted fact, so there is no point in answering any of your questions, given that any communication between us will be intentionally and immediately rendered useless.. by you. If the language used for discussions is not yet settled upon, that is the only thing available to discuss, until such time as it can be settled... and, to put it frankly, I am not at all interested in engaging in a semantical debate over predefined words with someone who flagrantly redefines words, warps other people's words, and engages in as much projection as you do.
Yes, I have made this argument a few times now, namely because I was desperately hoping (there I go again) that rephrasing it in a few slightly different ways would facilitate your understanding at some point, but, thank you, again, for explaining to me, in no uncertain terms, that you have absolutely no interest in what we have to say, at any time. Yes. Because that is exactly the attitude that is going to encourage people to answer your questions (Go ahead, call them "logical" again - if you say it a few more times, it might become true!).
- AnonymousJune 11, 2010 at 9:54 PM
You seem to be stuck on the idea that people can't kill efficiently or quickly without the aid of firearms. This thought flies in the face of historical fact.ReplyDelete
If you look at a list of the deadliest single day battles in history you will find that people can kill with a surfeit of efficiency with blades and spears and arrows.
Anon - James knows this. It has been pointed out to him, he's just willfully ignorant.ReplyDelete
Hell, the deadliest school massacre in U.S. history was the Bath School Disaster committed by Andrew Kehoe in 1927 (back when the U.S. had very little gun control to speak of) He did not use any firearms.
So I make that six "desperates" in the latest of Linoge's venomous, borderline-deranged contributions, but frankly the only thing I'm desperate for at the moment is the slightest sign that anyone from the KBFC is capable of meeting my challenge, and demonstrating that the claims of 'irrefutable proof' will indeed stand up to some kind of serious scrutiny and questioning.ReplyDelete
The challenge remains open. Day 4 (UK time) and still no takers. While we wait, a new post - The smallest minority : the individual, alone and abandoned.


text:
- Products & Supply
- Atmospheric Gases
- Fuel Gases
- Electronic Gases and Chemicals
- Food Chilling & Cooling
- Food Freezing
- Food Grade Gases
- Fumigants
- Gas Mixtures
- Helium
- Packaged Chemicals
- Pharmaceutical Solutions
- Refrigerants - landing page
- Welding and Safety Products
- Speciality Gases Overview
- Supply Modes
At Linde, safety is a number one priority in everything we do. Across our entire organisation, our people are always looking for new ways to improve safety in every setting – from industrial welding lines to home-based DIY jobs.
Drawing on the vast hands-on know-how we have gained in the safe use of gases across multiple industries, our aim is to help you meet your day-to-day safety challenges with a range of high-quality products that combine ease of use with comfort.
Our industry-standard, safety-approved solutions are designed to protect your workers from head to toe, minimise workplace hazards and ensure that emergencies are handled appropriately.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Moviestorm 1.4 Preview feedback
Posted 31 August 2010 - 04:19 PM
KVPictures on TMUnderground
KVPictures on Youtube
Free Mods by me
Posted 31 August 2010 - 05:12 PM
The log you put in the post sugests that there is an installation error of some sort - it isnt finding the files it needs in the new SpareHeads addon, or it is finding them in the wrong place, and getting confused.
I would sugest that you do a re-installation in a different folder (dont uninstall your current version yet).
Then follow the patching instructions, once your new install is installed.
Then check whether it works. If it does (which hopefully it should), you can then copy over the addon folders for your mods from your previous install. Dont copy over any of our addons, though - they will have been handled by the reinstall.
Then try it again - hopefully it still works, but if it doesnt, it is one of the addons you had just copied over.
Let us know how it goes, please.
PS: Please use the attachment upload for any future logs - it makes the thread much easier to read.
Moviestorm Ltd
Posted 05 September 2010 - 10:49 PM
Super dooper stuff!
'A lion sleeps in the heart of every brave man'
Posted 08 September 2010 - 07:35 AM
I did find a couple things I want to mention. Terribly sorry if any of these have been mentioned earlier in the thread, I don't have time tonight to read all ten pages of it (and let me just say, KUDOS to the community for giving that much 1.4 feedback!)
1) With the new "universal head" - if you put glasses on a character it does something really funky to the eyes - almost like a negative image of the eye texture. Affects the whole eye, not just the pupil.
2) Is it me, or do characters not seem to listen to "Look At" commands with the same priority that they used to? It used to be, Look At tended to override anything else going on animation wise, as long as the head could crane around in the right direction. It now appears that when animations involving the head/neck are engaged, they take over and Look At is ignored. I much prefer it where the Look At takes precedence, since I could always turn it off for a gesture if I wanted them to freely look about. Example: A seated character is given the Angry Tantrum command while having been given a Look At to a character standing nearby; the Angry Tantrum takes over, he stops looking at the person. Actually, Look At isn't working terribly well even when he's sitting forward and relatively idle. I haven't tested a ton of animations with it, but it appears to be affecting the ones I have tried.
3) Is it me, or are characters sometimes doing slight improvs even when they are told not to? Example: In the same scene described above with the guy throwing an Angry Tantrum, there's another character on the other side of the room who turns his head slightly in angry guy's direction as soon as the tantrum begins. The "other guy" in question has both Look Ats and Improvs turned off for his mood, AND I even tried turning off ALL improvs for the movie. AND, he has been given a Look At for a particular prop. Something happens when the angry guy starts his gesture, and my guy ignores global settings, ignores mood settings, and ignores my Look At Prop command and turns his head about 15 degrees in the direction of angry guy. Strange, and quite bothersome for the scene, since it so happens it's REALLY important he be looking where he's told to look.
I'll close with a story. I've had a movie in the queue that I'd all but given up on making in Moviestorm, simply because I needed to have some brothers and their father, and I wanted to tweak their genetics (Sims-style) to make them appear related but not identical save hair. The new character creation screen made that really really easy to do. A father and three sons in about an hour, most of that was tweaking the father. Then I saved Daddy to stock, reloaded him as new characters and tweaked each of them to be his sons. Would not have been achievable (in any reasonable way) until now. THANK YOU Moviestorm.
Zarathustra Studios - http://z-studios.com
You can connect with us On Twitter, On Facebook, On YouTube, and On Vimeo.
Posted 08 September 2010 - 10:22 AM
1. Yes were aware of that. I for one hated that bug , but guess what? We have a fix in place and it seems to be following through very well so expect it fixed in the 1.4.1 release later this week.
2. Hmm, not sure about this one cant say Ive noticed it but when you add dialogue to a character there is now a tick box feature saying 'look at me when I'm talking to you' which may suggest their have been some changes to the hierarchy. I think this calls for some testing
3. Haven't noticed anything like this either, could be that is a major bug. You definitely turned improv off via the script window rather than the mood changer window right? Could you send us an example (zip the movie up and email it to me at alex(dot)gowland(at)moviestorm(dot)co(dot)uk) as I'm rather intrigued.
Glad to hear you got your movie finished Overman. Look forward to seeing it.
Moviestorm Ltd.
Posted 08 September 2010 - 03:48 PM
I'm using Windows 7 and I still can't get MS 1.4 to work properly. I'm having problems with the dressing room... I can't access it and I've tried everything.
I even tried clucking like a chicken while it was dowloading but that didn't help.
Posted 08 September 2010 - 03:55 PM
Please bear with us while we sort out the final hiccups, and hopefully there should be an easy-to-install version coming over the next few days.
Oh, and scripter;- I often try that trick, and it doesn't work for me either.
Creative Producer
Moviestorm Ltd.
Posted 08 September 2010 - 08:42 PM
Posted 14 September 2010 - 09:40 AM
And can you all tell me what OS is on yo ur machine
# An unexpected error has been detected by Java Runtime Environment:
# EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION (0xc0000005) at pc=0x69921d12, pid=5956, tid=2896
# Java VM: Java HotSpot Server VM (11.0-b11 mixed mode windows-x86)
# Problematic frame:
# C [atioglxx.dll+0x8f1d12]
# If you would like to submit a bug report, please visit:
# http://java.sun.com/...eport/crash.jsp
# The crash happened outside the Java Virtual Machine in native code.
# See problematic frame for where to report the bug.
Posted 14 September 2010 - 09:48 AM
Please bear with us while we sort out the final hiccups, and hopefully there should be an easy-to-install version coming over the next few days.
Oh, and scripter;- I often try that trick, and it doesn't work for me either.
Amos Moviestorm 1.4 is crashing all the time on my machine I have WIndows 7 (x86) with 4gig bites of RAM.P lease advise. What is the OS recommended.
And can you all tell me what OS is on yo ur machine
# An unexpected error has been detected by Java Runtime Environment:
# EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION (0xc0000005) at pc=0x69921d12, pid=5956, tid=2896
# Java VM: Java HotSpot™ Server VM (11.0-b11 mixed mode windows-x86)
# Problematic frame:
# C [atioglxx.dll+0x8f1d12]
# If you would like to submit a bug report, please visit:
# http://java.sun.com/...eport/crash.jsp
# The crash happened outside the Java Virtual Machine in native code.
# See problematic frame for where to report the bug.
Posted 14 September 2010 - 10:03 AM
Since your post about this issue, I have specifically paid attention to this particular detail while working on my 2 current movies.
I haven't experienced this so far. The "look at" had always priority over other gestures/animations that I used, so that while "look at" was on, my characters wouldn't carry out animations that required them to look away. For such gestures/animations to work, I needed to "disable" the "look at" temporarily.
I have now also tested (recreated) the "angry tantrum" following your description. The animation involves head movement (bow forward), and this indeed makes the character stop to look in the face of the standing character - however he still looks in the direction of the standing character (tried it with moving the standing character around).
Posted 14 September 2010 - 10:16 AM
Moviestorm should run fine under Windows 7 (both 32 and 64-bit versions).
The error log that you have posted would indicate that your graphics card driver is crashing. The first thing I would suggest is going to the ATI website and seeing if later drivers are available.
Let us know how you get on.
Creative Producer
Moviestorm Ltd.
Posted 21 August 2011 - 04:26 PM
Posted 21 August 2011 - 04:51 PM
Buy the software or make a subscription
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


text: B.W.Tyler C.Eng. qualified as a mechanical and electrical engineer, and began painting in the early 70's whilst living in London at the time being engaged as a scientist at a research laboratory for the gas council. He became a chartered engineer, and became an industrial engineer with British Gas.His main work is Figurative,Country,Woods,and Gardens,and various otherSubjects.He works in Oil,Acylic,and Digital mediums. He has displayed at various exhibitions and galleries in UK,Europe,and USA. Amongst these were; The Llewellyn Alexander Gallery, Kings Mall Gallery in London, Erotica exhibition, Olympia, London, the x-sensual exhibition at Wembley,London, and he exhibited in the DFN Gallery, New York, USA.He exhibited at all three 'Temptation Exhibitions at the 'Strand Gallery',London in 2013,2014,and,2015. He is has been awarded the title of Honorary Life Member of The Guild of Erotic Artists for his service to The Guild.


text:
|Day Lo
|Day Hi
This product offers leveraged inverse exposure to gold futures prices, making it potentially useful for those looking to bet heavily a short-term decline in the value of the precious metal. Given the leverage utilized, DGLD can be expected to exhibit a fair amount of volatility; this ETN is designed for investors who are both risk-tolerant and sophisticated; it has no place in a long-term, buy-and-hold portfolio, and should only be used by those with the ability to monitor the position closely.
There are several elements of DGLD (and its long 3x counterpart UGLD)that are noteworthy. First, it's important to understand that the product offers exposure not to spot gold prices but to an index comprised of gold futures contracts. So the slope of the futures curve will have an impact on bottom line returns and volatility, as will yields derived from any uninvested cash. Second, be aware that DGLD's exposure resets on a daily basis, meaning that performance over multiple trading sessions depends on the path taken by the index over that periods (daily compounding can either erode or enhance returns, depending on the environment). Third, investors should note that DGLD is an ETN, meaning that they are exposed to the credit risk of the issuing institution. There are, however, plenty of advantages to pursuing this strategy through the ETN structure. Tracking error, which can become significant in futures-based and leveraged strategies, is avoided. And investors won't get a K-1 after holding this product; futures-based commodity ETFs typically generate those tax obligations, and can result in undesirable tax payments as well.
For investors seeking plain vanilla gold exposure, IAU is probably the best choice out there; that fund should move in unison with spot gold prices. DGLD can be a very powerful tool if used correctly, but if you're not familiar with the nuances of leverage and futures-based strategies, it's best to stay away.
This section compares how balanced and deep this ETF is relative to the peer group ETFdb.com Category.
This section shows how the P/E multiple of this ETF compares to the peer group ETFdb.com Category.
This section shows how the dividend yield of this ETF compares to the peer group ETFdb.com Category.
View charts featuring ETF fund flow data.5 Day Net Flows: -1.87 M 1 Month Net Flows: 2.01 M 3 Month Net Flows: 4.92 M 6 Month Net Flows: 6.07 M 1 Year Net Flows: 8.75 M 3 Year Net Flows: 17.67 M 5 Year Net Flows: 16.81 M 10 Year Net Flows: 34.7 M
The adjacent table gives investors an individual Realtime Rating for DGLD on several different metrics, including liquidity, expenses, performance, volatility, dividend, concentration of holdings in addition to an overall rating. The "A+ Metric Rated ETF" field, available to ETFdb Pro members, shows the ETF in the Leveraged Commodities with the highest Metric Realtime Rating for each individual field. To view all of this data, sign up for a free 14-day trial for ETFdb Pro. To view information on how the ETFdb Realtime Ratings work, click here.
This section compares the cost efficiency of this ETF to peers in the same ETFdb.com Category.
DGLD does not have an ESG score. There are no ESG themes that map to this ETF.
This section shows how this ETF has performed relative to its peer group ETFdb.com Category.
This section shows how the volatility of this ETF compares to the peer group ETFdb.com Category.
Fact sheets are issued by the ETF provider and framed by ETFdb.com. Information contained within the fact sheet is not guaranteed to be timely or accurate.


text:
Saturday, October 15, 2011
awards for something.
the folks at broken pencil asked me to make some custom awards for next weekend's canzine. they also gave me total free reign and, other than the fact that they should be awards, absolutely no constraints. so i made these. yup, three glorious inches of isosceles triangles. these is no greater meaning or rationale involved in these except that i like triangles and i like colours. what fun!
i also have to admit to being so swamped these days that i don't rightly know what they are for. i am sure you can win one, i just don't know how. pitch a book? pirate a zine? discuss mental health? regardless, you should come to canzine, do everything and feel like a winner with or without a big fat button.
Posted by sweetie pie press at 5:39 PM
Labels: buttonary concerns
3 comments:
- Kim Baise said...
hi! i met you at renegade l.a.! i still have my dodo bird and silver granny button stuck on my orange felted purse (:
these are super cool win or lose
- October 15, 2011 at 6:40 PM
- sweetie pie press said...
hey kim. yes! i remember! i have been thinking of you. i still want to work out a mobile for my home!
- October 15, 2011 at 6:41 PM
- Emma said...
these are great!
- October 20, 2011 at 2:53 PM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
По Вашему запросу ничего не найдено.
Рекомендуем Вам попробовать сделать следующее:
As a result of the acquisition of PeopleSoft, Inc. by Oracle Corporation, various PeopleSoft and Oracle entities are being reorganized and/or renamed. As of March 1, 2005, the US operations of Oracle Corporation (TIN# 94-2871189) and PeopleSoft USA, Inc. (TIN# 84-1332677) will do business as Oracle America, Inc. (TIN# 94-2805249).
In light of the organizational changes discussed above, the states will require Oracle America, Inc. to obtain new resale or exemption certificates from your company or organization for merchandise/services purchased in order to continue to purchase merchandise exempt from state and local sales tax.
For your convenience, please download the Uniform Sales Use Tax Certificate–Multijurisdiction (PDF), fill it out and return it to us at the following address. Include your name and phone number in case we need to contact you with questions.
Oracle America, Sales Tax Department
PO Box 5200
Belmont, CA 94002
If this form is not appropriate for your purchases, please forward the appropriate resale or exemption certificate. You may access other state forms at: http://www.taxsites.com/state.html.
Questions or Concerns?
Contact the Oracle Tax Department at 650.506.7000.


text:
Designer Mystery BOM: Block 4
Originally uploaded by j_q_adams
Here's the fourth block from the Fat Quarter Shop's Designer Mystery Block of the Month. Since it's a mystery, I hope it's OK that I'm showing pictures on my blog! I found it to be a difficult block to make, at least from the perspective of lining up all of the points (as you can clearly see). But I liked the look of the block to make two more in different fabrics ... those pics to come!


text:
Relationships with
Photo Credit: Adam Duritz's picture is courtesy of Peggy Sirota. Photographic illustrations of Adam Duritz are copyright © by their respective holders. The images are published with permission or as allowed by the copyright law's fair use or quotation provisions. If any copyright holder objects to an image being included, please notify us and it will be removed immediately.
Disclaimer: This information about Adam Duritz is derived from astrological interpretation of Adam Duritz's date, time, and place of birth.


text:
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain will demand changes to the European Union's regional development funds in budget talks this month, including stripping wealthier nations of access to money intended to help poorer areas, the Sunday Telegraph reported.
Prime Minister David Cameron's government suffered an embarrassing defeat in parliament this week when anti-EU members of his Conservative party teamed up with the opposition to demand a cut in the EU budget.
But Cameron, aware that a real-terms cut could be hard to win in Brussels, is instead pushing for a real-terms freeze in the budget, which would allow it to rise in line with inflation.
The Conservative-led coalition government also believes changes to the regional development funds are achievable, the Telegraph reported, citing a high-level, unnamed source as saying. The prime minister's office declined to comment on the report.
Calling for changes to the way these "structural and cohesion" funds - the second-biggest item in the EU budget - are managed may pacify some Conservative "euroskeptics" who want a looser relationship with Europe based on trade ties.
The European Commission wants 376 billion euros ($483 billion) from member states in the 2014-2020 period for the EU's cohesion funds, which are intended to help level out wealth inequality across the 27-nation bloc.
Some vulnerable areas in Britain such as Cornwall in the south west and Wales receive funding from that development pot.
Britain was the fourth-biggest net contributor to the EU budget last year with an overall donation of 5.5 billion euros.
European leaders will meet on November 22-23 to thrash out a deal. Cameron has said he wants to reach an agreement but is prepared to use Britain's veto if his demands are not met.
Conservative lawmaker Andrea Leadsom said reform of the cohesion funds was long overdue.
"Every member state gets structural funds," Leadsom wrote in the Telegraph. "Focusing money instead on the genuinely needy, and leaving richer countries to run their own schemes, would leave almost all member states better off, and save the UK approximately 2 billion pounds ($3.2 billion) each year." ($1 = 0.7785 euros) ($1 = 0.6235 British pounds)
Reporting by Matt Falloon; Editing by Hugh Lawson


text:
Total Questions: 82 Q&As
Last Updated: Feb 20, 2019
PDF + Practice Software Gold Package
Vendor Name: CompTIA
Exam Name: CompTIA A+ Certification Exam: Core 2
We respect your desire to make informed purchasing decisions, and we know that you would like to preview our CompTIA 220-1002 training materials. We provide you with a free demo of 220-1002 Exam question with answers. These free downloads are mere samples of what you can expect to find when you buy our CompTIA 220-1002 Exam product. These free demos have convinced thousands of IT aspirants to just go for our actual CompTIA 220-1002 Exam product.


text:
Product Details
Front Passenger Side Outer Steering Tie Rod End (DS1071) by MOOG®. Quantity: 1 per Pack. Designed to consistently produce the right amount of preload for proper steering effort, MOOG tie rod ends provide long-lasting dependability and superior performance. The parts feature problem-solving innovation and precise engineering that simplifies installation process and prolongs service life.
- Loose or worn chassis parts can lead to premature tire wear
- Exclusive cover plate protects against contaminants leaking into the bearing surface
- Greaseable socket reduces corrosion and wear by allowing new lubricant to flush contaminants
- Patent pending Sunoloy coated metal bearings provide smooth stud swing technicians and drivers prefer
- Patented cover plate design allows for tighter tolerances vs traditional designs for a more durable part
- Powdered metal gusher bearing design enables grease to flow through bearing to stud for reduced friction and enhanced strength
Tie rod ends connect the steering gear to the steering knuckles and move the wheels and tires when the steering wheel is turned. They usually go bad due to normal wear and/or lack of lubrication, but tie rod ends can also fail from repeated driving over unimproved or pothole strewn roads. A worn tie-rod end can usually be detected during a front end inspection, but symptoms of a faulty tie rod end include noise, a loose steering feel, pulling to one side, and irregular tire wear.
When fixing your weak OEM components, MOOG replacement tie rod ends are exactly what you need. They feature durable, all-metal construction that is not prone to failure like some OE plastic tie rod ends. Since MOOG replacement tie rod ends are greasable, friction is reduced and dirt is flushed out. MOOG tie rod ends feature a patented cover plate design that captures the full ball stud between the upper and lower bearings, eliminating axial clearance or "lash." This consistently produces the right amount of preload for proper steering effort over the life of the part. Finally, MOOG tie rod ends come with easy-access wrench flats to allow for simple, hassle-free installation and adjustment.
MOOG® reputation as "The Problem Solver" can be traced all the way back to 1919. That was the year the company first produced a front-end replacement part recognized by mechanics as outperforming the factory original. As years passed and MOOG continued to innovate, the company became known for its ability to consistently develop "problem solving solutions." Today, hundreds of innovations later, MOOG is recognized and respected throughout the automotive industry as The Problem Solver. It continues to earn that reputation by providing not only problem-solving parts, but award-winning technical support and training materials also.


text:
FICPAYou Are Here:
Quick CPE Search
5 Easy Tricks to Boost Your Home Wi-Fi
Share Printer Friendly
Text Size: A A A A
It's easy to take a smoothly functioning home wireless network for granted, especially when you're sipping coffee on the patio and catching up on the news of the morning with your iPad.
You can faintly hear your family — camped out at the kitchen table — tapping away on keyboards.
All is right with the world.
Few things in digital life are more frustrating, however, than when a home wireless network goes haywire. It's painfully slow. The signal is weak and connections drop. Your comfy sofa is a Wi-Fi dead spot.
Try these tricks to boost your wireless router's range and speed — and you'll soon be taking your Wi-Fi for granted again.
1. Update your technology
If your router, computer and gadgets were made in the last two or three years, they probably support the latest wireless-N standard. If so, make sure your router is set to N-only mode for maximum speed and range. The b/g/n setting — needed to support older devices — will be slower.
If your PC is getting on in years and stuck at wireless-G, consider upgrading to a new model or a new wireless-N card.
Buy a new router if it doesn't support wireless-N. Chances are, it also doesn't support the latest security encryption.
Make sure your computer is running the latest version of its operating system and has the latest driver for your router.
Visit your router manufacturer's website to see if you've missed a firmware upgrade. I bet you have.
2. Find the sweet spot
Routers aren't the best looking gadgets, so your inclination may be to hide them. That's a bad idea because routers are susceptible to overheating and need good airflow.
The devices also perform much better when placed in an open, central location — away from walls and obstructions, such as metal filing cabinets.
If you place a router that has an omnidirectional antenna against an outside wall, it will send half its wireless signal outdoors. That might create a dead spot on the opposite side of your home.
A high location is usually better than a low one, especially if you have a two-story home. If you can, put the router on a high shelf or on top of a cabinet.
3. Change the channel
Like radio stations, wireless routers can broadcast on a number of different channels. When you and half the neighborhood are on the same channel, it causes a lot of static.
This shouldn't be a problem if your router features automatic channel selection. If it doesn't, tune in a channel with less interference. Consult your router's manual for quick assistance in changing router channels.
4. Reduce interference
Another nice thing about having a newer router is that it is probably a dual band. The 5 GHz frequency reduces interference from 2.4 GHz cordless phones, garage door openers, baby monitors and other common wireless gadgets.
Microwave ovens also emit a very strong signal in the 2.4 GHz band.
Put some extra distance between your router and interfering appliances.
5. Secure your network
Finally, once your home Wi-Fi is humming along again, don't forget to secure your network. Encryption has little effect on the performance of newer routers.
Why does it matter? If your network is open, neighbors can piggyback on to it to do their Internet surfing — and that will really slow you down. Worse, hackers can exploit your unsecured network and snoop for personal data.
Be sure to use the latest WPA2 encryption and create a strong password.
This Tech Tip is brought to you by the Business and Technology Section ... IT solutions for today's CPAs. For more information and to view an archive of previous Tech Tips, please visit us here.
Do you have specific topics you would like to see covered in Tech Tips? Email any suggestions to firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
Acreage Lincoln County over 25 acres or more. It is a dream that many North Carolinians find accessible and in the Lincoln County area, including Gaston County and Catawba County, there are many options. Whether you are looking for a small tract, wooded very private or a large tract to run your own farm, the options are endless. Building your own home is a wonderful way to get just what you are looking for. There are many things to consider concerning restrictions, HOA's , building restrictions and what types of housing are allowed. We can help you navigate through all of that and help you find the perfect spot for your dream home.
Registered Users (please sign in)
Not Registered Users (please sign up)


text:
Page 1
|Save page Remove page
|1 of 273
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
This page
DEADLY DEVIATIONS, SUBVERSIVE CINEMA: THE INFLUENCE OF HOLLYWOOD FILM NOIR ON THE FRENCH NEW WAVE by James Rowlins A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (FRENCH) May 2012 Copyright 2012 James Rowlins
Object Description
|Deadly deviations, subversive cinema: the influence of Hollywood film noir on the French new wave
|Rowlins, James
|Author email
|Doctor of Philosophy
|Document type
|Degree program
|College of Letters, Arts And Sciences
|Date defended/completed
|Date submitted
|Date approved
|Restricted until
|Date published
|Advisor (committee chair)
|Pinkus, Karen
|Advisor (committee member)
Norindr, Panivong
Lippit, Akira Mizuta
|This dissertation develops a comprehensive study of the influence exerted by Hollywood "genre" cinema, in particular the B-series film noir, on the French New Wave. Initially, I ask if this relationship is not the principle identifying criterion of New Wave cinema. It is, after all, a matter of record that Hollywood's cheaply-made B-movies were championed by the critics of Cahiers du cinéma as permitting authorial self-expression and as encouraging cinematic innovation and evolution. Genre cinema subsequently remained a preoccupation for the New Wave auteurs, who made no fewer than fifty gangster and crime films between 1958 and 1965, including many of the New Wave's most iconic films. ❧ I therefore embark on a comparative study that considers in great detail the New Wave's reprisal and adaptation of the film noir format, with my analyses focused not only on character and plot conventions, but also on the tropes, aesthetics and filmmaking production techniques common to both cinemas. I show how the two cinemas cross-pollinate, especially given that the French polar itself exerted influence on Hollywood film noir and that French critics were among the first to identify the new tendency towards making film noir in postwar Hollywood. I also draw a number of important conclusions. Primarily, I show that while the New Wave borrows extensively from Hollywood aesthetics, its manipulation and subversion of American film noir conventions are also at the very heart of the politique des auteurs. This politique is characterized by a profound dissatisfaction with their era, the Americanization of French society, France's involvement in Algeria, and a reticence about the impending sexual liberation movement. ❧ I contextualize my project within the current debate in film and French studies regarding the legacy of the New Wave, particularly in light of a tendency to cast doubt on the movement's involvement with "the political," as well as to dispute the New Wave's status as a defining moment in French cinema.
|French new wave; film noir; Hollywood; political aesthetics; genre film theory; 1960s France; Jean-Luc Godard; François Truffaut; Eric Rohmer; Agnès Varda; Louis Malle; Jean Rouch; Jules Dassin; Jean-Pierre Melville
|Part of collection
|University of Southern California dissertations and theses
|Publisher (of the original version)
|University of Southern California
|Place of publication (of the original version)
|Los Angeles, California
|Publisher (of the digital version)
|University of Southern California. Libraries
|Electronically uploaded by the author
|Legacy record ID
|Contributing entity
|University of Southern California
|Rowlins, James
|Physical access
|The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.
|Repository name
|University of Southern California Digital Library
|Repository address
|USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 7002, 106 University Village, Los Angeles, California 90089-7002, USA
|Repository email
|Archival file
|Page 1
|Contributing entity
|University of Southern California
|Repository email
|Full text
|DEADLY DEVIATIONS, SUBVERSIVE CINEMA: THE INFLUENCE OF HOLLYWOOD FILM NOIR ON THE FRENCH NEW WAVE by James Rowlins A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (FRENCH) May 2012 Copyright 2012 James Rowlins


text:
Back in February, I wrote a column about my consternation over turning 40 in seven months. Well, I know I was whining, but now that it's actually happened and my 30s are really behind me, I have to admit: It's even worse than I imagined.
You may recall that back in February, I wrote a column about my consternation over turning 40 in seven months. Well, I know I was whining, but now that it's actually happened and my 30s are really behind me, I have to admit: It's even worse than I imagined. For one thing, I swear to God there seems to be more hair coming out of my ears.
Granted, it hasn't been all bad — for one thing, my co-workers threw me a little surprise birthday party at the office, which reminded me that I was one step closer to the inexorable specter of my own mortality. Plus, cake!
I'm just concerned that given the American male life expectancy of 73 — which is arguably worse news for John McCain than it is for me — I have a lot of ground to make up if I'm going to get my mid-life crisis out of the way before I start my serious decline phase.But how to do it? This is what I've come up with so far:
· Mid-life crisis car. Now, ideally I'd be going out today and shelling out a down payment on a 2008 Porsche 911 Cabriolet convertible (turbo, of course). But what is the appropriate down payment on a $136,000 car if you want your monthly payment to be … wait a minute … $88.50?
Instead of figuring that out, I'm thinking it would be better to "pimp" my current ride, if it turns out that isn't illegal. So I'll be the guy dropping off his kid at elementary school in the white Subaru Forrester with rear spoiler and a fire-breathing dragon airbrushed onto the hood. Plus, flames coming out of the tailpipe. (That's not a special feature — it just does that.)
· Run off with a 22-year-old. This would be a huge mistake on many levels. For one, what would I talk about with a 22-year-old? I can't even name a single character on "Gossip Girl." OK, Blair and Serena, but none of the others, I swear.
Then there's the fact that getting my wife to marry me (still not sure how I did it, but I'm not ruling out hypnotism) was easily the best thing I've ever done, among a whole series of less successful choices. My decision in 1998 to stay in newspapers rather than start an Internet search company comes to mind.
· Bungee jump. Part of me feels like bungee jumping is a little too dated to work convincingly as a mid-life crisis activity — it would be sort of like replacing the door to my study with strings of beads, if I had a study. Also, extreme sports are probably not the activity for someone who won't drive without a seat belt because he's afraid of the beeping noise.
· Mid-life crisis appearance change. This could be problematic, because the last time I had an awareness of what a hip wardrobe was, it consisted of a skinny leather tie and a loose-fitting teal blazer with the sleeves rolled up. Who knows what's considered hip these days, but if it involves a lot of fitted tank tops or the word "thong," I'm sticking with my extensive ensemble of knit pullovers from Kohl's.
As for other appearance adjustments, I will admit that I've lost some weight lately, but that's not related to mid-life anxiety but rather to the fact that I was starting to resemble Cartman from "South Park."
· Career switch. Does anyone know of any Internet search companies that are hiring?
Or I suppose I could just accept the fact that things are going pretty well and I don't really need to mark the entrance to my 40s in any sort of extreme way. After all, as long as you're happy, what does it matter that your life is half-over and you've yet to drive a Porsche or become rich and famous?
Although come to think of it, if I were rich and famous, I could probably do all of the above. Except instead of the 22-year-old, I'd just have more cake.
Peter Chianca is a CNC managing editor and the brains behind "The At Large Blog" (chianca-at-large.blogspot.com) and "The Shorelines Blog" (blogs.townonline.com/shorelines). To receive At Large by e-mail, write to email@example.com, with the subject line "SUBSCRIBE."


text:
Several dozen conference-goers are filing into the Mendocino Room of the Embassy Suites Hotel in Burlingame, a San Francisco suburb, arming themselves with coffee and muffins as they shuffle to their seats. It's the kind of scene that occurs daily—if not hourly—in the Bay Area, where techies and businesspeople forever squeeze into drab meeting rooms to discuss how they are going to change the world. But even by local standards, the attendees gathered here are chasing a dream so grand and exotic it makes the typical Internet confab look like an OSHA seminar. Anyone can build a game-changing social-network platform or a virtual community or a set of open APIs. But the people here want to start a nonmetaphorical revolution by creating their own independent nations. In the middle of the ocean. On prefab floating platforms.
This article has been reproduced in a new format and may be missing content or contain faulty links. Contact firstname.lastname@example.com to report an issue.
At 9:12 am, Patri Friedman stands up to address the group. A former Google software engineer, Friedman is 32 but comes off much younger, with close-cropped hair and a slightly nasal voice. He is executive director of the Seasteading Institute, the nonprofit he founded in April 2008, and this is the group's first major event. He surveys the room, taking in a cross section of Silicon Valley culture: A white-haired nanotech millionaire in a suit sits next to a grad student in a Transformers T-shirt. If you were to break down the audience into high school classifications, you'd find a couple of hippies and goths, a few hipsters, and several preppies. The rest would definitely be at the nerd table. The male-female ratio is 7 to 1. "This isn't enough to create a whole new civilization," Friedman says. "But this is a seed."
Friedman and his followers are not the first band of wide-eyed dreamers to want to build floating utopias. For decades, an assortment of romantics and whack jobs have fantasized about fleeing the oppressive strictures of modern government and creating a laissez-faire society on the high seas. Over the decades, they've tried everything from fortified sandbars to mammoth cruise ships. Nearly all have been disasters. But the would-be nation builders assembled here are not intimidated by that record of failure. After all, their plans are inspired by the ethos of the modern tech industry, where grand quixotic visions are as common as BlackBerrys, and they see their task not as a holy mission but as something like a startup. A couple of software engineers came up with an innovative concept, then outsourced it to a community and let the wisdom of the crowd improve on it. They scored financing from a top-tier venture capitalist and assembled a board of directors. They will be transparent, blogging their progress. If they fail—which, let's face it, is the most likely outcome—they will do so quickly, in time-honored Valley fashion. But if they succeed, they have one hell of an exit strategy.
Friedman launches into what he calls "my standard rant"—a spiel about government's shortcomings and why they're so hard to repair. In his eyes, government is a sclerotic monopoly that can count on high customer lock-in thanks to inertia and the lack of alternatives. "Government is an inefficient industry because it has an insane barrier to entry," he says. "To compete with governments on existing land, you have to win a war, an election, or a revolution." He points to the democracy that emerged from the American Revolution as the last successful rollout and attributes the subsequent dry spell to the lack of uncolonized space on the map. "We've run out of frontier," he says.
But there's still one virgin realm left, and it covers 70 percent of the earth's surface.
The purpose of the Seasteading Institute—and of this gathering—is to figure out how to make aquatic homesteads a reality. But Friedman doesn't just want to create huge floating platforms that people can live on. He's also hoping to create a platform in the sense that Linux is a platform: a base upon which people can build their own innovative forms of governance. The ultimate goal is to create standards and blueprints that can be easily adapted, allowing small communities to rapidly incubate and test new models of self-rule with the same ease that a programmer in his garage can whip up a Facebook app. "You could roll your own government out of pieces copied from all the societies around you," Friedman says. "Google set my standards for how fast something should grow. This has potential to exceed those standards—if we make one seastead, there's room for thousands."
Your Home Away From… Everything!
You're ready to move to the middle of the ocean. What will your new digs look like? The Seasteading Institute hired Marine Innovation & Technology, an oil rig designer, to sketch out a $50 million, 20,000-ton platform with multistory living quarters and helipads.
Illustration: Kate Francis
Friedman's optimism is easier to buy into if you ignore the history of previous would-be nation builders. There was Operation Atlantis, created by Ayn Rand admirer Werner Stiefel in the late 1960s. Stiefel, who made a fortune selling dermatology products, devoted his life to creating a sovereign society with the freest markets imaginable. He started with a ferro-cement boat that made a single successful voyage on the Hudson River. He erected a system of seabreaks near the coast of Haiti but was run off by president Franè7ois Duvalier's gunboats before he could put land on it. He bought an oil rig and tried to anchor it between Cuba and Honduras, where it was destroyed by a storm. Stiefel died in 2006 with little more than a sporadically published newsletter to show for his efforts.
In 1971, real estate millionaire and committed libertarian Michael Oliver dumped large quantities of sand on two coral reefs in the South Pacific and dubbed it the Republic of Minerva, a land with "no taxation, welfare, subsidies, or any form of economic interventionism." Minerva was soon invaded by the nearby kingdom of Tonga, and it dissolved back into the ocean shortly thereafter.
The Oceania city project, a plan for a vast floating settlement off the coast of Panama, emerged in 1993. The founders took out a two-page ad in Reason, a libertarian magazine, promising to free prospective residents from governments "entangled in bureaucracy, corruption, and the free lunch philosophy." The project was disbanded the following year due to lack of interest and funds. "The Libertarian party is small in number and too few members have the financial resources to bankroll their beliefs," founder Eric Klien wrote on Oceania's Web site.
Other projects still exist as hypothetical concepts. There's the Freedom Ship, a mile-long floating tax haven, which will come into being just as soon as its organizers can drum up the $10 billion needed to build it. (They've accused their former president of absconding with the first $400,000 they raised.) The concept of failed aquatic libertarian havens has even entered the pop consciousness, providing the setting for the blockbuster videogame BioShock.
Wayne Gramlich will never move to the middle of the ocean—his wife forbids it. But when the former software engineer, who has been "on sabbatical" since the late 1990s, stumbled across the Oceania Web site about a decade ago, he was both enthralled by the vision and dismayed at the execution. An early Sun Microsystems employee who worked on browser security at the dawn of the World Wide Web, he thought what was needed was a dispassionate perspective—a realistic plan to build floating autonomous countries. "Oceania had a lot of pretty pictures, pretty concept art, but that was it," he says. In 1998 he wrote a modest proposal, SeaSteading—Homesteading on the High Seas, to get beyond the grandiloquence. "Big and expensive projects will have a very difficult time attracting the requisite capital," Gramlich wrote. An engineer at heart, he tried to devise a way to build islands on the cheap. His report outlined how thousands of empty 2-liter soda bottles could be used to create a floating platform.
That sounded like paradise to Friedman when he saw the paper on Gramlich's site. He had always been interested in big-picture socioeconomic theories. The son of libertarian legal theorist David Friedman and grandson of the Nobel Prize-winning free-market economist Milton Friedman, Patri had until then expressed his worldview mainly through his lifestyle: engaging in "radical self-expression" at Burning Man, experimenting with drugs, living in intentional communities with several other families, and maintaining a polyamorous relationship with his wife. His BMW 328i has a customized license plate: FRRREAK.
Friedman had read about money holes like Oceania and considered them too fantastical to bother with. But the relative practicality of Gramlich's ideas appealed to the software engineer in him. Here was a simple kludge for a floating platform that might be affordable. And if it could work, Friedman would love to be among the first settlers to live on the open sea. "My dad and grandfather write about stuff," he says. "What interests me is doing something." He sent an email to Gramlich, and the two discovered that they lived a few miles apart in Sunnyvale, California. In late 2001, they began to collaborate on a new paper on seasteading. They posted everything online, including their notes to each other. (Friedman coded a Perl script that would allow anyone to submit comments on each paragraph.)
Over the next couple of years, Friedman and Gramlich assembled a 150-page book on the logistics of seasteading. Their guidelines were intensely pragmatic, explaining everything from how to fend off barnacles (a "continuous discharge of low-level chlorination") to how to fend off foreign navies ("sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missiles like the Chinese Silkworm are fairly cheap and quite effective"). They described the least far-fetched, least expensive design for a safe seastead they could find—the floating spar. The hypothetical dwelling looks like a giant dumbbell standing on end, with a large steel ballast underwater and a 48,000-square-foot platform suspended above, where 120 people could live. They estimated it could be built for about $3 million. "That's the same price as a nice house in San Francisco," Friedman says. (Their design has since evolved, as shown at above.)
Gramlich and Friedman's online tome captured the imagination of like-minded geeks, who peppered it with suggestions and criticisms. It was also brought to the attention of millionaire tech investor Peter Thiel, who shared Friedman and Gramlich's dissatisfaction with land-bound governments. Thiel was a cofounder of PayPal, and he viewed that company as a way to further his libertarian ideals—a way to move money around the world as 1s and 0s without the involvement of nations or their currencies. After selling PayPal to eBay and walking away with a reported $55 million, Thiel started the hedge fund Clarium Capital, which made a fortune earlier this decade by correctly betting that oil prices would rise and the dollar would weaken.
Thiel has invested in Facebook, Friendster, LinkedIn, and Slide. He has also donated $3.5 million to Aubrey de Grey's Methuselah Foundation, which seeks to extend longevity, and given money to the campaigns of small-government conservatives like Ron Paul.
"Peter wants to end the inevitability of death and taxes," Friedman says. "I mean, talk about aiming high!"
Last April, Thiel pledged a $500,000 investment and installed his right-hand man, Joe Lonsdale, as chair of the Seasteading Institute. "Decades from now, those looking back at the start of the century will understand that seasteading was an obvious step toward encouraging the development of more efficient, practical public-sector models around the world," Thiel said in a statement at the time. Three months after the wire transfer went through, Friedman left his job at Google.
Friedman is quick to acknowledge that not everyone will share his vision. "At first blush, this all sounds kind of crazy, and to see the potential beyond that—that's pretty awesome," he tells his fellow enthusiasts at the seasteading conference. "There's a lot of good craziness in this room!"
But good craziness alone will not make seasteads work, and most of the day is spent discussing the nuts and bolts of creating a floating community. First is the question of structure. "The ocean is a harsh and corrosive environment," Friedman says. In addition to rust and barnacles, there's wave motion, which is disorienting in the best of times and potentially fatal during a storm. The Seasteading Institute hired Marine Innovation & Technology as a consultant to solve these problems. Naval architect Alexia Aubault takes the lectern to describe the results of wave-motion analyses her engineering firm performed. To protect the organization from frivolous infringement lawsuits, she is barred by the institute's lawyer from showing off the refined design until a patent gets filed. (That has since been done.)
And that's just one of the legal torpedoes that seasteaders must dodge. According to the UN's Law of the Sea, the jurisdiction of traditional nations extends up to 200 miles from shore, an exclusive economic zone within which countries can control fishing and mineral rights and police polluters. Friedman hopes there will someday be self-sufficient seasteads that can thrive on the high seas, beyond the purview of any country. But for the near future, he concedes, they'll probably need to remain near shore and operate like cruise ships, which are bound by the laws of the country where they're registered. Most governments won't attack these kinds of vessels as long as they behave. "At this point, it matters who you piss off," he says. (Raymond Peck, a former Reagan administration official, has agreed to do further research for the institute on the Law of the Sea.)
At 11 am, attendees break up into small groups to brainstorm business models. Seasteaders can depend on like-minded benefactors for only so long. Ultimately, these nations will need to pay the bills. Friedman notes that some enterprises—like euthanasia clinics—would incense local authorities, but almost all the ideas attendees come up with would capitalize on activities that skirt existing laws and regulations: Fish farming and aquaculture. Prisons. Med schools. Gold warehouses. Brothels. Cryonics intakes. Gene therapy, cloning, augmentation, and organ sales. Baby farms. Deafeningly loud concerts. Rehab/detox clinics. Zen retreats. Abortion clinics. Ultimate ultimate fighting tournaments.
(Lonsdale has his own ideas. "Bazooka bikini bachelor parties," he says. "You get there and a Lithuanian model hands you a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.")
But in the end, the seasteaders may face an even more fundamental challenge. During an afternoon session, Friedman asks, "How many people here know how to sail?" Few hands go up. He says plans are under way to offer group instruction at discount rates.
The first annual seasteading conference adjourns at 6 pm. A kayaking trip around the bohemian houseboat community just off Sausalito has been scheduled for the following morning, but it is canceled because of high winds.
Forbes Island isn't really an island at all but a 5,000-square-foot, 700-ton sea vehicle decked out with palm trees, a white-sand beach, and a lighthouse. A houseboat designer named Forbes Kiddoo, inspired by the science fiction of Jules Verne, spent five years building it. In 1999, he converted it into a restaurant that today floats near San Francisco's kitschy Pier 39, serving $35 rack of lamb to tourists who watch sea lions flop around on the nearby docks. Tonight, the eatery is hosting the Seasteading Institute's post-conference dinner.
Kiddoo himself ferries the seasteaders from shore to restaurant in a tiny pontoon boat. On the way over, he explains that obtaining clearance for his island was a nightmare. "I had to get city, county, state, and federal permits," he says, shouting to be heard over the bellowing of sea lions. "I had to deal with the ADA, the ABC … I had to become a merchant marine captain."
Afterward, in the island's bar, Friedman seems happy with how the event went, though he says some of his plans will have to be scaled back. He had wanted to hold a floating festival dubbed Ephemerisle on Fourth of July weekend; it was to be a sort of Burning Man on the high seas, where everything is permitted. But several conference attendees expressed concern about the logistics—and advisability—of a free-floating bacchanal of guns and drugs. He'll still host some sort of gathering to test a few miniature floating-island prototypes but expects it to be held in San Francisco Bay, not out on the open sea. "It'll probably take a few iterations to get there," he says. "But at least we're doing something."
Eventually, the seasteaders move to the Tahiti Room, which has a lovely moonlit view of Alcatraz. Chatter around the table gets louder as the wine flows, but the subject matter remains wonky. "The interesting issues are social and legal," says Mikolaj Habryn, a site reliability engineer at Google. "You'll get slavery. You'll get drug dealing. Maybe there'll be polygamous Mormons. The first people involved will inevitably be those who want to do things they can't do on land, and we have to deal with that." A ship passes, and even though Forbes Island is firmly moored a few hundred feet from shore and separated from the bay by a breakwater, the restaurant sways so much that some diners have to breathe deeply and focus on the horizon to settle their stomachs.
At the other end of the table, Patri Friedman raises his glass to make a toast. "I want to see us all at the 10th Annual Seasteading Conference," he says, implying that he expects it to take place on an actual seastead, not in an Embassy Suites or a floating theme restaurant. "It'll be in a bigger room, there will be a better view, it won't move up and down as much, and there'll be a better wine selection and better things to smoke!"
Friedman is joined by a raucous round of toasts. "To Peter Thiel for financing this!" "To having more women here!" "To being on the water!" "To freedom!"
Friedman wraps it up: "To being crazy in a good way!"
Senior editor Chris Baker (firstname.lastname@example.com) wrote about Star Wars continuity in issue 16.09.