Some friends were over yesterday for a small party. One of them fairly recently became a contractor for the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), and another asked him what the first patent was. The one friend had no idea, but it got me curious.
So a short search today yielded this patent. The patent itself isn't really all that interesting (except, perhaps, to historians of farm machinery (at least, I think that's what it applies to)), but there is a small curiosity about the inventor himself (J Ruggles, who, I presume, is not John Ruggles), and more interest in the year of issue, 1836.
This would imply, at least, that despite the Constitutional support for patents, that there were none issued for almost fifty years. So how necessary is the incentive of that 20-year government-granted monopoly?
Update: I apparently searched a bit too quickly. I missed that there was more than one series of numbers. The pre-1836 ones are numbered X000001-???. The first one was issued in 1790, and went to Samuel Hopkins for a process involving potash and pearl ash (?). Interestingly, signed by George Washington himself. I wonder what the last patent signed by the President was.
20110530
20110529
Or to not fall...
On Friday morning, I caught a chunk of the Dianne Rehm show, and was a bit disappointed at some things missed. It was talking about the Ryan plan, particularly with respect to Medicare, and I felt like a few things were missed.
The first was that one of her guests stated that the Ryan plan would have no effect on seniors 55 or older. This is fundamentally untrue, even if that's what the text of the bill says. The reason is that it would quickly reduce the number of seniors in the plan, reducing the bargaining power of the plan. So the expenses would go up, though I suppose there's some question as to who would pay the additional expenses. But there's also the matter that some doctors would decide to stop taking medicare as well, when it doesn't cover as many people. If your doctor decides to drop out of the plan, you are certainly affected.
And the fundamental matter that this brings up is that any plan dealing with medicare (and medicaid, for that matter) that doesn't deal with slowing down the rate of increase of costs is simply pie-in-the-sky thinking. The Ryan plan is actually worse than useless from this point of view, because a) all increases are pushed onto individual seniors and b) the rate of increase will actually go UP, because it will leave seniors (as one of the guests mentioned) negotiating for themselves rather than negotiating as a group (ie: medicare/medicaid doing the negotiating).
Another guest mentioned, a little earlier in the show, that the politicians are just doing what the voters want, and muddling about because of it, but that's not true either. If it were, the medicare drug plan that the Bush administration advanced would have allowed medicare to negotiate drug costs. There might be one percent of the population that thought that it was a good idea to forbid that. Maybe. This would save medicare/medicaid at least a third on drug costs. This would be an easy way to get started on reducing the rising costs of health care.
Another easy way would be to stop the drug companies from advertising directly to consumers. I don't know how much difference that would make, but I guarantee that it would help.
I was happy that they mentioned Vermont's single-payer experiment; in five years, as long as the doctors don't leave en masse, the rest of the country will be amazed at how well that works. That's another way to attack the rate of increase.
The public option would have been another way; not quite as good, but still effective.
Hmm... this actually just gave me an idea, too. Single-payer (even if not covering everyone) would actually open up a way for the government to increase the number of General Practitioners (GPs) in the country (another way to cut down on the rate of increase). They could do it the same way the military does: significantly defray costs of med school in return for X number of years working within the single-payer system. But defray them significantly more for GPs than for specialists. Or defray similarly, but require much less time within the system for GPs than for specialists.
Hopefully, some of those ideas can make it into later debates.
(And yes, if anyone's wondering, this is essentially the letter I wrote in to comment on the show.)
Update: Some actual numbers on how badly the Ryan plan fails in containing costs going forward.
The first was that one of her guests stated that the Ryan plan would have no effect on seniors 55 or older. This is fundamentally untrue, even if that's what the text of the bill says. The reason is that it would quickly reduce the number of seniors in the plan, reducing the bargaining power of the plan. So the expenses would go up, though I suppose there's some question as to who would pay the additional expenses. But there's also the matter that some doctors would decide to stop taking medicare as well, when it doesn't cover as many people. If your doctor decides to drop out of the plan, you are certainly affected.
And the fundamental matter that this brings up is that any plan dealing with medicare (and medicaid, for that matter) that doesn't deal with slowing down the rate of increase of costs is simply pie-in-the-sky thinking. The Ryan plan is actually worse than useless from this point of view, because a) all increases are pushed onto individual seniors and b) the rate of increase will actually go UP, because it will leave seniors (as one of the guests mentioned) negotiating for themselves rather than negotiating as a group (ie: medicare/medicaid doing the negotiating).
Another guest mentioned, a little earlier in the show, that the politicians are just doing what the voters want, and muddling about because of it, but that's not true either. If it were, the medicare drug plan that the Bush administration advanced would have allowed medicare to negotiate drug costs. There might be one percent of the population that thought that it was a good idea to forbid that. Maybe. This would save medicare/medicaid at least a third on drug costs. This would be an easy way to get started on reducing the rising costs of health care.
Another easy way would be to stop the drug companies from advertising directly to consumers. I don't know how much difference that would make, but I guarantee that it would help.
I was happy that they mentioned Vermont's single-payer experiment; in five years, as long as the doctors don't leave en masse, the rest of the country will be amazed at how well that works. That's another way to attack the rate of increase.
The public option would have been another way; not quite as good, but still effective.
Hmm... this actually just gave me an idea, too. Single-payer (even if not covering everyone) would actually open up a way for the government to increase the number of General Practitioners (GPs) in the country (another way to cut down on the rate of increase). They could do it the same way the military does: significantly defray costs of med school in return for X number of years working within the single-payer system. But defray them significantly more for GPs than for specialists. Or defray similarly, but require much less time within the system for GPs than for specialists.
Hopefully, some of those ideas can make it into later debates.
(And yes, if anyone's wondering, this is essentially the letter I wrote in to comment on the show.)
Update: Some actual numbers on how badly the Ryan plan fails in containing costs going forward.
Hammer to Fall
A friend of mine and I left work a bit early on Friday to go see Thor, finally. We got there a bit earlier than originally planned, thinking we'd get some food before the movie. But we went to get the tickets first anyway, and found that there was a 3D showing only a few minutes from that time. So we got a bit more snacks than planned, and headed in.
One thing that was weird was that the first several previews were not in 3D. It was the first time I'd seen 2D previews before a 3D movie, which had me wondering if we wandered into the wrong theater, somehow. But the last trailer was for Captain America, which was in 3D, so that was a lot more promising.
Finally, the movie started, and did so with a bang (literally, as a truck rumbling through an atmospheric disturbance crashed into a man). It then went into some back-story, giving the background of the broadest (and barest) outlines of norse mythology. That background quickly ran through to the "present", with Thor disobeying Odin to investigate how some giants got from Jotunheim to Asgard. This led to a huge fight (unsurprisingly, especially given Thor's attitude), ended by Odin but with a war declaration between the Aesir and Giants.
That led to Thor's banishment to Earth, with Mjollnir magically locked away from him until he is worthy of its power. And when Thor appears on Earth, in the middle of an atmospheric disturbance, he is immediately hit by Natalie Portman's truck as we saw before the background.
So we've pretty clearly got the whole plot detailed now. Natalie Portman's scientist with Thor, his quest to find Mjollnir, and the question of who helped the Giants to reach Asgard.
The whole was well done, and visually spectacular, but there was one pretty major flaw. His quest for worthiness, and the two falling in love, takes place over only a couple of days. There needed to be some indication of more time passing, because it just ended up being too pat. And there just wasn't enough time (or shared struggle) for them to fall so deeply in love as was implied at the very end.
I enjoyed the whole thing, from beginning to end, but afterwards, thinking back, it just felt rushed. Really, much of my problem could have been alleviated by the mere suggestion of time passing. But a man doesn't grow up from an arrogant boy to a confident man overnight, and that's literally what happened here.
So enjoy the ride, but don't expect any real depth.
Oh, and like most of the recent Marvel movies, there is a reason to stay through the end of the credits.
Oh yes, and one of Portman's scientific partners (the exact relationship was a bit unclear) was Stellan Skarsgård, who I hadn't seen since Good Will Hunting, but who did do a very good job (oops; missed that he was also in Mamma Mia!).
Anyway, overall I'd give it a not-bad rating. And, as I said, it was certainly visually spectacular, and worth the extra for 3D.
One thing that was weird was that the first several previews were not in 3D. It was the first time I'd seen 2D previews before a 3D movie, which had me wondering if we wandered into the wrong theater, somehow. But the last trailer was for Captain America, which was in 3D, so that was a lot more promising.
Finally, the movie started, and did so with a bang (literally, as a truck rumbling through an atmospheric disturbance crashed into a man). It then went into some back-story, giving the background of the broadest (and barest) outlines of norse mythology. That background quickly ran through to the "present", with Thor disobeying Odin to investigate how some giants got from Jotunheim to Asgard. This led to a huge fight (unsurprisingly, especially given Thor's attitude), ended by Odin but with a war declaration between the Aesir and Giants.
That led to Thor's banishment to Earth, with Mjollnir magically locked away from him until he is worthy of its power. And when Thor appears on Earth, in the middle of an atmospheric disturbance, he is immediately hit by Natalie Portman's truck as we saw before the background.
So we've pretty clearly got the whole plot detailed now. Natalie Portman's scientist with Thor, his quest to find Mjollnir, and the question of who helped the Giants to reach Asgard.
The whole was well done, and visually spectacular, but there was one pretty major flaw. His quest for worthiness, and the two falling in love, takes place over only a couple of days. There needed to be some indication of more time passing, because it just ended up being too pat. And there just wasn't enough time (or shared struggle) for them to fall so deeply in love as was implied at the very end.
I enjoyed the whole thing, from beginning to end, but afterwards, thinking back, it just felt rushed. Really, much of my problem could have been alleviated by the mere suggestion of time passing. But a man doesn't grow up from an arrogant boy to a confident man overnight, and that's literally what happened here.
So enjoy the ride, but don't expect any real depth.
Oh, and like most of the recent Marvel movies, there is a reason to stay through the end of the credits.
Oh yes, and one of Portman's scientific partners (the exact relationship was a bit unclear) was Stellan Skarsgård, who I hadn't seen since Good Will Hunting, but who did do a very good job (oops; missed that he was also in Mamma Mia!).
Anyway, overall I'd give it a not-bad rating. And, as I said, it was certainly visually spectacular, and worth the extra for 3D.
20110526
Yet another sign of economy severely out of whack
When I saw the headline, my first thought was that these results must have been driven by Newt Gingrich and his wife finally paying off their credit card debt with Tiffany's. But a quick perusal of the actual article shows numbers much too large for that to have had any effect.
But a second thought is that this shows how the recession (this never did get quite big enough to technically be a depression, right?) has yet to affect the rich to any appreciable degree. Which makes their whining and moaning about bonus limits (which were only for a quarter, right?) even more ludicrous than they already were.
One could even start building a case that this is indicative that those limits should have been continued for quite a while. And that the whole financial crisis was used with impressive opportunism to shift money from the poor to the rich (no, I'm not espousing some conspiracy theory that that was the goal, but it was certainly a result).
And that's just sad. We should not be allowing wealth to become so concentrated; it just isn't good for anyone (not even for the rich, even if they won't look far enough head to see that).
But a second thought is that this shows how the recession (this never did get quite big enough to technically be a depression, right?) has yet to affect the rich to any appreciable degree. Which makes their whining and moaning about bonus limits (which were only for a quarter, right?) even more ludicrous than they already were.
One could even start building a case that this is indicative that those limits should have been continued for quite a while. And that the whole financial crisis was used with impressive opportunism to shift money from the poor to the rich (no, I'm not espousing some conspiracy theory that that was the goal, but it was certainly a result).
And that's just sad. We should not be allowing wealth to become so concentrated; it just isn't good for anyone (not even for the rich, even if they won't look far enough head to see that).
20110525
Rooting through the movies
I have a fairly large movie collection, with all sorts of different discs. I've lately being going through them in nauseating detail, and finding out a few things.
One is that I've got far more 4:3 movies than I thought. The old ones, of course, I knew about, but some of the newer ones surprised me. For instance, who the heck puts a full-frame movie in the "Special Edition" of a movie? Isn't anyone who's enough of a film buff to care about a "special edition" going to want to see it as the director intended?
And one movie (Simply Irresistable) was filmed 4:3, but then matted to 2.35 or thereabouts. You weren't missing anything to watch it 4:3, but, thanks to titles and such, it looked a bit off. Kind of neat that they included both versions on the disc. Now if I could only remember why I even own the movie...
I also found several movies that claimed to be 16x9, full frame. Since these all predated widespread HDTVs, I'm really not sure what they were intending to say. But whatever it was, I think they failed.
Now if I only had time to watch all the movies. Why does money to afford those things have to be inversely proportional to time to enjoy them?
One nice thing about progress, though; I don't have a single blu-ray (or hd-dvd, come to that) of a widescreen movie that's been pan-and-scanned down to only 16:9. It's nice to not need to pay attention to that.
One is that I've got far more 4:3 movies than I thought. The old ones, of course, I knew about, but some of the newer ones surprised me. For instance, who the heck puts a full-frame movie in the "Special Edition" of a movie? Isn't anyone who's enough of a film buff to care about a "special edition" going to want to see it as the director intended?
And one movie (Simply Irresistable) was filmed 4:3, but then matted to 2.35 or thereabouts. You weren't missing anything to watch it 4:3, but, thanks to titles and such, it looked a bit off. Kind of neat that they included both versions on the disc. Now if I could only remember why I even own the movie...
I also found several movies that claimed to be 16x9, full frame. Since these all predated widespread HDTVs, I'm really not sure what they were intending to say. But whatever it was, I think they failed.
Now if I only had time to watch all the movies. Why does money to afford those things have to be inversely proportional to time to enjoy them?
One nice thing about progress, though; I don't have a single blu-ray (or hd-dvd, come to that) of a widescreen movie that's been pan-and-scanned down to only 16:9. It's nice to not need to pay attention to that.
We'll cross that brook when we come to it...
Just read David Brooks' latest NYT column, and it is an amazing piece of work. It starts out by talking about how the British have a functional political system, while the US does not.
That's certainly largely true; all parties in Britain are actually working to try to benefit the country. When they negotiate, they seem to (at least mostly) do so in good faith, to try to make things better. Nobody over there has yet come to the conclusion that the PM's program must be stymied, even if it makes things worse for the country as a whole.
But where Brooks' column totally goes off the rails is when he attributes that function to a political class that "have often known each other since prep school". I've got a new word for you, Mr Brooks. That word is aristocracy. That's what that system is known as.
It might be what you, personally, hope to see in the US, but I can assure you that that is not a widespread opinion. This country has a long history of attempts (with varying degrees of success) at suppressing the development of an aristocracy. And yes, we might be closer, at this moment, to allowing that to occur than at any previous point, but that sure as heck doesn't make it a good (or desireable) thing.
There's an old phrase that must be remembered: "virtue is not hereditary" (that's Jefferson, btw, if it sounds unfamiliar). If you're going to forget (or ignore) that phrase, then you might as well go back to a monarchy. Because a monarch who has the best interests of their subjects in mind at all times is probably the best form of government. But there's no way to ensure that, so we got rid of kings.
And thank God that we did so. Now let's not replace them with an aristocratic class. Or pretend that that would be a good thing.
That's certainly largely true; all parties in Britain are actually working to try to benefit the country. When they negotiate, they seem to (at least mostly) do so in good faith, to try to make things better. Nobody over there has yet come to the conclusion that the PM's program must be stymied, even if it makes things worse for the country as a whole.
But where Brooks' column totally goes off the rails is when he attributes that function to a political class that "have often known each other since prep school". I've got a new word for you, Mr Brooks. That word is aristocracy. That's what that system is known as.
It might be what you, personally, hope to see in the US, but I can assure you that that is not a widespread opinion. This country has a long history of attempts (with varying degrees of success) at suppressing the development of an aristocracy. And yes, we might be closer, at this moment, to allowing that to occur than at any previous point, but that sure as heck doesn't make it a good (or desireable) thing.
There's an old phrase that must be remembered: "virtue is not hereditary" (that's Jefferson, btw, if it sounds unfamiliar). If you're going to forget (or ignore) that phrase, then you might as well go back to a monarchy. Because a monarch who has the best interests of their subjects in mind at all times is probably the best form of government. But there's no way to ensure that, so we got rid of kings.
And thank God that we did so. Now let's not replace them with an aristocratic class. Or pretend that that would be a good thing.
So Long to an Icon
NPR mentioned today (again) that Oprah had her final show today. As part of the segment, they played a bunch of clips from her show over the years, and it reminded me that I never once managed to see it. So I was actually getting all of those clips for the first time; to be honest, it felt kind of weird.
Well, I have no idea what Oprah is going to do moving forward, but I'm pretty sure about one thing. She'll do what she wants to do.
Well, I have no idea what Oprah is going to do moving forward, but I'm pretty sure about one thing. She'll do what she wants to do.
20110523
How to Train Your Dragon, Redux
I finally got around to reading the book, How to Train Your Dragon, by Cressida Cowell, over the weekend as well. I had read, somewhere, that it was very different from the movie, and it certainly was. In fact, the resemblance didn't go much beyond the names of most of the main characters.
David Brin, in his blog, recently wrote that the main difference between fantasy and sci-fi is that fantasy generally goes back to the status quo, while sci-fi generally learns from the past, and moves on. By that metric, the book is fantasy, while the movie is sci-fi.
To me, the book is ok, but the movie is excellent. And having read many books on which movies were later based, this is a very rare experience for me. I'm told the movie for Fight Club is much better than the book, but since I haven't read the book, it's impossible for me to say.
The movie, I guess, is much more positive in its outlook, and Hiccup managed to accomplish a great deal more. It's a tad oversimplified in trying to train a wild animal (particularly in how long it takes, especially the non-Toothless dragons), but just fabulously well-done. The scenes with just Toothless and Hiccup are, across the board, flippin' awesome.
The book? Eh, it wasn't bad, but just didn't do much for me. I guess we'll see how my kids like it, when they're old enough to read it. But if you've only got time for one, I'd definitely go with the movie.
David Brin, in his blog, recently wrote that the main difference between fantasy and sci-fi is that fantasy generally goes back to the status quo, while sci-fi generally learns from the past, and moves on. By that metric, the book is fantasy, while the movie is sci-fi.
To me, the book is ok, but the movie is excellent. And having read many books on which movies were later based, this is a very rare experience for me. I'm told the movie for Fight Club is much better than the book, but since I haven't read the book, it's impossible for me to say.
The movie, I guess, is much more positive in its outlook, and Hiccup managed to accomplish a great deal more. It's a tad oversimplified in trying to train a wild animal (particularly in how long it takes, especially the non-Toothless dragons), but just fabulously well-done. The scenes with just Toothless and Hiccup are, across the board, flippin' awesome.
The book? Eh, it wasn't bad, but just didn't do much for me. I guess we'll see how my kids like it, when they're old enough to read it. But if you've only got time for one, I'd definitely go with the movie.
Game, Set, Point
Finally got around to watching Match Point over the weekend. A friend had recommended it, and it certainly sounded interesting.
It wasn't really what I was expecting, insofar as it took place over a much longer timeframe, and I didn't really expect actual marriages to be getting in the way. I guess I expected it to be all about Tom and Chris, with Nola in the middle. But it was mostly about Chris marrying Chloe, though still with Nola in the middle.
It started with Chris as an Irishman who'd been on the pro tennis tour briefly, but didn't find himself cut out for it, mentally if not physically. So he went to London to teach Tennis. Tom was a rich guy who played a bit of tennis in college, but hadn't played in a while. A mutual interest in opera got them to talking a bit more, and Chris met Chloe, Tom's sister, the first time they all went to the opera.
Chloe liked, or maybe was intrigued by, Chris when they met there, and invited him out to the family country estate soon after. Chloe and Chris definitely hit it off there, and fell in love. Simple, right? Well, Chris also met Nola at the party, and obviously wanted her, but she was already engaged to Tom, so it was left a bit... hanging, that day.
As I said, most of the movie is focused on the triangle of Chris, Chloe, and Nola. Said triangle got especially interesting once Tom and Nola broke it off, even though Chris and Chloe were married at that point. To make it even more complex, Chris was working for Chloe's dad (and apparently doing well for himself at that). Plus, as soon as they were married, Chloe wanted to get started on having a family (and probably did not go about it the right way; a bit too... clinical, I suppose, for Chris).
Anyway, there was a scene at the beginning of the movie where Chris is narrating, about the luck and skill involved in playing tennis. It shows the ball hitting the top of the net and bouncing upwards: he talks about whether it goes over, and you win, or bounces back, where you lose. The scene ends with the ball at the apex of its bounce, without showing where it lands.
Chris goes on to do some remarkably stupid (if, perhaps, fairly typical) things in the movie. Eventually, feeling completely trapped, he takes it to an entirely new level (of extremity and stupidity). We see that he isn't very good. Is he lucky?
I really liked how, at one point, he throws a piece of evidence towards the river; you can see the parallel with the tennis ball scene immediately. But they turned it on its head, in a way, which led to a very funny (in an ironic sense more than a hilarious sense) ending.
I mostly can't stand sit-coms, because most of the action in driven by people doing very stupid things. No Ordinary Family, which I really liked for the first couple of episodes, lost me in the third episode when it did that. I kept thinking I might try it again, but I never did.
In any event, this movie was a bit odd, because I enjoyed it even though much of the dynamic was the same. Maybe it was just because it was much darker in its handling of that stupidity; I'm not really sure. Maybe I just really liked the luck vs skill conundrum.
Certainly, that rates heavily in many endeavors (probably most, actually). I played Magic: The Gathering very seriously for a long time, but I eventually gave it up because I decided the luck factor was just too big. (If anyone's interested, I sold most of my cards, but I still have my mox/lotus/power blue/library set; mostly in beta.) Anyway, I think that's mostly the same as what Chris went through, just before the movie started.
He decided to teach tennis; I decided to focus more on computers (which, really, I was already doing. It just cut down on distraction).
One last thing about the movie; I thought it was very well acted, all the way around. Scarlett Johansson, as Nola, was playing roughly the same role she did in He's Just not That Into You. Johnathan Rhys Meyers played a very similar role, at least at the beginning, to what he did in Bend It Like Beckham (though, sadly, it still took me about ten minutes to recognize him as the same guy). And Brian Cox played the father's role to the hilt; he mostly seems to get supporting roles, but he's a fabulous actor. The rest of the cast also did a very good job, but I didn't recognize any of them.
It wasn't really what I was expecting, insofar as it took place over a much longer timeframe, and I didn't really expect actual marriages to be getting in the way. I guess I expected it to be all about Tom and Chris, with Nola in the middle. But it was mostly about Chris marrying Chloe, though still with Nola in the middle.
It started with Chris as an Irishman who'd been on the pro tennis tour briefly, but didn't find himself cut out for it, mentally if not physically. So he went to London to teach Tennis. Tom was a rich guy who played a bit of tennis in college, but hadn't played in a while. A mutual interest in opera got them to talking a bit more, and Chris met Chloe, Tom's sister, the first time they all went to the opera.
Chloe liked, or maybe was intrigued by, Chris when they met there, and invited him out to the family country estate soon after. Chloe and Chris definitely hit it off there, and fell in love. Simple, right? Well, Chris also met Nola at the party, and obviously wanted her, but she was already engaged to Tom, so it was left a bit... hanging, that day.
As I said, most of the movie is focused on the triangle of Chris, Chloe, and Nola. Said triangle got especially interesting once Tom and Nola broke it off, even though Chris and Chloe were married at that point. To make it even more complex, Chris was working for Chloe's dad (and apparently doing well for himself at that). Plus, as soon as they were married, Chloe wanted to get started on having a family (and probably did not go about it the right way; a bit too... clinical, I suppose, for Chris).
Anyway, there was a scene at the beginning of the movie where Chris is narrating, about the luck and skill involved in playing tennis. It shows the ball hitting the top of the net and bouncing upwards: he talks about whether it goes over, and you win, or bounces back, where you lose. The scene ends with the ball at the apex of its bounce, without showing where it lands.
Chris goes on to do some remarkably stupid (if, perhaps, fairly typical) things in the movie. Eventually, feeling completely trapped, he takes it to an entirely new level (of extremity and stupidity). We see that he isn't very good. Is he lucky?
I really liked how, at one point, he throws a piece of evidence towards the river; you can see the parallel with the tennis ball scene immediately. But they turned it on its head, in a way, which led to a very funny (in an ironic sense more than a hilarious sense) ending.
I mostly can't stand sit-coms, because most of the action in driven by people doing very stupid things. No Ordinary Family, which I really liked for the first couple of episodes, lost me in the third episode when it did that. I kept thinking I might try it again, but I never did.
In any event, this movie was a bit odd, because I enjoyed it even though much of the dynamic was the same. Maybe it was just because it was much darker in its handling of that stupidity; I'm not really sure. Maybe I just really liked the luck vs skill conundrum.
Certainly, that rates heavily in many endeavors (probably most, actually). I played Magic: The Gathering very seriously for a long time, but I eventually gave it up because I decided the luck factor was just too big. (If anyone's interested, I sold most of my cards, but I still have my mox/lotus/power blue/library set; mostly in beta.) Anyway, I think that's mostly the same as what Chris went through, just before the movie started.
He decided to teach tennis; I decided to focus more on computers (which, really, I was already doing. It just cut down on distraction).
One last thing about the movie; I thought it was very well acted, all the way around. Scarlett Johansson, as Nola, was playing roughly the same role she did in He's Just not That Into You. Johnathan Rhys Meyers played a very similar role, at least at the beginning, to what he did in Bend It Like Beckham (though, sadly, it still took me about ten minutes to recognize him as the same guy). And Brian Cox played the father's role to the hilt; he mostly seems to get supporting roles, but he's a fabulous actor. The rest of the cast also did a very good job, but I didn't recognize any of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)