I was looking at this Crooks and Liars post, and had a few thoughts on it.
First of all, greed (in the abstract) can be good. It gets people to work harder and be more creative. The problem is when that greed leads someone to short-change (or outright cheat or injure) other people. And that's where it goes to sh*t for everyone. As this post demonstrates, that happens a lot.
Second, Steve Jobs is a horrible example of what he's trying to show. One, the evidence is that Steve, despite being non-technical, is intimately involved in design at Apple, so it's actually possible that he is worth an outsized pay package. (For further example, look what he managed to create at Pixar. And then look how he managed to buy the parts of Disney that most people think ARE Disney, and he got Disney to pay for it.) Two, look at the size of Steve Jobs salary (hint: I make more in an hour than he has made in salary over the 13-14 years since he returned to Apple as CEO. After taxes). I think we can all agree that he earns that salary.
Is his point generally spot on? Yes, I believe it is.
Hmm... finally read the second point in that article. There's definitely some truth there, and I think it hints at why an awful lot of lottery winners go broke or otherwise ruin their (and their family's, usually) lives. The only point I want to make about that section is the theory about CEOs investing in their business; I think that only happens when the CEO is also the founder. I really don't think it does happen, outside of that. And probably not nearly always with founders, at least of founders whose company has grown big enough to have an IPO.
20110629
20110626
Concacaf Gold Cup final
I watched the Concacaf Gold Cup final last night; actually, it was a bit weird. We were out with friends when the game started, but I flipped on the DVR long enough to start recording when we got home. Oddly (and no doubt due to having the DVR on the right channel to begin with), when I went to watch the recording an hour later, I found that the recording included the entire game. Bonus.
It was also weird to turn on the game, and see the Tri-Colores in black. What the heck was going on with that?
Before I get to the play itself, I gotta say that the officiating was pretty terrible. Donovan got a card for a challenge that was much lighter than a number of later incidents by the Mexican players that didn't even rate a foul call. Was the US loss caused by that? No, but it certainly didn't help.
As far as the play itself, both sides played well, but the game was not nearly as close as the score would indicate. And it's amazing to me that the US held a lead (let alone a two goal one) at any point. They really didn't deserve it.
Despite what the announcers said, the US was outplayed from the start of the game. They did a good job to get the two goals they had, and both were good plays, but they didn't have the ball enough to deserve that lead. The US' first touch, a goal kick, came about two minutes in. It went straight to a Mexican player.
Really, there wasn't much positive for the US in the game. The two goals, between them, constituted about 30-45 seconds of good play, but that was almost the entirety of the good play in the first half. I think the US probably had about 20% possession in that half (when they put the stats up, do they measure that in number of passes, number of touches, or just total time (a dicey measure)?). It was ugly.
The second half, especially the second half of the second half, looked better, although one can't help but wonder whether that was because the US was playing from behind and Mexico was giving them a little bit more space.
The US defense, especially once Cherundolo got injured, just didn't have the pace to keep up with Dos Santos or Barrera, and couldn't keep track of Chicharito (it's amazing to me that he didn't manage to score).
So, it'll be interesting to see where the US team goes from here. Hopefully, this will keep them from standing pat on their lineup, especially across the back line. But I guess we'll have to wait and see.
It was also weird to turn on the game, and see the Tri-Colores in black. What the heck was going on with that?
Before I get to the play itself, I gotta say that the officiating was pretty terrible. Donovan got a card for a challenge that was much lighter than a number of later incidents by the Mexican players that didn't even rate a foul call. Was the US loss caused by that? No, but it certainly didn't help.
As far as the play itself, both sides played well, but the game was not nearly as close as the score would indicate. And it's amazing to me that the US held a lead (let alone a two goal one) at any point. They really didn't deserve it.
Despite what the announcers said, the US was outplayed from the start of the game. They did a good job to get the two goals they had, and both were good plays, but they didn't have the ball enough to deserve that lead. The US' first touch, a goal kick, came about two minutes in. It went straight to a Mexican player.
Really, there wasn't much positive for the US in the game. The two goals, between them, constituted about 30-45 seconds of good play, but that was almost the entirety of the good play in the first half. I think the US probably had about 20% possession in that half (when they put the stats up, do they measure that in number of passes, number of touches, or just total time (a dicey measure)?). It was ugly.
The second half, especially the second half of the second half, looked better, although one can't help but wonder whether that was because the US was playing from behind and Mexico was giving them a little bit more space.
The US defense, especially once Cherundolo got injured, just didn't have the pace to keep up with Dos Santos or Barrera, and couldn't keep track of Chicharito (it's amazing to me that he didn't manage to score).
So, it'll be interesting to see where the US team goes from here. Hopefully, this will keep them from standing pat on their lineup, especially across the back line. But I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Women's World Cup Beginnen
The Women's World Cup kicked off this morning (9am local time) in Germany. I watched half of each of the games (the second half of France/Nigeria and the first of Germany/Canada). I have to say, I was not impressed with the quality of play overall in either game.
The midfield play, in particular, was just not very good for any of the four teams. There were way too many turnovers (especially considering how many of them were just not kicked close to their target).
It has been a while since I last watched the Women's World Cup (I missed both of Germany's victories, I believe), but I don't remember that being the case when I last viewed it. Have I just gotten better at noticing that sort of thing, or has the quality of play decreased?
The midfield play, in particular, was just not very good for any of the four teams. There were way too many turnovers (especially considering how many of them were just not kicked close to their target).
It has been a while since I last watched the Women's World Cup (I missed both of Germany's victories, I believe), but I don't remember that being the case when I last viewed it. Have I just gotten better at noticing that sort of thing, or has the quality of play decreased?
20110622
Looking Through the Alice-Glass
I bought Alice in Wonderland quite some time ago when Target had a very good deal. I wasn't sure if I wanted to keep it at the time, thinking that I might want to return it and get the 3D version. Well, I debated that until after the return period ended (as I said, at Target, so that took a while), and then finally put it in the player last night.
I'm not sure what I really want to say about it. It was gorgeous, no doubt. It was weird; that was to be expected. In fact, I sometimes wonder if the original was some opium-induced haze that took Dodgson from which he was induced to tell stories to Alice Liddell. Probably not, but I sometimes wonder.
In any event, this movie was a very interesting take on the books (yes, books; Through the Looking Glass was also heavily used. In fact, a slight updating of one of the original Tenniel illustrations from TtLG also figured heavily). While the imagery was highly fantastical and nonsensical, the plotline was pretty linear and logical. I feel like I should make some clever observations on the contrast, but I can't really think of anything right now. Probably it's a simple matter that the movie wouldn't make any sense if they tried to make the plot as non-linear as the scenery.
I guess about the most that I can say is that I enjoyed it a great deal, and now feel that I should go read the books (I've enjoyed the pieces of each that I've read, but have never finished either, sadly. Not even right after I bought The Annotated Alice).
I'm not sure what I really want to say about it. It was gorgeous, no doubt. It was weird; that was to be expected. In fact, I sometimes wonder if the original was some opium-induced haze that took Dodgson from which he was induced to tell stories to Alice Liddell. Probably not, but I sometimes wonder.
In any event, this movie was a very interesting take on the books (yes, books; Through the Looking Glass was also heavily used. In fact, a slight updating of one of the original Tenniel illustrations from TtLG also figured heavily). While the imagery was highly fantastical and nonsensical, the plotline was pretty linear and logical. I feel like I should make some clever observations on the contrast, but I can't really think of anything right now. Probably it's a simple matter that the movie wouldn't make any sense if they tried to make the plot as non-linear as the scenery.
I guess about the most that I can say is that I enjoyed it a great deal, and now feel that I should go read the books (I've enjoyed the pieces of each that I've read, but have never finished either, sadly. Not even right after I bought The Annotated Alice).
Bearing a Lantern
(With apologies to Piers Anthony on the title. I just reread a chunk of his Incarnations of Immortality series, and had it on the mind. Sadly, it took a lot less than five volumes to get tired of it this time. More like one and a half.)
In any event, a friend of mine and I caught Green Lantern on Friday. It was a little weird to me, too, because I'd never read Green Lantern growing up (I almost exclusively read Marvel titles). He was a fan, though, and I was curious, so we went.
I feel like a broken record with things I've been watching lately, though. The movie felt kind of... rushed, I guess. Unless the movie is a one-shot (which would shock me), why would you have a universe-destroying threat in the first movie? Where do you go from there?
I mean, yes, the answer is obviously Sinestro, but it doesn't seem like he'd be a bigger threat than Parallax. In fact, with the hoo-hah about how antithetical Will and Fear are, one would speculate that one very strong in Will would be correspondingly weak in Fear. One would think, also, that the yellow ring would lend itself to a completely different style of fighting than a green one would. Something tells me that the only difference will be the color of the special effects (although, as noted, I haven't seen the comic book).
Anyway, getting back to the point, having this level of threat more or less necessitated bringing in the whole Green Lantern Corps, which was neat, but didn't give Hal much time to learn his powers on his own. I would have much preferred to see him learning more than being taught.
This led to two things that weakened the movie. The familiar one is that it meant that Hal needed to learn responsibility overnight. While that's a little bit more feasible than learning enlightenment that quickly, it isn't by much. The other ramification is that it didn't leave a whole lot of time for the final battle. This meant defeating the enemy in a way that seemed a bit... improbable for a planet-devouring enemy. (Ignoring, of course, how badly off the perspective was in the shots in space at the end.)
It also meant that we didn't find out how Sinestro escaped from Parallax, which could have been important. It might have explained the push for the yellow ring, which made no sense given the story that came out immediately before that.
Another thing that had to be off, though it didn't occur to me until afterwards, if Hal's predecessor was the one who trapped Parallax initially, then he had to be one of the oldest of the Lanterns. It seems like, if he was that old, then he should have been sitting in the circle of elders, not still running around as an active Lantern.
Moving on, the movie was very good, visually, although don't bother seeing it in 3D. There was no depth added, which is sad, because this could (should) have been a good movie for showcasing 3D. If I had to guess, the 3D was done entirely in post-processing, and it just didn't look the same.
As far as acting, that was mostly good. Ryan Reynolds mostly did a good job, although there were a few scenes where he was being serious, and I couldn't take him seriously. I do wonder, though, if that's on me, for only seeing characters he'd played before. Mark Strong did a fantastic job as Sinestro, and Blake Lively was also good as Carol Ferris.
Overall, I guess you get exactly what you'd expect from this. Popcorn entertainment that's busy but shallow. Is it worth seeing? I'm not sure if I'd see it, knowing what I know now. I definitely wouldn't pay extra for the 3D, though.
Update: When I first wrote this, I was trying to remember what I'd seen Ryan Reynolds in. I glanced through his filmography at the time, but nothing jumped out at me. I had another occasion to look, though, and saw that I'd seen him in Definitely, Maybe; X-Men Origins: Wolverine; and The Proposal. I liked him in both romantic comedies, and I think it was mostly the latter from which I was remembering him. I really don't remember him from Wolverine at all.
In any event, a friend of mine and I caught Green Lantern on Friday. It was a little weird to me, too, because I'd never read Green Lantern growing up (I almost exclusively read Marvel titles). He was a fan, though, and I was curious, so we went.
I feel like a broken record with things I've been watching lately, though. The movie felt kind of... rushed, I guess. Unless the movie is a one-shot (which would shock me), why would you have a universe-destroying threat in the first movie? Where do you go from there?
I mean, yes, the answer is obviously Sinestro, but it doesn't seem like he'd be a bigger threat than Parallax. In fact, with the hoo-hah about how antithetical Will and Fear are, one would speculate that one very strong in Will would be correspondingly weak in Fear. One would think, also, that the yellow ring would lend itself to a completely different style of fighting than a green one would. Something tells me that the only difference will be the color of the special effects (although, as noted, I haven't seen the comic book).
Anyway, getting back to the point, having this level of threat more or less necessitated bringing in the whole Green Lantern Corps, which was neat, but didn't give Hal much time to learn his powers on his own. I would have much preferred to see him learning more than being taught.
This led to two things that weakened the movie. The familiar one is that it meant that Hal needed to learn responsibility overnight. While that's a little bit more feasible than learning enlightenment that quickly, it isn't by much. The other ramification is that it didn't leave a whole lot of time for the final battle. This meant defeating the enemy in a way that seemed a bit... improbable for a planet-devouring enemy. (Ignoring, of course, how badly off the perspective was in the shots in space at the end.)
It also meant that we didn't find out how Sinestro escaped from Parallax, which could have been important. It might have explained the push for the yellow ring, which made no sense given the story that came out immediately before that.
Another thing that had to be off, though it didn't occur to me until afterwards, if Hal's predecessor was the one who trapped Parallax initially, then he had to be one of the oldest of the Lanterns. It seems like, if he was that old, then he should have been sitting in the circle of elders, not still running around as an active Lantern.
Moving on, the movie was very good, visually, although don't bother seeing it in 3D. There was no depth added, which is sad, because this could (should) have been a good movie for showcasing 3D. If I had to guess, the 3D was done entirely in post-processing, and it just didn't look the same.
As far as acting, that was mostly good. Ryan Reynolds mostly did a good job, although there were a few scenes where he was being serious, and I couldn't take him seriously. I do wonder, though, if that's on me, for only seeing characters he'd played before. Mark Strong did a fantastic job as Sinestro, and Blake Lively was also good as Carol Ferris.
Overall, I guess you get exactly what you'd expect from this. Popcorn entertainment that's busy but shallow. Is it worth seeing? I'm not sure if I'd see it, knowing what I know now. I definitely wouldn't pay extra for the 3D, though.
Update: When I first wrote this, I was trying to remember what I'd seen Ryan Reynolds in. I glanced through his filmography at the time, but nothing jumped out at me. I had another occasion to look, though, and saw that I'd seen him in Definitely, Maybe; X-Men Origins: Wolverine; and The Proposal. I liked him in both romantic comedies, and I think it was mostly the latter from which I was remembering him. I really don't remember him from Wolverine at all.
Dud
Forgot to post it yesterday; Isner v Mahut was definitely a dud. There were two tiebreakers, but Isner took it in straight sets. It's true that it was too much to hope for another epic match, but I was still hoping. Congrats to Isner for moving on. Hopefully he can wreak some havok on some seeded players.
20110621
Congrats to McIllroy
I'm not a big fan of golf. It's fun to play, but not much less boring than watching paint dry to watch. It's never fun to see a player collapse under pressure, and McIllroy's at the Masters was quite disappointing. So it was great to see him stomp all over the memory of that tournament and keep that from becoming recurring demons.
So congrats on the magnificent tournament, Rory.
So congrats on the magnificent tournament, Rory.
20110620
I'm a little surprised at this...
Just ran across this article about taking a young child to Hooters... And it surprises me, because I've taken my young daughter (actually, mine is two and a half right now) to Hooters twice. Both times with a bunch of friends, which might have mattered. Both times at lunch time on a weekend, which also might. The Hooters we went to was also not centered on the bar, which almost certainly matters. (In fact, I don't think that Hooters (Fairfax, VA) has a bar.)
We did it because some friends have a tradition about going to Hooters on the same day that other friends are getting married. So, once last year and this (in this case, three days ago), we joined them. We were very surprised with how kid-friendly Hooters was. Need a high chair? Check. Kid's menu? Check. Crayons and something to color on? Check. Balloon? Check. Waitresses giving her extra attention? Check. Plastic cups? Check. The first time we went, we were shocked that we were far from the only people bringing kids there.
Really, from the perspective of bringing my daughter, it was great. I mean, Saturday was only my fourth time ever in a Hooters, and the experiences weren't so great as to persuade me to go back regularly, but we had a good time.
We did it because some friends have a tradition about going to Hooters on the same day that other friends are getting married. So, once last year and this (in this case, three days ago), we joined them. We were very surprised with how kid-friendly Hooters was. Need a high chair? Check. Kid's menu? Check. Crayons and something to color on? Check. Balloon? Check. Waitresses giving her extra attention? Check. Plastic cups? Check. The first time we went, we were shocked that we were far from the only people bringing kids there.
Really, from the perspective of bringing my daughter, it was great. I mean, Saturday was only my fourth time ever in a Hooters, and the experiences weren't so great as to persuade me to go back regularly, but we had a good time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)