ObscureBlog

Do you like Battlestar Galactica? Do you like the Beastie Boys?

Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:41:26 -0500

You are welcome.

(Via.)

Don't Mess With The Bull, Young Man

Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:20:26 -0500

The greatest poster from one of the coolest poster shows I've ever seen. It will be one of the great tragedies of my life that this poster sold out before I could possess it.

20 points to anybody who can guess which two of these I am buying?

(Via.)

That sounds delicious

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:59:09 -0500

Word Problems: Health care and marginal cost of abortion

Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:37:22 -0500

If health care doesn't make it through congress, you can probably blame/thank (depending on your point of view) Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich) for voting against it and potentially taking a dozen other Democrats with him. Stupak and his like minded cohort are hung up on the issue of abortion. Specifically, government funding for abortion.

Follow along: if the government subsidizes your health care, and your health care provider subsidizes abortions, and somebody with that same health care provider gets an abortion, than the government paid for an abortion. Got it?

Stupak wants to make any health care provider that provides coverage for abortions ineligible for subsidy payments. This means that anybody who gets government subsidies (read: poor people) will not have their abortions covered by their insurance.

Complicated, right? Issues of abortion and poverty and government policy all wrapped up in one distasteful political mess. Allow me to make it more complicated for you by asking this question: what is the cost of an abortion, anyway?

Here's the dirty little secret of the insurance industry (okay, well, not THE dirty little secret, one of probably countless dirty little secrets, each one filthier and more vile than the last, but whatever): its cheaper to pay for an abortion than for a delivery. And its not even close. A first trimester abortion costs ten times less than an actual baby.

There's a concept in financing called capital offset, where the cost of an upgrade is not compared against spending zero dollars, but instead is compared against some minimum amount you have to spend anyway. If you have a house, you aren't necessarily going to run out a buy a new water heater because the one you have is inefficient. However, if the water heater explodes, you have to buy one anyway, so now you can look at the cost of the cheapest available water heater as a capital offset towards the purchase of a new one.

Well, once you get pregnant, should the cost of an abortion be compared against zero? Or is your water heater already broken? That baby is coming out one way or the other. What does it mean to "pay" for an abortion when abortions cost less than the alternative?

The 3rd Annual ObscureBlog Oscar Pool Results

Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:58:43 -0500

Before the results, some quick hit observations from last night's show:

My side bet with Jim on who would be the last man in the "In Memoriam" package was lost on a technicality: John Hughes didn't get included because he got his own segment.

Although I don't think anybody had Karl Malden slotted into the final slot. That was the upset of the night.

One more "In Memoriam" observation: whither Farrah Fawcett?

Okay, one more "In Memoriam" observation: what does it say about the show that the most second-most talked about segment was clips of dead people? They should have added "Interest in the Oscar telecast" to the reel after last night's snooze-fest.

Literally. Suzi was snoozing.

The most talked about segment, of course, was the director of the winner for documentary short getting Kanye'd by his producer. The fascinating backstory: they ended up suing each other over control of the film, she took her name off of it, and they haven't spoken in two years.

That link via Roger Ebert's twitter feed, as are all links on the internet these days. Honestly, I don't think the man sleeps.

Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin as co-hosts was a seemingly good idea that went horribly wrong, like a fall season of "So You Think You Can Dance."

Speaking of which: was I the only one playing the "spot that SYTYCD alum" during the musical score dance montage? I was?

This year's pool had 15 participants. Some interesting trends I noticed:

There was one 0/15 category (doc short) and one 15/15 category (animated feature).

According to our group, the biggest upset of the night was a tie between Inglourious Basterds losing Original Screenplay to The Hurt Locker (12/15 picked Basterds, only 1 vote for THL) and A Matter of Loaf and Death losing Animated Short to Logorama (12/15 for Loaf, 1 vote for Logorama).

Awards for Special Achievement in Prognosticating are given out to anybody who is the only participate to get a category correct. This years winners are:

Steph for selecting Logorama in Animated Short.
Melissa for selecting The New Tenants in Live Action Short.
Greg for selecting The Hurt Locker in Original Screenplay.
Matt for selecting The Secret In Their Eyes for Foreign Film.

Enough foreplay! On with the winners!

Not Siskel and Not Ebert At The Movies, Oscars 2010 edition - Part 6

Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:44:28 -0500

[The thrilling conclusion! To participate in this year's ObscureCraft Oscar Pool, email your own picks to craftj2@gmail.com. The rules are here. Part one is here. Part two is here. Part three is here. And here's part four. And, for the love of Christ, here is part five.]

Jesse's take

Best Picture

Nominees: Avatar, The Blind Side, District 9, An Education, The Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds, Token, A Serious Man, Up, Up In The Air

Jim, I know nobody reads this blog, but the expansion of the Best Picture category from 5 movies to 10 almost feels like a direct response to our discussion last year. If I may briefly jog your memory of a time long, long ago in an email conversation far away: last year, the 5 nominees were The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon, Milk, The Reader, and Slumdog Millionaire. This group left what seemed to be an egregious number of snubs, including well-received box office smashes that people could root for like The Dark Knight and WALL-E, as well as smaller films that maybe didn't get the love they deserved like The Wrestler (I say maybe because I never saw it; I know you'll go to your death bed ranting about this snub).

I wasn't necessarily arguing for an expansion of the category; I was just lamenting that the list of worthy snubs was especially long. But when I first heard about the move from 5 films to 10, I was prepared to defend it. Think about it: the BAFTAs nominate 10 films. Every film critic on Earth publishes a Top 10 list at the end of the year. 10 seemed like a good change. And then I saw this list.

Much like how a sculptor can look into a piece of marble and see the shape he wants to create, I can look at this list of 10 and find the 5 "correct" Best Picture nominees and the 5 that are padding. Under last year's rules, here's how it goes down: Avatar, The Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds, Token, and Up In The Air are nominated; I bitch about Up getting snubbed because it was animated; and that's it. This category is more padded than a mall Santa.

So, which is it: right idea, wrong year? Or wrong idea in any year?

Check out my DSIRE

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 20:49:17 -0500

And now for something completely different: actual useful information!

As a professional in the alternative energy business, part of my job is to keep informed on all the incentives available to help pay for the projects we do. While doing the rounds today, two things occurred to me:

1. There sure are alot of incentives available for residential projects.
2. I bet nobody knows about any of these.

Here's an example I sent to my sister today. College Station Utilities will give you up to $600 to purchase a more efficient air conditioning system for your house. Or, for any of my friends still living in New Jersey, PSE&G offers low interest loans to pay for 40-60% of a new behind-the-meter PV system.

So here's my helpful tip for the day. Go to dsireusa.org and look for incentives available in your location to help you pay for solar power and energy efficiency, and get some of those America-ruining stimulus deficit communist dollars for youself.

Give Bill White back his precious

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:43:40 -0500

Tricksy hobbitses.

Watch/Listen: Gorillaz - "Stylo"

Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:24:47 -0500

Vanishing Point! Celebrities! Bobby Womack! Robots! The first single off upcoming "Plastic Beach" debuted today in HD on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9vAOzYz-Qs

It's not "Clint Eastwood" or "Feel Good Inc", but pretty decent.

The rest of the album, released next Tuesday, is also streamable in full from NPR here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124114812

In defense of Jim Bunning

Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:11:45 -0500

No, this is not a headline I wrote just to see if I could get Kevin's head would explode. Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Kentucky) made headlines over the weekend by objecting to the senate's attempts to extend, among other things, unemployment benefits and some infrastructure projects originally funded as part of the stimulus bill. I'll let the Daily Show explain:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Senate After Dark

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Reform

Here is where I disagree with Bunning, and Republicans in general: while in control of Congress and the White House for 6 years (2000-2006), you could have given two fucks about balancing the budget. Instead, you turned a budget surplus into the biggest deficit in history, and now you're all, "Oh, we can't afford to give unemployed people benefits or sick people health care, because the deficit is too big." Fuck you, you bunch of hypocrites.

But if I'm going to call hypocrisy on the Republicans, then fair is fair: nobody forced you to pass Pay As You Go legislation, Democrats. You decided that you wanted to play politics with the Republicans and the Tea Partiers and all their bellyaching about the deficit. Maybe it was stupid, but you did it. Now to just take every piece of legislation, slap the word "emergency" on it, and pass it anyway is to be just as hypocritical as the Republicans. This is why people hate politicians. This is why people say you all suck. Because when it comes right down to it, you all do.

Not Siskel and Not Ebert At The Movies, Oscars 2010 edition - Part 5

Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:06:30 -0500

Jesse and Jim will be making their picks for every Oscar. To participate in this year's ObscureCraft Oscar Pool, email your own picks to craftj2@gmail.com. The rules are here. Part one is here. Part two is here. Part three is here. And here's part four.]

Jesse's take

Best Actress in A Leading Role

Nominees: Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side), Helen Mirren (The Last Station), Carey Mulligan (An Education), Gabourey Sidibe (Token), Meryl Streep (Julie and Julia)

Remember when I said there was only one competitive acting award on the night? Well, this is it. I do not know what to make of this field. I'm trying to narrow it down, and here's what I keep coming back to:

If this was Best Supporting Actress, I would definitely pick Sandra Bullock, because that category is notoriously ridiculous. But the love for The Blind Side, which just looks awful, continues to baffle me. So she's out.

Helen Mirren is definitely a GMILF, but even if everybody in the entire country who had seen this movie, not just Academy voters, but EVERYBODY, voted for Helen Mirren, I still think she would get, like, 8 votes. So she's out.

Meryl Streep is a legit dark horse candidate. This is how every review of Julie and Julia went: "Half the movie was a wonderfully acted biopic about Julia Child with an incredible performance by Meryl Streep, and the other half was spent wondering why I give a fuck about some lady who had a blog and waiting for Meryl Streep to come back." Meryl, as always, owns. Also a GMILF, even if I'd only do it to make you jealous.

Gabourey Sidibe is just happy to be nominated.

Carey Mulligan... can you think of a reason why she can't win? True, much like Helen Mirren, not many people saw An Education, but it was more than 8. For some reason, I keep coming back to her, only because I can't think of a reason to eliminate her.

It's a wide open category, so I'm going out on a limb. And if Sandra Bullock wins for The Blind Side, then I guess we just chalk that up to the "career achievement" award category. She was, after all, great in Speed. And Demolition Man. And Speed 2. (Seriously, how is she nominated again?)

Winner: Carey Mulligan (An Education)

Not Siskel and Not Ebert At The Movies, Oscars 2010 edition - Part 4

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:54:37 -0500

[Jesse and Jim will be making their picks for every Oscar. To participate in this year's ObscureCraft Oscar Pool, email your own picks to craftj2@gmail.com. The rules are here. Part one is here. Part two is here. Part three is here.]

Jim's take

Best Original Song

Nominees: Almost There (The Princess and the Frog, Randy Newman), Down in New Orleans (The Princess and the Frog, Randy Newman), Loin de Paname (Paris 36, Reinhardt Wagner & Frank Thomas), Take It All (Nine, Maury Yeston), The Weary Kind (Theme from Crazy Heart) (Ryan Bingham and T Bone Burnett)

Alright. I didn't see the Princess and the Frog movie, but I see that Randy Newman did the music. "Princess and a Frog.... they're in love... almost there.... princess and the frog, they're walking down the street, but one's hoppin' not so much as walking down in New Orleans..." That's how those songs go in my mind. Not winners. Loin de Paname? I don't trust anything with lyrics by The Big Hurt. That leaves the song from Nine and the song from Crazy Heart. I saw Crazy Heart this weekend. It's awesome. The song is awesome. And I'll eat my shoe, Werner Herzog style, if it doesn't win this one.

Pick: The Weary Kind (Theme from Crazy Heart)

A minor Bloom Box correction

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:21:18 -0500

I said:

Sridhar is trying to convince you that he's made a fuel cell without platinum, the super expensive catalytic material that has made it so hard for them to be financially viable. Except those metal plates on either side of the disk are in EVERY fuel cell, and they are NEVER platinum. Ever. The platinum is not a huge flat plate: it is micrograms of the stuff sprayed onto the central membrane. His fuel cell has platinum: it is in the inks. I guarantee it.

What I meant to say, and was instead said by former co-worker and all around smarter-than-me-guy Rick in a response on Facebook:

Assuming the technology works (which it probably does -- Google, etc, testing it), it seems to be performing in the ballpark of the best solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC) in terms of stack power density [...] If it's an SOFC (and Zirconium is in "beach sand" as ZrSiO4...), it also doesn't require platinum because of the high-temperatures.

Duh. Right. Yes. Leslie Stahl mentions in the video that Sridhar based his fuel cell technology on his Mars oxygen generation technology. A quick internet search finds the title of a paper Sridhar wrote: "Oxygen Production on Mars Using Solid Oxide Electrolysis."

Electrolysis, as you might remember from high school, is when you apply an electric current across water, causing it to break up into hydrogen and oxygen (presumably Sridhar's oxygen production device would use water found in the Martian ice caps). When you operate a fuel cell, you combine oxygen and hydrogen to get water and electricity. So this is, in fact, electrolysis backwards.

Sridhar's fuel cell doesn't use platinum to catalyze the reaction. There are actually two ways to make a reaction more energetic: you can catalyze it, or you can heat it up. Solid oxide fuel cells heat it up. Really heat it up. Existing SOFCs operate between 500 and 1000 degrees Celsius. But now you have another set of problems, because that is face meltingly hot. That's almost hot enough to melt steel. So while you no longer need expensive platinum, you do need other expensive materials that can withstand that type of temperature.

However, everything else I said in the original article stands true, with one addendum: instead of platinum, you have a fuel cell that is about the same temperature as a house fire.

Do you know what the 'R' in COBRA stands for?

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:01:27 -0500

Reconciliation.

Do you know how CHIP (children's health insurance program) passed the senate?

Reconciliation. Even 'letting poor kids see a doctor sometimes' could only muster 55 votes in the Senate.

Cultural Cognition, or: take your facts and shove them

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:06:18 -0500

Years ago, Jim introduced Suzi and I to one of his friends from high school. During the conversation, she mentioned that she was excited because George W. Bush was going to be making an appearance at her church, and she was a big fan. Suzi and I laughed at this obviously ironic statement, because nobody our age could actually be a conservative Republican, right? Right??

Wrong, as it turned out. The moment was swept under the rug by a few moments of awkward silence, but I haven't forgotten it. I have similar moments when I hear that Dick Cheney has a public approval rating of 18%. Who are these 18% of people who approve of the job that Dick Cheney is doing, and what the hell is wrong with them?

I feel that, in the case indicting George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the facts are solidly on my side. But then again, I was never inclined to like either of them, anyway. So are there facts that could redeem the argument that maybe Bush and Cheney, after all? Maybe, but according to social scientists, I would likely ignore them.

That's the case made in this NPR story that aired yesterday, and I was quite struck by the implications. The actual story doesn't talk about Bush or Cheney, but rather about how cultural cognition can explain how polls show that the global warming deniers are winning the debate in the face of a mountain of facts.

Over the past few months, polls show that fewer Americans say they believe humans are making the planet dangerously warmer, despite a raft of scientific reports that say otherwise.
This puzzles many climate scientists -- but not some social scientists, whose research suggests that facts may not be as important as one's beliefs.
[...]
"Basically the reason that people react in a close-minded way to information is that the implications of it threaten their values," says Dan Kahan, a law professor at Yale University and a member of The Cultural Cognition Project.
Kahan says people test new information against their preexisting view of how the world should work.
"If the implication, the outcome, can affirm your values, you think about it in a much more open-minded way," he says.
And if the information doesn't, you tend to reject it.

I encourage you to read the whole article. And if you think that NPR is a mouthpiece for the liberal agenda, feel free to reject its conclusions. I enjoy irony.