Archive for November, 2008

My own little numeracy problem

Posted in Cites & Insights on November 17th, 2008

The two of you who’re reading the Retrospect series in Cites & Insights (8:12 out yesterday! Great main essay occupying most of the issue!) might be aware that I noticed a problem at some point…a “missing issue” in the scheme of things. I figured that I’d track it down and cover it in either the 9th or 10th (and final) episode.

Yesterday, in the last dreary part of closing out an issue (the dreariest: indexing; the last: making sure that copy I used isn’t still in running sections–and for Retrospect, noting which issues will be covered next time), I did the issue skeletons for both of the final episodes. (I may do them both in January 2008, because I have an idea for a special issue to come out shortly before Midwinter…we shall see.)

In the process, I tried to figure out the missing issue. Eventually, it became obvious–there was a three-issue gap in 2005 instead of the usual two-issue gap (between part 8 and part 1, that is). But where had I double-covered or otherwise screwed up?

Eventually, after printing out the whole list of volumes and issues, I figured it out:

I hadn’t double-covered. The issue count has been one low for a very long time.

Huh? That’s right: The Centenary issue was actually a celebration of doing 100 issues–the hundredth issue was February 2008.

And the Diamond Anniversary issue (April 2006) was actually Whole Number 76, not Whole Number 75.

Sigh.

Since I discovered this after publishing the current issue, I’ll leave that issue misnumbered as Issue 109, when in fact it’s Issue 110. With any luck, I’ll start numbering properly in January 2009, which should be Issue 111.

None of this makes the slightest difference to most of you, I suspect (and hope).

I could sneak around this by saying that the very first Cites & Insights wasn’t really an issue–after all, it didn’t have a volume number or issue number or date. But that would be wrong.It may have been a trial run, but it was also a real issue–actually the longest issue until 2004.

Speaking of length

For a variety of reasons, the 2008 volume is the first ever to have exactly a dozen issues. There have been more than 12 issues every other year–14 most years, 13 two years, 15 one year.

That doesn’t actually make it a smaller volume than usual.

  • Issues this year have been longer than in some other years. The total page count is 330; that’s lower than in 2006 (the highest to date) or 2007, but higher than any other years.
  • Changes in typography and overall design have resulted in slightly more efficient use of space, so there are more words per page. In fact, at 282,837 words, 2008 is the second wordiest year: Volume 6, the year with the most pages, had 279,424 words and Volume 7 had the most words (288,681).

C&I is coming up on 2,500 pages (34 to go, so probably volume 9, issue 2) and two million words (23,387 to go, so also probably volume 9, issue 2, but possibly volume 9, issue 1). Neither landmark will call for any special celebration. That will wait until the completion of a full ten years or 150 issues (counted properly)…if we make it that far.

By the way: None of these numbers include the phantom issue…which you can only obtain by buying the paperback version of Volume 7.

Now, on to cleaning up the index after taking a day off to rest up from my argument with the sidewalk last Saturday…an argument clearly won by the sidewalk. ‘Scuse me while I take some more aspirin…

Cites & Insights 8:12 Available

Posted in Cites & Insights on November 16th, 2008

It’s only taken eight years for C&I to actually appear monthly–that is, for a volume to have only a dozen issues.

Cites & Insights 8:12 (December 2008) is now available for downloading.

The 22-page issue is PDF as usual (a nice compact PDF, as are all the other 2008 issues now that I’ve regenerated them with Acrobat 9), but you can also get HTML versions of most essays. (Most headings below are live links.)

Bibs & Blather

Advance notice of a special offer: The Liblog Landscape 2007-2008 will be available soon (late November or early December if all goes well), and will have an early-bird special price of $22.50 until January 15, 2009–at which point it will go to $35.00. (If there’s an Amazon version, that will start out at $35.) The book will be announced on Walt at Random as soon as it’s ready.

Also: News about disappearing books, notes on potential sponsorship for future research, and this warning: If you’re one of the dozens (I can dream) of institutions that binds C&I, hold off–the title sheet and index will be ready in another week or two. (There will probably also be a paperback version of the whole volume.)

Perspective: Writing about Reading

The heart of the issue. An extended essay on NEA’s latest sky-is-falling report–and on “stupidity and Google.”

Retrospective: Pointing with Pride, Part 8

Just two more to go…

My Back Pages

Three audio-related pieces–but two other mini-snarks that are a little closer to home.

The mystery of the disappearing bruises

Posted in Stuff on November 16th, 2008

So here’s the thing. Last night, we were walking back from a neighborhood restaurant–in the dark, but with flashlights.

Well, I got distracted somehow, and there are a lot of uneven spots in the sidewalks in our neighborhood (much of the mid-Peninsula has clay soil, and after an extended dry period, things move around a fair amount)…and kaboom!

Down on both knees, one hand and my forehead (and apparently tried to break the fall, too late, with my other hand–no visible abrasions or damage, but it sure does ache). Able to get up and walk home…and we probably won’t walk to dinner much any more until it’s spring again. Bloodied forehead (stripped about a 2×1″ patch of skin just above one eye), bloodied right knee (partly-stripped skin), bloodied left little finger (at the finger/hand joint and back side below the fingernail), a few splotches on the left knee. Oh, and a nicely-demolished area on the left side of the left lens of my wonderful, light, solar-gray glasses (I’m wearing a backup pair, but without solar-gray: it was about time to get my eyes examined anyway, although I wasn’t looking forward to buying a new $500 pair of glasses–once you add in solar-gray, the ultra-high-refraction plastic so I’m not looking through coke bottles with 9 diopter correction, graded bifocals, etc…)

And two big bruises, one on each side, from the knee about a third of the way down the thigh. We just said, well, those are going to look pretty awful for a couple of weeks…

But…

That was around 7 p.m. We watched our usual Saturday movie. Around 10, got ready for bed, changed to PJs, looked at bare legs…

And the bruises not only weren’t worse, they weren’t there. The skinned and direct-impact areas were still as they were, but the big bruises had just disappeared.

This morning? Still gone.

My wife’s accusing me of being part vampire. I’m sure there’s a more sensible explanation, since we’re a few hundred miles north of where Sunnydale used to be…

Anyone heard of this? Bruises from direct trauma that just disappear over the course of a few hours?

Not that I’m complaining, mind you. (Well, about the need for an expensive new pair of glasses, maybe…and the need to find an optometrist/opthalmologist and go through the whole rigmarole. But certainly not about the disappearing bruises–or the fact that, after my wife assured me I’d have a whole lot more aches this morning than I did last night, I really don’t, unless you count my right hand and wrist.)

Well, that’s how my Saturday went. How’s your weekend?

[Coming very soon: The December C&I. It would be up by now, probably, but things have slowed down a bit. Today, though, I suspect. Tomorrow at the latest.]

Blog analysis

Posted in Media, Writing and blogging on November 14th, 2008

Nope, this isn’t more advance flogging for The Liblog Landscape 2007-2008. (You’ll get that soon enough, along with a special offer for early purchasers. If you’re wondering: I uploaded the PDFs to Lulu yesterday, and am now waiting for the proof copy, which could take a couple of weeks.)

This is a Friday funny–and a slightly delayed joining in an offhand meme I saw at Helene Blowers’ Library Bytes. Namely, a few blog analyzers…and in this case, how they rate this here blog.

Typealyzer

This one claims to do a Myers-Briggs style analysis of the blog. I just ran it and came up with:

ESTP – The Doers

The active and playful type. They are especially attuned to people and things around them and often full of energy, talking, joking and engaging in physical out-door activities.

The Doers are happiest with action-filled work which craves their full attention and focus. They might be very impulsive and more keen on starting something new than following it through. They might have a problem with sitting still or remaining inactive for any period of time.

Bwahahah… yep, that’s me, out there playing volleyball when I’m not on the links or joking with my huge array of friends, since I’m so attuned to people. And, you know, never following through on anything, which is why Cites & Insights disappeared after six issues and I’ve never managed to complete any of those books I’ve started writing…

What’s most absurd here is that I ran the same site’s test a few days ago (November 10), when Blowers posted her item–and came out INTP, The Thinkers (and an introvert). I’m notoriously an introvert (and yes, I tested that way on a real Myers-Briggs test–I think it was INTP. That was when I was LITA Vice President/President-Elect; the LITA Executive Director had all of the Executive Committee members take the M-B test and assured us we were all “E”s because, after all, how else could you win an election?)

So in four days with, I think, two posts, I’ve gone from introvert to extrovert and from one who regularly finishes projects to one who leaps from idea to idea? Man, those must have been some impressive posts…or this is an unusually silly beta site.

Genderanalyzer

This one “uses Artificial Intelligence” to determine whether a blog is written by a man or a woman.

The robots say I write like a man (75%, whatever that might mean).

Well, at least that’s not as absurd as ESTP; last I checked, the gender choice was right.

Readability Test

What grade level this blog is written at.

Junior high school. Whereas C&I is at college/undergrad level and my personal website (which includes a few old articles) is at “Genius” level.

Hmm. I’m happy enough with “Junior high school” for the blog, but I wonder whether that’s as erratic a rating as the Typealyzer. Somehow, though, I find it hard to believe that the handful of items on my personal website are that much deeper intellectually or confounding in style than C&I–or, for that matter, that C&I is all that much more hifalutin’ than this here blog.

In this case, it’s a repeat performance: I posted about this site last November. Came out junior high school then, too–and most individual essays from C&I came out high school, which was fine with me.

What is your blog worth

Claims to determine the blog’s monetary value based on Technorati ranking and advertising potential.

$28,227.00

I love the precision: Not just $28,000, but $28,227.

Ah, but the “most successful linkbaiter, ever” who put up this site claims his blog is worth $6,220,101.72. Must be nice to be rich. (And yes, that site has LOADS of ads. When I had ads here, I made $24–over six months, as I remember. Yes, my Technorati “authority” rating and number of subscribers have both grown. Not that much, though…)

As Helene says, “use at your own risk” and “for your pure amusement purposes only.” By the way, she comes out ISTJ, woman, high school and $47,569.

Oh, and if someone wants to sponsor this blog, I’d ask a whole lot less than $28,227 (but more than $227)–but then, is that “per year” or “over a lifetime”?

In fact, I am very much looking for sponsorship–but primarily for ongoing real-world research into blogs and wikis, with this blog being a tertiary possibility.

Meanwhile, you may find these tests fun. If you test at the genius level…well, I probably couldn’t understand all them big words anyway.

The rocky (buzzy) road to lower energy use

Posted in Stuff on November 12th, 2008

Around here, at least, it sounds as though we won’t be able to buy incandescent lights after 2012.

I think that’s a great idea. In my office (our third and smallest bedroom), I love lots of light; the overhead four-light fan combo has two “40 watt” compact fluorescents and two “60 watt” bulbs, for a total of 50 actual watts and all the light I need. Our porch light is a 10 watt CFL. The most-used kitchen light is a CFL. Other lights that stay on at least 15 minutes at a time are CFLs.

But in our dining ell, we had a sad old 6-bulb chandelier that needed replacing–and that was on a dimmer.

Well, we finally got a new 5-bulb chandelier–and one of PG&E’s many subsidized CFL shipments included dimmable CFLs at two bulbs for $1.00 (PG&E, Northern California’s primary utility company, has been doing a lot of these subsidies. At one chain or another–Safeway, Longs, Rite-Aid or the like–it’s frequently possible to buy four-packs of CFLs for $1, or sometimes three-packs of fancier CFLs.) So I picked up three of the two-packs, each bulb 15 watts (the light equivalent of a 75 watt incandescent). The dimmables only came in 15 watt and 23 watt (100-watt equivalent) sizes.

Today the chandelier was installed. (It’s a modest little unit, but a whole lot better than what was there before.) I screwed in the bulbs. We turned on the light and used the dimmer.

And they buzz. Apparently, the high-frequency transformer built into each bulb (the reason CFLs don’t flicker and don’t buzz) deals with reduced voltage by reducing the frequency and, presumably, the percentage of the time it’s on. With even a little dimming, the buzz was at a frequency my wife could hear. At the level we’d actually use during dinner, I could hear it and she could barely stand it.

OK, there’s also the fact that these particular CFLs are that unpleasant cold light (other CFLs are much better) and that they’re big enough to be sort of ugly in the fixtures. Those we might be able to live with. The buzz…not so much. (If you turn them down to a romantic glow, it’s even worse: They start to flicker very obviously.)

So, for now, back to the store for some incandescents.

Our other sad experience (other than lights that only get used a minute or two at a time, where the 8,000-hours supposed life turns into 8,000 switch cycles) was with a three-way CFL: The lower setting burned out after a year or less, probably because it has to be switched on and off twice each time you use the light.

The solution should be LEDs: Even better efficiency, no mercury, even longer lifespan and they should be dimmer-compatible. But that requires LEDs in consumer-friendly packages at consumer-friendly prices. Here’s hoping we get there soon.

A current movie, for a change

Posted in Movies and TV on November 12th, 2008

I may exercise to the oldies, but once a week we watch a reasonably-current movie–and once in a while we run across a pleasant surprise.

If you haven’t seen Bobby, I strongly recommend it. It came out in 2006 (hey, I never said we were up to date). We were surprised by how the good the movie was–and how good at least the first featurette was (we haven’t watched the second yet).

The whole film is set in one day, in one hotel–June 5, 1968, the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles.

It’s about some of the people there that day…and leads up to a historic event.

Emilio Estevez (Martin Sheen’s son who kept the Estevez name) wrote and directed and is one of a stellar cast in the movie–e.g., Harry Belafonte, Laurence Fishburne, Heather Graham, Anthony Hopkins, Helen Hunt, Ashton Kutcher, Shia LaBeouf, William H. Macy, Lindsay Lohan, Demi Moore, Christian Slater, Freddy Rodriguez, Sharon Stone, Elijah Wood…oh, yes, and Martin Sheen. Pretty much all of them do first-rate jobs even in smaller roles.

We like light entertainment, animated movies, romantic comedies–and this movie is far from any of those. We enjoyed it thoroughly, even in the hard-to-watch minutes near the end. You might too.

Smaller, faster, better? Quick C&I changes

Posted in Cites & Insights, Technology and software on November 7th, 2008

I’m assuming a fairly large overlap between readers here and Cites & Insights readers. (Psst: If you’re not reading Cites & Insights, you should be.)

Until I moved to a notebook computer, Vista and Office2007 early this year, I’d been using Adobe Acrobat 5 to generate the PDFs for C&I (and for my books). I never found satisfactory reasons to pay the $100 for each upgrade from 6 through 8.

Vista: OK. Office2007: Not so much

I tried loading Acrobat 5 under Vista. Yes, it’s compatible–but it’s not really compatible with Word2007, and insisted on inserting itself in a manner that was worse than useless. So I deleted Acrobat 5 and loaded the free Microsoft upgrade to add PDF capability to Office2007 programs.

Since then, I’ve been generating Cites & Insights directly from Word, with good results–but I did notice that the PDF sizes seemed somewhat larger this year, even discounting the generally-longer issues.

Along comes Acrobat 9

I became aware that, for certain projects, I really would need Acrobat in the near future. Prime example: As far as I know, it’s the only program that can reliably take multiple existing PDF files and create a new PDF from them.

I’d also heard that Acrobat 9 does a better job of optimizing file size and web load time than its competitors or earlier versions.

So, biting the $300 bullet ($270 at Fry’s after I pointed out that price on Fry’s.com), I purchased it this morning. Quick installation, and Acrobat 7 creates a PDF printer rather than inserting itself directly into Office2007 programs.

Just for fun, half an hour before going off to lunch, I tried rebuilding the current issue (November 2008, Volume 8, Number 11) using the PDF printer and compared the size to the existing PDF.

Wow. The existing file was 500K. The new one was 299K. That’s a 40% reduction in size.

So, over the space of five minutes, I opened and “printed” each of the other ten 2008 issues–then, in another couple of minutes, uploaded the eleven new PDFs.

They’re not all 40% smaller…but, with one exception, they’re all at least 25%-30% smaller. The interesting thing here is that at least the first three 2008 issues were generated using Acrobat 5, so it appears that Acrobat 9 also produces significantly smaller files than its long-ago predecessor.

Smaller is always better for web documents, even if 500K isn’t particularly huge.

As far as I know…

The new PDFs should yield identical output to the old ones.

If that’s not true–specifically, if the body type has changed or been screwed up–I trust someone will tell me. I’ve had someone check already (I can’t really test this on my computer: It’s an issue of whether or not Adobe is properly embedding typefaces, and if you have those typefaces on your computer, it doesn’t matter), so I’m fairly comfortable…but I could always restore the old ones (or tweak Acrobat settings) if I’m wrong.

Don’t think I’ll go back beyond January 2008. Meanwhile, it’s a nice little savings, even if it came at a price that I now find noticeable. Oh–and Acrobat “prints” the PDF within Word faster than Word prepared a PDF.

Sponsorship: A few words

Posted in Books and publishing, Liblogs, Writing and blogging on November 6th, 2008

As noted in an earlier post, I would love to have sponsors for the blog-related research I’ve done and would like to continue doing.

Such sponsorship would:

  • Make it feasible to release The Liblog Landscape 2007-2008: A Lateral Look as a free PDF or print version priced marginally over production cost.
  • Make it feasible to publish key conclusions (and, indeed, portions of most chapters) in Cites & Insights (or in a sponsor’s venues).
  • Assure an ongoing project to see how English-language liblogs fare in the future, with annual updates.
  • At some levels of sponsorship, make it feasible to carry out useful studies of library blogs and publish the results free as PDF or at marginal cost in print. (Those studies just won’t happen without sponsorship: I think they’d be useful, but don’t find them nearly as fascinating as the liblog studies. Then again, without sponsorship, I don’t know whether I’ll keep on with the liblog study.)

I’ve done a quick writeup of what various levels of sponsorship would involve (but not the actual prices: those are available on request). You’ll find it here.


If I was a skilled networker, I’d probably be able to send a dozen emails and have good prospects for sponsorship.

Possible sponsors could include regional networks, library vendors of almost any stripe, foundations, library schools, publishers… But, frankly, I’m rarely sure just who I’d approach.

If you happen to think this is a good idea and know someone who would be a plausible sponsor (and I wouldn’t rule out any name in advance), please let them know about this post.

I love doing this stuff and I’m good at it. I’m also dealing with the economic realities of a decimated retirement fund and where my time and energy are best spent (outside of my existing part-time job). Maybe this will help clarify matters. Maybe not.

50 Movie Comedy Classics, Disc 2

Posted in Movies and TV on November 4th, 2008

Buster Keaton Festival, all silent (with unrelated music), all b&w, all starring (and written and directed by) Buster Keaton. The Blacksmith, 1922, 0:21 [0:19]; The Boat, 1921, 0:20 [0:22]; The Paleface, 1922, 0:20; Daydreams, 1922, 0:18.

Maybe it’s because Keaton doesn’t deliberately act the clown. Maybe it’s because his pictures were really his pictures. Whatever the case, these work pretty well.

I’d seen The Blacksmith and The Paleface on earlier packs (where they counted as full movies). The Paleface is pretty clever, The Blacksmith is good physical comedy; I’d give each of them $0.35 to $0.50. The Boat tells a sad story of boat-building incompetence, very well done for maximum laughs (if you ignore the peril); another $0.50. Daydreams feels like a later picture than either The Blacksmith or The Boat—better photography, more plot, generally very good. I’d give it another $0.50. These aren’t slapstick, by and large; they’re something subtler.

That comes out to $1.70 to $2.00—let’s call it $1.75. That’s on the high side, but this is an enjoyable 80 minutes (or so) of silent comedy as done by one of the masters.

Buster Keaton Classics, all silent (with unrelated music), all b&w, all starring Buster Keaton. The Playhouse, 1921, 0:22 [0:20]; The Balloonatic, 1923, 0:22; My Wife’s Relations, 1922, 0:30 [0:23]; The Electric House, 1922, 0:22 [0:20].

The Playhouse (or Play House) begins with an astonishing five-minute sequence in which Keaton plays all the roles—the conductor, members of the orchestra, a comedy troupe, and even the audience (men, women and children alike)—and the playbill also shows him in all the roles and stage crew. (Given that this had to be done by in-camera multiple exposures, it’s nothing short of astonishing: At one point, there are nine Keatons on stage.) After that dream sequence, it’s another knockabout comedy set on stage, albeit with a cute side plot in which Keaton’s girlfriend is one of identical twins—and he can’t tell them apart. Two problems: The comedy troupe includes blackface, maybe “typical for its time” but still unfortunate—and the print’s bad enough that it blooms to white in the middle at some points. On balance, $0.35.

The Balloonatic starts at a funhouse and involves balloons and the wilderness—and it’s all gags (and, of course, Keaton’s indomitable incompetence) with a plot that barely holds together. Maybe I’ve seen the “holder with no bottom” three or four times too often in Keaton’s shorts. This felt forced. $0.20.

My Wife’s Relations is based on Keaton unwittingly marrying a big woman with four big, mean brothers (it has to do with Polish judges), being generally beleaguered—Keaton always seems to be a hapless creature—and other nonsense. Decent plot, almost entirely slapstick. Maybe the half-hour version makes more sense. $0.30.

The Electric House offers a Keaton newly graduated from college—but handed the wrong degree, certifying him as an Electrical Engineer when he should have been a Doctor of Botany. The bigwig handing out the degrees wants his new house electrified and offers Keaton the job, while he goes on vacation. Fortunately, the bigwig’s daughter tosses Keaton a book, Electricity Made Easy or something of the sort. The family returns to a remarkably “electrified” house—with stairs that become escalators, a dining room with self-seating chairs and a model train to serve dishes from the kitchen, an electrified pool table and more. Of course things go wrong in a variety of ways. This one’s worth $0.50.

Add them up and I get $1.35, which sounds about right: Watchable but somewhat disappointing, except for the first five minutes and the last short.

Steamboat Bill, Jr., 1928, Charles Reisner (dir.), Buster Keaton, Tom McGuire, Ernest Torrence, Marion Byron, Tom Lewis. 1:11 [1:09]

Not quite a feature-length film (or maybe it was for the time), this silent has a real plot, loads of physical comedy in Keaton’s best form, and a romance—and this time, Keaton wins out in the end. He’s the son of a steamboat operator, William “Steamboat Bill” Canfield, with a rundown sternwheeler, just in town (River Junction) from college in Boston—and his girl back in Boston is also in town. She’s the daughter of the bigshot, John James King, who’s introducing a spiffy new steamboat that will put Steamboat Bill’s clunker out of business—especially when King has it condemned. Naturally, King forbids his daughter from seeing Bill Jr. and Bill forbids his son from seeing the girl, in both cases saying “I’ll choose the right mate for you,” so there’s a little Montague-Capulet plot here as well. Father tries to turn son into a proper steamboater (part of which includes a hat-choice sequence that’s remarkably good fun), and there’s lots more.

Add a lengthy, involved storm sequence (with some astonishing and presumably dangerous stunts and special effects) and Bill Jr.’s unexpected bravery and competence, and you have quite a picture. (You may have heard of the classic and potentially deadly shot where the front of a house falls on Keaton, standing in the street—and happening to be just where an open window frame is. No stunt double, and supposedly some of the crew couldn’t stand to watch the filming.) And, for a change, the music is actually related to the film—a theater organ track that’s apparently composed for the picture, as it includes appropriate sound effects. Good print. Sigh. This is one I’ll probably watch again and it’s clearly a classic, but I’m hard-pressed to give more than $1.25 to a one-hour flick. Oh well, it’s 1:11 (or 1:09): $2.00.

As You Like It, 1936, b&w. Paul Czinner (dir.), Henry Einley, Elisabeth Bergner, Felix Aylmer, Laurence Olivier. 1:36 [1:27].

From Buster Keaton to William Shakespeare—well, why not? This is not a filmed play; they expand the scope to natural settings but retain the dialogue. Unfortunately, the first part of the film has a noisy soundtrack, which doesn’t help matters on something as dialogue-heavy as a Shakespeare comedy.

I won’t trouble you with the plot. It’s all Shakespeare, almost all in the forest of Arden; the film omits some of the play but apparently adds no new dialogue.

Laurence Olivier—not Sir at that point—stars. It’s a generally lively, solid performance. You need serious suspension of disbelief for the key conceit in the film: That Orlando (Olivier), deeply in love with Rosalind, cannot recognize her as either Rosalind or as a woman because she is wearing tights and a frilly shirt/blouse rather than a dress, even though she makes no attempt to disguise her hairdo or, really, her voice. But hey, it’s a comedy, and there are some fine monologues along the way (including “All the world’s a stage”). Because of the soundtrack and missing nine minutes, I can’t give it more than $1.25.


Bonus for those who’ve made it this far:

Tomorrow I switch back to the other 50-pack (Hollywood Legends)–but to the final disc. That should take two to three weeks.

After that, I’ll go to Disc 3 of Comedy Classics. The question is:

What set should I alternate with Comedy Classics?

While there are actually several choices, it boils down to two possibilities:

  • Start in on the Mystery Collection, 60 discs with 250 movies.
  • Start in on Alfred Hitchcock: The Legend Begins, one of the smaller packs Mill Creek sent me when they replaced a defective disc in the Hollywood Legends set. It includes two episodes of Alfred Hitchcock Presents, 18 of Hitchcock’s early films (from 1926 through 1939, all B&W, several silent), and 55 minutes of trailers for later Hitchcock movies. That’s four long discs. (It sells for about $8 at Amazon, but has sold as low as $5.)

I’m going to let you decide. I’ll choose whichever set gets the most comments by the time I finish the Hollywood Legends set.

Vote

Posted in Stuff, Technology and software on November 3rd, 2008

I’ve tried to avoid national and state politics (other than library politics) on this blog. It hasn’t always been easy. It’s not easy now.

I’m tempted to talk about the level of deceit involved in claiming that a January 2008 interview, the full audio and video of which has always been available on a newspaper’s website (with the newspaper promoting those links) was somehow “hidden” by “liberal media,” but I won’t. I guess “hidden” can mean whatever you want it to mean, including “the newspaper didn’t actually visit us in person and insist that we click on the link.”

So I’ll just say this:

Vote–if you haven’t already done so.

I certainly will.


Update Tuesday evening: And did, of course, around 10:30 this morning. Not much of a line, but a steady flow–even though it looks like most people in our precinct voted by mail. (Little by little, California seems to be moving toward entirely mail voting on a voluntary basis–but they also close polling places when the number of non-mail voters drops below a certain number.)

Still, even with all the early voting and mail voting, every “booth” was in use; I filled in my ballot out in the open rather than wait. (Here in the heart of Silicon Valley, we use huge heavy-paper optical-scanned forms, which will be scanned somewhere else this evening. We had voting machines for one or two elections. Not any more. The ballot was on both sides of two big pages, partly because the full “summary” of each of 16 state and local propositions has to appear.)


This blog is protected by dr Dave\\\\\\\'s Spam Karma 2: 69795 Spams eaten and counting...

Bad Behavior has blocked 891 access attempts in the last 7 days.