Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Monday, March 15, 2010
Nursery Work
Before:
After:
It's not really noticeable in the pictures, but the wall is actually a different color now. (Sand instead of off white)
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Quick FYI
Calling someone's workplace and leaving a message that implies that they do no work is slander. Should you actually cause that someone to lose their job, you can be sued for slander. That doesn't scare you? Well, think of it this way: If someone is 40, and you cause them to lose a job paying a measly $25k a year that they may have stayed at until retirement at 65, that is a base (25k x 15 years) actual damages suit of $1,125,000. It'll probably be more, assuming the plaintiff's lawyer isn't sleeping through the case, and assuming the judge will also slap you with a nice punitive damage award as well.
Don't have a million bucks sitting around? Don't worry, the court can force you to liquidate most of your assets to pay; including your house, your business, your car, etc.
Maybe you should think about that before acting like a psycho.
Don't have a million bucks sitting around? Don't worry, the court can force you to liquidate most of your assets to pay; including your house, your business, your car, etc.
Maybe you should think about that before acting like a psycho.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
New to me Taurus PT92
If this type of gun looks familiar, it's probably because you watch movies. Or TV. Or don't live under a rock. The Taurus PT92 has been featured in numerous screen roles, as has its older brother, the Beretta 92. (John McClane's gun in Die Hard was a Beretta 92) The difference is that the Beretta has a slide-mounted safety lever, and the Taurus has a frame mounted one. Sometimes you will see them actually interchanged between scenes in movies. In one shot the character is holding a Beretta, and the next angle shows them holding a gun that looks exactly the same except the safety moved.
The Beretta 92 is also known as the US Military M9 pistol. If you know anybody in the military, chances are they fired this gun at some point in their career, even if just to qualify in basic.
I owned a nice stainless Taurus snub nose revolver that I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with, so I basically traded it in for a semi-auto that I could shoot a little better. It doesn't hurt that the Taurus PT92 has been around forever, so that there are plenty of pre-ban magazines floating around for it. Here in NY, we can't have magazines manufactured after Sept, 1994 that hold more than 10 rounds. The PT92 has pre-ban magazines that hold 15 rounds of 9mm ammo.
Yippee Ki Yay, Motherfucker!
Taurus PT92 w/rail Horizontal Shoulder Holster
I just wanted to post this up in case anybody else in the US is looking for a leather horizontal shoulder holster that fits the Taurus PT92 w/rail. I just spent the last week searching out, emailing, and calling leather holster makers looking for one, and I wouldn't wish this frustration on anybody. (That's not exactly true. Governor Patterson, I am looking at you...)
After trying Bianchi, Galco, Mitch Rosen, and a couple dozen other holster makers, I finally found one that makes the type of shoulder holster I was looking for: High Noon Holsters. Their model "Under Taker" and "Under Armor" both have holsters that can fit the PT92 and PT99 with rails. Of course, they aren't listed as such. You'll have to pick Beretta 92FS Vertec to get the right fit. (I asked them just to make sure.)
If you aren't as picky as I am, Bianchi makes a soft nylon horizontal shoulder holster called the Tuxedo that fits the PT92 w/rail. I just don't like generic nylon holsters.
After trying Bianchi, Galco, Mitch Rosen, and a couple dozen other holster makers, I finally found one that makes the type of shoulder holster I was looking for: High Noon Holsters. Their model "Under Taker" and "Under Armor" both have holsters that can fit the PT92 and PT99 with rails. Of course, they aren't listed as such. You'll have to pick Beretta 92FS Vertec to get the right fit. (I asked them just to make sure.)
If you aren't as picky as I am, Bianchi makes a soft nylon horizontal shoulder holster called the Tuxedo that fits the PT92 w/rail. I just don't like generic nylon holsters.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Amazon vs Macmillan
Look, when I was a kid, a brand new hardcover cost $15. Then it went up to $20, $25, and now a lot of them are close to $30. The whole time the publishing companies cried cost of publishing increases and inflation.
Now that they are fighting with Amazon, some publishers claim that the printing cost of the book is only 8 - 10%. Wait, why did the cost of books skyrocket if the printing prices didn't really skyrocket? Oh, right, convenient excuse to raise prices and increase profits.
Look, I'm not ignorant. I know publishers pay to advertise (some books) and have other assorted costs. But, I also know how businesses operate. Any excuse to drive that bottom line as high as it can go. Macmillan is skirting the issue that for e-books, they are really just a middle man. So sorry that you can't grab fistfuls of cash for each book sold on Kindle, but you didn't really do much to earn it. Welcome to the future. You can now join the RIAA in trying to extort people since you can't sell them overpriced product like you used to.
And Amazon? They're not completely innocent. Obviously they are in it to make money as well. But, as a consumer, Amazon's $9.99 price point looks a LOT better for a few KB of information than almost the same price as a hardcover. Why would publishers think that you would spend $25 for a Kindle version of a book that costs $27 in a book store? Oh, wait. They don't. They want you to buy the real book, because they make more money from you that way. Sure, Amazon makes more money than the publisher from Kindle book sales. Duh. They marketed it, sold it, sent it to you on a cell signal they pay for, and let you read it on a device they paid to develop and market.
Pulling all Macmillan stock from sale was a pretty douchey move overall, but I get where Amazon is coming from. Hi. We're Amazon. We'd like it to go this way, and if it doesn't, well, we'll see how you like losing sales from the largest online market in the world for a few days. I'm sure that will press home the point. We'll see how it actually works out.
Now that they are fighting with Amazon, some publishers claim that the printing cost of the book is only 8 - 10%. Wait, why did the cost of books skyrocket if the printing prices didn't really skyrocket? Oh, right, convenient excuse to raise prices and increase profits.
Look, I'm not ignorant. I know publishers pay to advertise (some books) and have other assorted costs. But, I also know how businesses operate. Any excuse to drive that bottom line as high as it can go. Macmillan is skirting the issue that for e-books, they are really just a middle man. So sorry that you can't grab fistfuls of cash for each book sold on Kindle, but you didn't really do much to earn it. Welcome to the future. You can now join the RIAA in trying to extort people since you can't sell them overpriced product like you used to.
And Amazon? They're not completely innocent. Obviously they are in it to make money as well. But, as a consumer, Amazon's $9.99 price point looks a LOT better for a few KB of information than almost the same price as a hardcover. Why would publishers think that you would spend $25 for a Kindle version of a book that costs $27 in a book store? Oh, wait. They don't. They want you to buy the real book, because they make more money from you that way. Sure, Amazon makes more money than the publisher from Kindle book sales. Duh. They marketed it, sold it, sent it to you on a cell signal they pay for, and let you read it on a device they paid to develop and market.
Pulling all Macmillan stock from sale was a pretty douchey move overall, but I get where Amazon is coming from. Hi. We're Amazon. We'd like it to go this way, and if it doesn't, well, we'll see how you like losing sales from the largest online market in the world for a few days. I'm sure that will press home the point. We'll see how it actually works out.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Why I liked Pandorum
I usually don't read reviews of movies before I watch them. I find that reviews tend to bias my watching of a film, and I'd rather make up my own mind. It's after I watch the film that I like to casually browse some reviews and just see what others think.
Avatar was interesting because it is so popular and so huge that there seems to be a big chunk of people out there that hate the film just because it is popular. (See my previous blog about the story originality complaints as well...) I had seen the previews, and since I try to keep abreast of upcoming movie news, I had known about Avatar for a while. But I didn't read any of the press before going to see the movie, because I only wanted my own prejudices to effect my viewing. Therefore, unsurprisingly, I loved Avatar. I figured that I would like it just because I like pretty much everything James Cameron has ever done. Reading the reviews after seeing it, I was shocked at the number of people that cannot seem to get past the "lack of originality" or who just seem to hate it because it is popular.
Pandorum was different because I have only seen previews of the movie. Sci-fi? Check. Looks interesting? Check. OK, I want to see this. I have never heard of the director. I like Dennis Quaid, but - let's face it - he's been in some pretty shitty movies in the past. I vaguely remembered seeing Ben Foster in something, but I couldn't recall what it was or if he was any good, so that added no baggage. I watched Pandorum with only the hope that it would be a decent sci-fi movie. I loved it. Reading the reviews after watching Pandorum, I had to laugh. Still a high percentage of people who think it is unoriginal - GASP! OH EMM GEE! The plot has been done before? No way! Surely not in our thousands of years of history! - but there were a lot of people who didn't like other things. Things - for the most part - that were reasons I loved the movie.
Thing number one: The movie doesn't explain everything!
You have no idea how much I like this. This is probably the one thing that absolutely sold me on this movie. I love when a film assumes that the audience is smart enough to make the connections on their own and doesn't need to be hand-held through long exposition scenes just to know what is going on. Pandorum gives you exactly as much information as you need to put together what is going on in the main plot, and leaves hints and clues all over for you to pick up on about why this is all happening and how. Why does the agricultural crew member not speak English? Where do the monsters come from, how does the Corporal figure out who was who at the end, and where did the crew go? The film never directly answers these questions, but they give you enough bits of information to figure out an explanation on your own.
Thing two: Originality.
I know, I discuss this ad-nauseum. Here's the thing with unoriginality: EVERYTHING is unoriginal if you want to look at it that way. Yes, everything is derivative. Somebody already used all the elements separately in something else. Great, have a field day hating anything and everything because it has all been done before.
To me, the B (and sometimes even A) movies that pretty much copy every element from another movie and think that you won't notice if they add a twist or two are unoriginal. Hey, let's make Aliens, but we'll make our beasts look different. And, instead of a reactor going critical, it'll be the planet is going to explode because the core is unstable! And they won't be space marines, they'll be, uh... space paratroopers! Yeah!
I liked the story behind Pandorum. I liked that although they may have borrowed elements from many different places - and everybody does this, so no complaints there - they put them together in a way that made sense and pushed the story along.
Thing three: The acting.
I'm going to keep this short. I thought the acting was good. Dennis Quaid and Ben Foster were totally believable as crew members who woke up to a nightmare and had to figure out a way to fix it. The rest of the cast was spot on as well.
Thing 4: The special and visual effects.
A lot of people complained about these, but I thought they were well done and not overused. Actually, if I had to use one word to describe them, it would be reserved. Enough to convey what needed to be conveyed, but not overblown and ridiculous. Nothing exploded for the sake of a cool explosion, nothing threw lens flare all over the screen in every other scene. In fact, I think the filmmakers should give Michael Bay some lessons.
So aside from being well done sci-fi (something that is rare enough to be a treat when it comes along), Pandorum was also just a good movie. I'm not sure how well it did in the theater, but hopefully - like Pitch Black - this will find a big audience now that it is out on DVD and BD. I know I would love to see more stories in this setting.
Avatar was interesting because it is so popular and so huge that there seems to be a big chunk of people out there that hate the film just because it is popular. (See my previous blog about the story originality complaints as well...) I had seen the previews, and since I try to keep abreast of upcoming movie news, I had known about Avatar for a while. But I didn't read any of the press before going to see the movie, because I only wanted my own prejudices to effect my viewing. Therefore, unsurprisingly, I loved Avatar. I figured that I would like it just because I like pretty much everything James Cameron has ever done. Reading the reviews after seeing it, I was shocked at the number of people that cannot seem to get past the "lack of originality" or who just seem to hate it because it is popular.
Pandorum was different because I have only seen previews of the movie. Sci-fi? Check. Looks interesting? Check. OK, I want to see this. I have never heard of the director. I like Dennis Quaid, but - let's face it - he's been in some pretty shitty movies in the past. I vaguely remembered seeing Ben Foster in something, but I couldn't recall what it was or if he was any good, so that added no baggage. I watched Pandorum with only the hope that it would be a decent sci-fi movie. I loved it. Reading the reviews after watching Pandorum, I had to laugh. Still a high percentage of people who think it is unoriginal - GASP! OH EMM GEE! The plot has been done before? No way! Surely not in our thousands of years of history! - but there were a lot of people who didn't like other things. Things - for the most part - that were reasons I loved the movie.
Thing number one: The movie doesn't explain everything!
You have no idea how much I like this. This is probably the one thing that absolutely sold me on this movie. I love when a film assumes that the audience is smart enough to make the connections on their own and doesn't need to be hand-held through long exposition scenes just to know what is going on. Pandorum gives you exactly as much information as you need to put together what is going on in the main plot, and leaves hints and clues all over for you to pick up on about why this is all happening and how. Why does the agricultural crew member not speak English? Where do the monsters come from, how does the Corporal figure out who was who at the end, and where did the crew go? The film never directly answers these questions, but they give you enough bits of information to figure out an explanation on your own.
Thing two: Originality.
I know, I discuss this ad-nauseum. Here's the thing with unoriginality: EVERYTHING is unoriginal if you want to look at it that way. Yes, everything is derivative. Somebody already used all the elements separately in something else. Great, have a field day hating anything and everything because it has all been done before.
To me, the B (and sometimes even A) movies that pretty much copy every element from another movie and think that you won't notice if they add a twist or two are unoriginal. Hey, let's make Aliens, but we'll make our beasts look different. And, instead of a reactor going critical, it'll be the planet is going to explode because the core is unstable! And they won't be space marines, they'll be, uh... space paratroopers! Yeah!
I liked the story behind Pandorum. I liked that although they may have borrowed elements from many different places - and everybody does this, so no complaints there - they put them together in a way that made sense and pushed the story along.
Thing three: The acting.
I'm going to keep this short. I thought the acting was good. Dennis Quaid and Ben Foster were totally believable as crew members who woke up to a nightmare and had to figure out a way to fix it. The rest of the cast was spot on as well.
Thing 4: The special and visual effects.
A lot of people complained about these, but I thought they were well done and not overused. Actually, if I had to use one word to describe them, it would be reserved. Enough to convey what needed to be conveyed, but not overblown and ridiculous. Nothing exploded for the sake of a cool explosion, nothing threw lens flare all over the screen in every other scene. In fact, I think the filmmakers should give Michael Bay some lessons.
So aside from being well done sci-fi (something that is rare enough to be a treat when it comes along), Pandorum was also just a good movie. I'm not sure how well it did in the theater, but hopefully - like Pitch Black - this will find a big audience now that it is out on DVD and BD. I know I would love to see more stories in this setting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)