This is a short film made by just one guy in his spare time. There's no plot, it's just a collection of REALLY HIGH FIDELITY rendered scenes, mostly of empty buildings and things. It's just very pretty and looks almost indistinguishable from reality. (Granted, this is easier since it's just buildings and not people, but it's still impressive for one guy.)

I personally like it a lot because I have to do lots of rendering for classes and I can see the sheer amount of work that the guy put into it. The craft, I guess. If you're into that sort of thing you should give it a watch.

http://vimeo.com/channels/hd#7809605

Joern Utzon is the architect who designed the famous Sydney Opera House, one of Australia's most prominent opera houses.



I am studying to be an architect so he's kind of a big deal, and today the opera house is one of the most iconic buildings in the world with its multiple white sails. It's said that Utzon got his inspiration from peeling an orange, which gives you an idea of how arbitrary design inspirations can be.

Regardless, the man was fantastic at what he did and the Sydney Opera House is darkening in mourning, which is a nice way to go.

http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/world/2008/11/29/D94P32080_as_australia_utzon/index.html

So in looking through next semester's film studies class, I found a few auteur theory classes, which examine directors like Hitchcock, Spielberg, the Coen brothers, and Antonioni. Antonioni is a name I've never heard of, and looking through wikipedia all his works are pretty old so I doubt I'll be able to watch something of his online.

So, uh, if any of you have seen his stuff, tell me what you think of him. Is he worth studying?

http://gizmodo.com/5018156/confirmed-phoenix-finds-ice-on-mars

So as Phoenix was digging, it knocked off a few ice particles, which have since melted. This is good news though, because that means we're getting closer to hitting a studyable patch of ice.

What do y'all think?

I've been reading Bill Jordan's The Common Good recently, who talks about an alternative form of social welfare (and a limited form of economic redistribution).

The current system in the United States, quite frankly, blows. You are eligible for welfare if you make under the poverty income line, PLUS you have to pass tests to show that you aren't slacking - you're actively working a part-time job or you're looking. In some cases, the government will provide menial labor in which you have to work to receive welfare.

The reason this all falls apart is because the poor aren't given any incentive to rise into middle class society. Welfare depends on your income, so once they get a higher-paying job they lose their welfare checks, and any increase in their wages are not worth the loss in welfare money. Therefore the poor don't have any reason to try and become self-sufficient, and will forever rely on government money.

Bill Jordan proposes providing everyone (of working age), regardless of gender, race, or age, a basic income - enough for subsistence - as a part of citizenship. Being a citizen automatically entitles you to basic income.

He provides the following reasons:

1. The poor will be far more integrated into the workforce. Providing subsistence level income doesn't mean everyone can slack off and just suck the government tit - people are always looking to improve their social status, or at least reach a comfortable standard of living. Most people won't settle for subsistence. There will, of course, be some people in the middle class who will leave and just settle for part-time jobs, but there will be more than enough supply of workers from the poor to replace them.

2. Companies will, hopefully, provide more flexibility in employment. Right now, it's either full time employment or unemployment, with part-time jobs being primarily the domain of students, single mothers, the poor, etc. By providing basic income, some people will be able to (and would rather) work only part-time. The higher availability of part-time jobs will also benefit the poor. (We are assuming these part-time jobs will let workers advance in the company, provide health benefts, etc - just like full time jobs do now - only more flexible in terms of hours.)

The reason why I haven't mentioned the rich is because they make so much that many of them can already choose to not work and live off their monthly savings account interest.

I have been told that a few countries like Australia and Sweden already provide a partial base income (below subsistence), but I have no idea how they've been working out.

The main criticisms I can think of are: Americans will never go for it (can't do nuthin about that, can ya), it will be prohibitively expensive (which is true, but couldnt the government shift their budget around to make it less so? Perhaps I m being naive.), and it will make everyone sloths and not work (which I have already addressed in #1).

So, any thoughts?

The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday, saying sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

"We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.

The ruling surprised legal experts because the court has a reputation for being conservative. Six of its seven judges are Republican appointees.

"I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," Schwarzenegger said in a statement issued Thursday. "Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

So yeah, this will make California the second state to legalize gay marriage!

specifically, her anti-feminism. I mean, is she seriously making arguments like "a woman being brutally killed alongside men is a long-awaited feminist dream of equality." or is that completely taken out of context?

So as a favor for my friend's frat fundraising thing, I subscribed to UTNE Reader. I was choosing between that and Seed Magazine and this seemed to have more stuff I wouldn't find online or read about otherwise.

(copy paste from wikipedia)
Utne Reader is an American bimonthly magazine. The magazine collects and reprints articles from generally alternative media sources, including journals, newsletters, weeklies, zines, music, and DVDs. In addition, the magazine’s writers and editors contribute original articles, which tend to focus on emerging cultural trends.

Seed (subtitled Beneath the Surface, then Science Is Culture) is a science magazine published bimonthly by Seed Media Group and distributed internationally. Each issue looks at big ideas in science, important issues at the intersection of science and society, and the people driving global science culture.

So do you guys still have magazine subscriptions? Or has the internet replaced them for you?

Edit: Also what can you tell me about UTNE (did I just waste $15)?

This has been all around the tech world since yesterday so let's talk about it.

Every year, a consumer electronics trade show is held in Las Vegas. Attendees go to see the latest technology that the various big companies are planning to release that year - a preview, if you will. This also serves as important publicity as favorable impressions at the show result in higher exposure to the general public.

Gizmodo is a well-known blog that makes over 50 posts a day. Their posts are often immature but due to their sheer volume and breadth many people still read it to keep up with the latest. This year they decided to pull a prank by bringing TV-B-Gone remotes (which allows you to turn off TVs from most brands through IR signals) and shutting off dozens of TVs at the show.

My first reaction was that this was a funny trick. Then I realized that first of all, they didn't build this thing. They just brought one along. So there goes your "Wow that's a clever thing to do" geek reaction. And second, this is the CES. This isn't like walking into an electronics store and shutting off a wall of TVs just so you can watch the staff scramble to fix it while you pat yourself on the back for being "clever" and giggle. People, both attendees and companies, paid exorbitant amounts of money to be there, and the prank affected many presentations and live demos that were really important to them.

I really would not be surprised if Gizmodo gets sued over this. Seriously, this is high-school level shit. Have some professionalism.

Edit: Oh, also, link.