Sotomayor is the best.
Sotomayor is the best.
Blueprint of IKEA
I am a screenwriter with friends who make a living as crew film and television.
I have another friend who has a coding business (that, admittedly, I don’t fully understand, as it’s not my expertise).
Client: I want to make a commercial for [his product].
Me: Ok, great! What did you have in mind?
He excitedly tells me his idea. His passion is clear, but I know it’d be one boring commercial.
Me: Ok, um… yeah, we could do that. I could write a script for [low price because he’s a friend] and then I know a few people who could work on the commercial at a discount. We’d just need to get a good location and—
Client: Oh, I’ve got the location, we can shoot in my backyard.
Client: And I wouldn’t be paying anybody - especially at those prices. But I’m sure when they hear the project, they’d love to jump on board.
Me: Well, all the people I mentioned are professionals and -
Client: Do you know how many people would kill for an opportunity like this? This could make us all a lot of money.
Me: Well, again, they’re all professionals and would need to get paid up front for their time on set.
Client: But they’re just friends of yours. And we’ll be shooting in my backyard.
Me: Yeah, but these friends of mine are working professionals who make way more than the prices I mentioned. I might be able to convince them to work at that rate since it’s my script we’d be producing, but I won’t be able to push any further than that.
Client: But I’m sure they’d love this project and want to jump on board.
Me: For free…
Me: You know what, I actually don’t think I’ll have time.
Client: Oh. That sucks. Well, give me your friends’ contact info so I can still get them.
Image: Wikimedia Commons
In 1960 Jane Goodall watched a chimpanzee repeatedly poking pieces of grass into a termite mound in order to “fish” for insects, the first observation of tool use among animals. When she notified anthropologist Louis Leakey of her discovery, he responded with a telegram:
NOW WE MUST REDEFINE TOOL, REDEFINE MAN, OR ACCEPT CHIMPANZEES AS HUMAN.
Pretend that you’ve never seen this before and that it’s an actual living person whose personality you’re trying to read. If you look directly at her face, she seems to hesitate, but if you look near it, say beyond her at the landscape, and try to sense her mood, she smiles at you.
In studying this systematically, Harvard neurobiologist Margaret Livingstone found that “if you look at this painting so that your center of gaze falls on the background or her hands, Mona Lisa’s mouth — which is then seen by your peripheral, low-resolution, vision — appears much more cheerful than when you look directly at it, when it is seen by your fine-detail fovea.
“This explains its elusive quality — you literally can’t catch her smile by looking at it. Every time you look directly at her mouth, her smile disappears because your central vision does not perceive coarse image components very well. People don’t realize this because most of us are not aware of how we move our eyes around or that our peripheral vision is able to see some things better than our central vision. Mona Lisa smiles until you look at her mouth, and then her smile fades, like a dim star that disappears when you look directly at it.”
(From her book Vision and Art: The Biology of Seeing, 2002.)
The mobsters in the Sopranos only ever mention "this thing of ours."
The word zombie is never used in Night of the Living Dead.
The word Mafia is never used in The Godfather.
The Dima Clarity is a $12,000 case for your iPhone 5. It also fits the iPhone 5C, in case you want to protect your $99 phone with something 121 times more expensive.
Should you ask a question during seminar?
Phyllis Schlafly, Asshole of the Day for April 16, 2014
In the last month or two equal pay laws and the gender pay gap have been in the news, and the excuses to do nothing about this have been all over the place. And not in a good way. So far we’ve seen:
But of course all those people are rookies compared to Phyllis Schlafly, who won’t be left out of the conversation. She’s been pushing for women to be second class citizens for 40 years! Her argument against equal pay laws? Women won’t find husbands if they’re paid equal to men:
While women prefer to HAVE a higher-earning partner, men generally prefer to BE the higher-earning partner in a relationship. This simple but profound difference between the sexes has powerful consequences for the so-called pay gap.
Suppose the pay gap between men and women were magically eliminated. If that happened, simple arithmetic suggests that half of women would be unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate.
Obviously, I’m not saying women won’t date or marry a lower-earning men, only that they probably prefer not to. If a higher-earning man is not available, many women are more likely not to marry at all. […]
The best way to improve economic prospects for women is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap.
If you boil down her argument, it’s
Some women prefer a man who makes more money than them
AND most men prefer to make more money than their wife
THEREFORE it’s good for women that men are paid more.
But does this even make sense? No. Since not every woman will eventually get married to a man— because some won’t get married, and because others will marry women— that prior to getting married, it would be better for women not to be paid less than men as a rule, because they won’t know whether they will fall into the married to men, married to women, or not married later in life category. The women who don’t end up married to a man will be sacrificing fair wages but not getting the “benefit” of better paid husbands.
And even among the women who do get married to men, there’s two other problems that Ms. Schlafly isn’t addressing— divorce and death. What happens when this better paid husband is gone? Should the woman forgo fair earnings then too? With half of all marriages ending in divorce, why should women ever accept unfair wages just to prop up the wages of husbands who may not be there when they need them?
And let’s go back to her original statement as well— Ms. Schlafly says that not all women prefer a man who makes more, nor do all men prefer to make more. But those people should just suffer along with the single women and gay women and the divorcees and widows so that some women can get better paid husbands.
And, yes, she’s old, so it may be understandable that she still thinks these things. But this isn’t a case of your 90-year-old grandma with outdated views lovingly giving advice to her granddaughter. She is still in the public sphere trying to influence policy. And she’s wrong. And if her policies are followed it will continue to impoverish millions of women and their children. And for what?
So, for saying women should accept lower wages to prop up their prospects for a husband, Phyllis Schlafly is the Asshole of the Day.
It is Phyllis Schlafly’s first time as Asshole of the Day.
Full story: Think Progress
1. Hmm. First name is the surname, or what Americans call the “last name,” a family name. Last name in sequence is a personal name. A clan of one man. Can’t believe we haven’t talked about this before.
2. 武当派 Wu Tang Sect/Clan (fictional) named after the 武当山 Wu Dang Mountains (real)
Quoth Wikipedia: home to a famous complex of Taoist temples and monasteries which are especially associated with the god Zhenwu. As a counterpart to the buddhist Shaolin Monastery, Wudang is renowned for the practice of Chinese martial arts.
3. Clan and its practices first invented by Chinese “wuxia” (martial arts and chivalry) novelist Louis Cha Leung-yung, alias Jin Yong. Though all are based in actual martial arts, some of the more awesome fictional styles created by Cha are:
Conclusion: the image is still humorous.
Peeps are gross #thereisaidit
What Your Beer Says About You
via Mike Vago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s plan to tag and track us all is going swimmingly, from a creepy, voyeuristic perspective, according to federal documents. Released by the FBI in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the records reveal plans to stick the mugs of almost one in six Americans into the Next Generation Identification (NGI) program’s facial recognition database by next year.
Combined with the more than 120 million faces in state databases and the feds’ tolerance for a remarkably high false-positive rate, your chances of getting fingered for somebody else’s misdeeds are getting pretty good.
Today’s Junior Scientist Power Hour is all about ladies and their weird periods! What are periods? We don’t really know. But you can always tell when a woman is on her period because she has opinions that men don’t like, and sometimes they get mad!
It’s not like women get mad any other times, or that even if a woman is on her period, you should still listen to the words she says and not write them off as “crazy uterus talk”