Denis Sheshko

"- Ввиду того, что в последнее время на форуме постоянно муссируется один, вернее, два вопроса - где взять денех и как прославиться, предлагаю новую тему, куда можно загружать свои соображения на этот счёт. Идея принадлежит весёлому и талантливому человеку Вячеславу Люлько, очень надеюсь, что он к нам присоединится.

 А пока первые три вредных совета:

Вредный совет первый.
Изучи спрос и удовлетвори его.
Секс, насилие, загадки, религиозная символика, ужас, мистика, сентиментальность, красивость — на всем этом можно сделать деньги, так как основной массе потребителя необходимо все перечисленное, чтобы от слез хотя бы просморкаться, сидя в уютном кресле.

Вредный совет второй.
Узнай, какой стиль сегодня востребован. (Шилов, Глазунов, Сафронов, Сатаров,…. узнай наверняка, за что миллионы консервативных обывателей готовы выложить свои деньги).

Вредный совет третий.
Изучи приемы выбранного стиля, на котором планируешь паразитировать. Усвоив их, выставляй напоказ внешние эффекты этого стиля. Огорошивай придумками. Саморекламируй себя. Кокотствуй со зрителем.

Вредный совет четвертый.
Будь поверхностным.
Большие, прогрессивные художники, приобщают зрителя к слишком высокой красоте, к слишком сложному духовному просветлению. Получается, что зрителю нужно вырасти, т. е. совершить некое усилие.
Таких зрителей — меньшинство. Это не твой зритель.

Вредный совет пятый.
Помни, что ты — побирушка, паразитирующий на работах прогрессивных художников.
Некрасиво сказал.
Ты постмодернист. Словно кочевник, ты путешествуешь по истории искусств, пользуясь ей, как архивом собственных работ.
Теперь красиво.

Вредный совет шестой:
Паразитируй на своих старых работах.
Паразитируй даже на работах  других художников, а так же на работах паразитирующих художников: и т. д., и т. п.
 

Дискуссия изменила русло от вредных советов перешли к вопросу: что первично яйцо или курица? а затем углубились в область религиозной символики, потеряв при этом еще 4 совета:)

"- ко мне спускаются ангелы,когда я сплю и нежно шепчут о картинах,а утром я встаю и рисую голубей в розочках)))))))

- Росу на розочках не забудьте, эффектно смотрится))

- цена 5000000)))в этой работе учавствовали ангелы)))))))

- А мне чагойто Сафронов приснился... Это к чему?)

- Вредный совет десятый.
Большинству зрителей приятно осознавать, что они умны. Удовлетвори и эту потребность. Но только знай меру. Рисуй загадочные философские картины, по сложности своей не превышающие картинки в «Мурзилке».

- Как гласит народная премудрость, лучшая женщина та, что прошла мимо, а лучшая картина -которая уже продана.

- Вредный совет одинадцатый.
Закидай комплиментами зеваку тормознувшего у твоей картинки, типа: очки от Диора? дайте телефончик, хочу заказать… или какая сумочка шикарная, Дольчегабана? Всячески подчеркивайте, что у клиента хороший вкус.

- Кстати ещё: Вредный совет:
У положительных героев рисуй глаза побольше, у отрицательных — поменьше.
Единственное исключение — монгольский заказчик.

- но самое главное-блики в глазах-собачьи,огромные...

- Рисуй начальство и оно тебя полюбит. А если не можешь пока получить заказ от сильных мира сего, пиши портреты их жен, детей, на худой конец — собачек.

- Гивиевич, не боИсь... я вот тоже перешла на малый формат. Советую тебе рисовать чо-нить съедобное, можно обменять нарисованное на настоящее :))"

Смешно конечно и есть в этих вредных советах большая доля логики. Но глядя на работы Павловой Марии, все эти советы разом перестают работать: и вроде как все в одном стиле и темы штампованные, и в основном цветочки, птички и кошечки, но как красиво - глаз не оторвать! Тут тебе и легкость кисти, и воздушность, и выдержанность композиции, и какая-то особенная прелесть и невозможность обвинить художницу в отсутствии толанта.

Analysis of 10,000 movies reveals the films with the highest disparity between critic and audience reviews

There are some movies you'll just go and see no matter what the critics say. Maybe it's a big dumb comedy and you feel like a laugh, or there's that one actor who you'll watch no matter what. Conversely, there are some critics who can have a big influence on what you'll see, no matter what your friends say – you know their work, and trust their recommendations.

So, what are the movies that people loved, but critics hated? And what about those movies that got rave reviews but just didn't click with audiences?

To try and answer these questions I've analysed 10,000 movies from 1970 to 2013 in the Rotten Tomatoes database, and determined the difference in audience score and critic score by subtracting the former from the latter. This gives us an index of audience-critic agreement, which I've named the Tisdale-Carano index*.

From this, we can see which movies the audience loved, but the critics hated – which will be more positive, and movies the critics loved but the audience hated – more negative. We can also find out what types of movies fall into these categories – like which actors, directors and genres are most common to each.

You can read more about how I did this below, but first, here are the results.

The top movie that audiences loved but critics hated was 1986 BMX film Rad. Rad tells the story of Cru Jones, who enters and (SPOILER) wins a BMX race called Helltrack. Take a look at the Wikipedia entry for the film, and I'm sure you'll agree it sounds pretty awesome (though obviously not as good as seminal 80s flick BMX Bandits).

Scary Movie 5 topped the list for recent films, with a Tisdale-Carano index of 75. This one is pretty self-explanatory, really: audiences like big dumb comedies, and critics mostly don't.

The list of movies that the critics loved but audiences hated was topped by 1974 film Daisy Miller, a costume drama starring Cybill Shepherd. I was surprised to see Antz (-48) and Spy Kids (-54) in the top 10 most negative – I thought they were both quite popular.

Apart from critic and user ratings, I also analysed the first two actors, director, genre, and recommended audience age rating for the top 200 films from either end of the scale.

Ice Cube and Martin Lawrence were tied for the most appearances in strongly positive films, at four each, closely followed by actors such as Vin Diesel and Angelina Jolie.

At the other end of the scale we have the incomparable Jeff Bridges, who had five films in the strongly negative list – obviously something of a critical darling. His films included Winter Kills (1977), The Fabulous Baker Boys (1989), Stay Hungry (1976), Hearts of the West (1975), and The Morning After (2006).

As for directors, the top of the list for most positive were Joel Schumacher, Tyler Perry, and Keenen Ivory Wayans, who each had three films. Tyler Perry also starred in one of his films, Madea's Family Reunion (2006), as well as writing and directing all three.

Jonathan Demme, of Silence of the Lambs fame, had the most movies in the negative list with five.

The US age ratings reflected a younger audience for the positive films, with the largest proportion of films classified as PG-13, compared to the negative list, which was dominated by the next category up: R. This holds with Hollywood's approach to maximise the return on investment by making popular films that appeal to both younger and older viewers.

Here's the full list of movies (leave search field blank to see whole list, and click here to load the database on mobile):

Methods

I used this IMDb list of 10,000 US-released movies from 1970-2013 (though I did notice a film from 1967) to get ID numbers for a large number of movies. I then wrote a program that accesses the Rotten Tomatoes database via their API and grabbed the title, first two actors listed, genres, first director listed, studio, year of release, and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) rating of each movie based on the IMDb number. From this, I removed 2,828 films without a user or critic rating. This produced the dataset for analysis. I created the Tisdale-Carano index by simply subtracting the critic score from the user score, then ranking the entire dataset by this number.

Rotten Tomatoes has previously released a press release listing their own analysis of the top eight films audiences loved but critics hated with documentary Hating Breitbart at the top. This wasn't in the list I used, probably because the list only considered movies with a wide release of 500 cinemas or over. Apart from that, differences between their top 10 and my top 10 are the inclusion of older films in mine – I'm not sure what dates they considered – and Broken Bridges not being in my list – I can't account for this one, I suppose it was just left off the list I used. Also they've got an extra decimal point available, which wasn't available via their API for my data.

Ideally I'd have used a comprehensive list of films from a large time period, but I couldn't get the data from the Rotten Tomatoes API, or find such a list elsewhere.

*I initially ran a pilot of this analysis for 2012-2013 films only, and named the index after the actors on the most positive and negative films – in this case Ashley Tisdale in Scary Movie 5, and Gina Carano in Haywire.

More than half of people believe the level of corruption in their countries has increased over the past two years, according to Transparency International

More than half of people believe the level of corruption in their countries has increased over the past two years, according to the world's largest public opinion survey on the subject.

The 2013 global corruption barometer, released on Tuesday by NGO Transparency International, surveyed 114,270 people in 107 countries. Unlike the better-known corruption perceptions index, which relies on expert opinion, this project surveys the public on their views and experiences of corruption.

More than one in four respondents (27%) said they paid a bribe over the past 12 months when accessing key public institutions and services. Of those who reported paying a bribe, 40% said they did so "to speed things up"; 27% said "it was the only way to obtain a service", while 21% said they paid a bribe "as a gift, or to express gratitude". The remaining 12% of respondents said it was "to get a cheaper service".

Corruption is, by definition, difficult to measure. Transparency International's surveys are among the few sources of data on the subject, though they focus largely on perception. Now in its eighth edition, this year's survey is the largest of its kind and includes some countries, such as Libya and Tunisia, for the first time.

Other key findings from the survey:

• Political parties are considered the most corrupt institution, followed by the police and the judiciary. Globally, religious institutions are seen as least corrupt. In Israel, Japan, Sudan and South Sudan, however, religious bodies were seen to be highly corrupt.

• Nearly two-thirds of respondents said they believe personal contacts and relationships help get things done in the public sector in their country. In 10 countries, including Israel, Italy, Malawi, Russia and Vanuatu, this figure was more than 80%.

• In 2008, 31% of respondents said their government's efforts to fight corruption were effective. This year that figure fell to 22%.

• In the UK, the media and political parties were rated most corrupt and 5% of people surveyed reported paying a bribe.

• Wealthier respondents reported paying bribes more often than their poorer counterparts. Of those with income above their country's average, 31% said they paid a bribe last year, compared with 26% of respondents with below average income.

• Globally, 28% of men reported paying a bribe, compared with 25% of women. In some countries, such as Nepal and Pakistan, many more men reported paying bribes than women. In Colombia, meanwhile, 27% of women reported paying bribes compared with only 16% of men.

Public anger at corruption perceived or uncovered has exploded in recent years, with street protests and citizens' initiatives such as I Paid a Bribe multiplying worldwide. More than half of those surveyed by Transparency International said they would be willing to speak up and report an incident of corruption.

In a report presenting the survey's findings, the NGO argues corruption not only increases the cost of essential services borne by individuals and the public purse, but that perceptions of widespread graft erode essential trust and faith in the democratic and legal process.

"Corruption can, and often does, infringe on fundamental rights. For those surviving on less than $2 a day … the additional cost of bribery can mean trade-offs are made between health and hunger, between school entrance fees and the shoes necessary to wear to school," argues the report, adding: "Bribery not only costs the individual paying the bribe – it also undermines the efficient and equitable allocation of resources, people's respect for the rule of law and the overall integrity of a society."

Corruption has shot up the development agenda in recent years. In the UK, tackling corruption is a key plank of prime minister David Cameron's "golden thread". Some have called for goals and targets on good governance to be included in whatever framework succeeds the millennium development goals, which expire in 2015. The impact of corruption on development, however, remains a subject of debate, as does the level of attention it should receive from aid donors.

"If we're talking about where the world ought to focus its aid energy for the next 15 years, I simply wouldn't use corruption in the same sentence (or even paragraph) as civil war or property rights," argued Columbia University political scientist Chris Blattman in November, pointing to dozens of studies that have failed to find evidence that corruption has an impact on economic growth.

Download the full spreadsheet

• Download the full data

More data

• More data journalism and data visualisations from the Guardian

World government data

• Search the world's government data with our gateway

Development and aid data

• Search the world's global development data with our gateway

Can you do something with this data?

• Post your visualisations and mash-ups on our Flickr group
• Contact us at data@guardian.co.uk
• Get the A-Z of data
• More at the Datastore directory
• Follow the Guardian data team on Twitter
• Follow the Guardian Global development team on Twitter

Пишут, что одними из первых на новый закон Канзаса, который разрешает учителям и другим сотрудникам приходить в школы с оружием, отреагировали страховщики. EMC Insurance Co, которая страхует от 85% до 90% школ штата, отказалась продлевать полисы. Как утверждает компания, это не политическое решение: их анализ говорит, что риск чересчур велик, чтобы игра стоила свеч. Nothing personal, just business.

Есть давние дебаты о том, повышает или понижает преступность свободное владение оружием. Обе стороны приводят простыни цифр, сравнивают Британию и Швейцарию, срывают голоса в споре, но так ни в чем друг друга не могут убедить. Похоже, однако, что вопрос дискуссионен только до тех пор, пока диспутанты не начинают отвечать за свои позиции деньгами.

Кстати, с климатом та же история: страховые компании, которым платить за продолжение банкета, не разделяют мнения других представителей большого бизнеса по этому вопросу.

Это напоминает эксперименты Буллока, Гербера, Хюбера и Хилла, описанные вот тут. Авторы задавали людям, характеризовавшим себя как республиканцы или демократы, вопросы с политическим подтекстом. Ответы сильно зависели от партийной принадлежности. Например, упали ли потери американских войск в Ираке в последние годы президентства Буша-младшего (республиканцы: да, демократы: нет, верно: да) или выросла ли при Буше-младшем безработица (республиканцы: нет, демократы: да, верно: да). Однако ситуация резко менялась, если испытуемым платили за правильные ответы (среди тех, кто отвечал верно, разыгрывались подарочные сертификаты от Амазона). Разрыв между мнениями демократов и республиканцев падал на 55% (на 80%, если разрешалось отвечать "не знаю").

Какие чудеса, однако, рынок животворящий делает.

Feòrag NicBhrìde provides a handy map on how to say beer in European countries. This is important. [via Boing Boing]

The Economist covered a handful of visualization books in this week's issue, and Data Points was in the bunch (nice). Here is the review's accompanying video:

Совершенно охренительная статья Эзры Клейна о FISA, специальном секретном суде, который дает разрешение на слежку. То есть я и раньше знал, что суд этот совещается в тайне, что выслушивает он только одну сторону, что в просьбе он почти никогда не отказывает, а разрешение его окончательно и обжалованию не подлежит. Но я не знал, как формируется этот суд.

Оказывается, судей в него назначает лично Верховный судья США Джон Робертс. Когда у члена FISA срок дежурства кончается, Робертс выбирает ему замену. Сам, никому не объясняя своего решения и ни перед кем (даже перед Верховным судом) не отчитываясь.

Сравним это с властью Президента США. Президент может назначить, например, директора NSA. Это его решение утверждает Сенат после открытых слушаний, причем утверждение кандидата далеко не гарантировано. Даже если у партии президента большинство в сенате, меньшинство долго проветривает грязное белье кандидата и может устроить обструкцию. Не забудем, что эта власть у президента временная: максимум на восемь лет.

Кандидатуры, подобранные судьей Робертсом, не нуждаются ни в чьем утверждении или обсуждении. Его решение окончательно. Более того, Робертс будет назначать судей FISA всю свою жизнь - ну разве что сам захочет уйти на пенсию или получит импичмент после вопиющего преступления.

Надо сказать, что у Робертса есть одно ограничение, которого нет у президента. Теоретически президент может назначить на пост директора NSA кого угодно (ну, может, нельзя не гражданина США, но я не уверен). Робертс может назначить в FISA только кого-то из федеральных судей. Но так как судей этих за три тысячи, назначенных разными президентами и имеющих разнообразные взгляды, это ограничение не так уж велико.

Робертс - республиканец. Возможно, поэтому сейчас в FISA десять республиканцев и один демократ. Кстати, поскольку именно суд FISA разрешил программу PRISM по сбору метаданных, теории правых о зловещем плане демократов и лично Обамы по превращению Америки в тоталитарное государство выглядят несколько смешно.

В общем, интересная штука, этот суд FISA.

EVERY month we ask a group of economic forecasters to predict GDP growth, consumer prices and current-account balances in 14 economies (see this month’s poll here). The charts below show the range of our pollsters' predictions for economic growth and inflation this year. Forecasts for Japanese GDP growth were the most wide-ranging, varying from 1.1% to 2.4%. Conversely our panel were most in agreement about the economies of Spain and the euro area as a whole: the average consensus being contractions of 1.7% and 0.6%, respectively. Of the countries covered in our poll, Britain is expected to face the biggest rise in prices in 2013, with an average forecast of 2.7%. Prices in Japan are predicted to rise marginally, but the expectation for next year is of a 1.8% rise after the Bank of Japan's recent promise to inject $1.4 trillion into the economy in its quest to achieve 2% inflation in around two years. 

View infographic

New York Times намекает, что возмущение европейцев тем, что спецслужбы США за ними подслушивают, скорее всего, наигранное. Одно предположение в этой статье заставило меня задуматься.

Закон запрещает слежку за гражданами США без разрешения суда. Кстати, глобальный сбор метаданных, о котором все говорят, делался именно по ордеру суда. Я согласен, что суд, о котором идет речь, FISA court, карманный и секретный. С 2000 года он рассмотрел 21668 (двадцать одну тысячу шестьсот шестьдесят восемь) просьб о слежке, и отказал ровно в 11 (одиннадцати); ещё 218 просьб были "модифицированы". Тем не менее суд есть суд: есть какой-то надзор, остается "бумажный след" и т.д. Недаром Буш-младший старался его обходить - и преуспел.

Однако никакие законы не запрещают спецслужбам США следить за гражданами, скажем, Германии. Это понятно. Разведка может без всякого ордера подслушивать любого иностранца за границей: для этого она и существует, верно?

Но верно и другое: законы Германии запрещают немецким спецслужбам следить за гражданами Германии без разрешения немецкого суда. А вот за американцами они могут следить невозбранно.

А теперь сделаем ещё шажочек: США и Германия - союзники. Их спецслужбы сотрудничают в рамках массы соглашений. И какие законы запрещают в ходе сотрудничества обмениваться результатами слежки? Как пишет NYT, "наивно предполагать, что союзные разведывательные агентства не обмениваются данными, которые может собирать одно агентство, но не может другое".

Так что не зря европейцы так боятся Сноудена - по ходу боливийского президента оскорбили. Есть мнение, что Сноуден может рассказать кое-что весьма интересное не только про США.

Jeremy Hunt has announced a public consultation on an issue he claims loses the NHS millions of pounds each year: health tourism. Is the Secretary of State for Health correct about the costs?

• Get the words
• Get the numbers

"What we have is a free national health service" said David Cameron in March this year, "not a free international health service". The statement by the Prime Minister was part of a speech about controlling immigration. Since then, the government has decided to conduct an audit to assess just how bad "health tourism" is.

But the problem is apparently so severe that the Secretary of State for Health is announcing measures to tackle it before the audit has assessed the scale of the problem. The potential policies that are being discussed include:

• GP visit charges for those who are in the country less than six months
• Improving the way that the NHS claims costs back from other EU countries
• A tracking system to make sure that visitors are charged for hospital visits

We want to try to add some numbers to what is quickly becoming a buzzword battle: how much does 'health tourism' cost the NHS and how much will it cost to curb it?

Who are health tourists?

Thought the term might inspire images of hospital sightseeing and holiday snaps in waiting rooms, the debate on health tourism is closely associated with the government's efforts to control immigration. Today's announcements come under the slightly more sober heading "proposals to reform migrant access to health and housing".

Assuming that GP visits are one of the less urgent issues facing the government when it comes to illegal immigration, it's likely that the government's audit will focus on the "short term migrants coming to study or work with more than six months on their visas" mentioned in today's press release. And according to the NHS advice service, that's exactly the group of non-UK citizens that are eligible for free treatment.

So the individuals concerned are coming here for other reasons. Free healthcare may influence their choice of destination but it is not the objective of their visit to the UK. The term 'health tourism' doesn't quite capture that.

£12m or billions?

Despite the wide-ranging figures that are being circulated, the government has admitted that the cost of health tourism remains a mystery. As Jeremy Hunt pointed out on the Today Programme "the truth is we don't know the number and that's why we're doing the audit".

Despite that, in his interview this morning Hunt did use the lowest estimate - that health tourism is costing the NHS £12m - to give listeners a sense of the scale of the problem by equating this to 2,000 hip operations on the NHS.

Perhaps a better indication of the scale of the problem is the fact that the NHS is being asked to find 'efficiency savings' of £20bn of its £109bn budget. Those figures would mean that eliminating 'health tourism' equates to fulfilling 0.06% of the savings that need to be found and reducing the total NHS budget by 0.011%.

But where did the £12m figure come from? That's the amount (generously rounded up from £11.5m) that the NHS has written off in unpaid charges last year of a total £33m it spent treating foreign nationals.

To be clear, that's not an issue about whether or not visitors are allowed access to UK healthcare, but about the ability of the NHS to pursue those claims - either because the patient is dead, unable to pay or unable to trace, or because the service simply does not have the capacity to do so.

The abandoned claims can relate to previous years. So even though the total keeps climbing, this might be because the NHS struggles to keep pace with the workload rather than growing numbers of health tourists.

Dr Thom Brooks, Reader in Law at Durham University (and also a former non-EU, now British citizen) is skeptical that these official numbers capture the issue:

Non-EU migrants are required to pay national insurance which contributes financial support to the NHS not unlike all British citizens. The claim that non-EU migrants have a free ride lacks evidence and credibility.

But J Meirion Thomas believes £12m is in fact a gross underestimate. The senior surgeon commented this week that the true cost is billions rather than millions because health tourists should be charged private health care prices rather than the lower charges which the NHS system offers.

Feasibility

Whether or not you believe that non-UK residents who are working or studying here should be charged for their NHS treatment, another issue which will face these proposed policies is implementation.

Health professionals have already begun to express concern that they will have "immigration control" added to their growing list of responsibilities. The chairwoman of the Royal College of GPs Professor Clare Gerada said today "My first duty is to my patient - I don't ask where they're from or whether they've got a credit card or whether they can pay".

Others have raised concerns on public health grounds. If fees make visitors to the UK reluctant to visit their GP or go to hospital, the risk of disease may be higher which would put everyone's health at risk. The costs of remedying that might be far higher than any implementation measures.

Do you think 'health tourists' are an urgent issue facing the NHS? Do you think this is a question of principles rather than price? Do you think that the government's proposals are likely to work? Share your views by posting a comment below or by tweeting to @GuardianData or @MonaChalabi.

Download the data

• DATA: download the full spreadsheet

Can you do more with this data?

• Contact us at data@guardian.co.uk
• Follow us on Twitter

Health care in America is ludicrously expensive

AMERICA'S hospitals are the most expensive part of the world’s most expensive medical system. Health care consumes nearly a fifth of economic output; 31% of that goes towards hospital care alone, some $850 billion in 2011. Considered on a cost per patient per day basis, Americans spend more than four times as much on hospital care as many other countries. Yet the costs are highly variable: 10% of hospital patients paid more than $12,000 a day while 25% pay less than $2,000. In an attempt to make things more transparent, the Obama administration released a nationwide price list last month. "Obamacare" will bring health care coverage for all Americans starting in 2014. Though it will expand the pool of patients, the government will pay lower rates—hopefully forcing hospitals to become more efficient. See full article.