Vertigo (1958)****
I was going to give this one 5 stars but I'm not sure if I have ever given that many before. Can't seem to be able to do a search of the archives. Will look in to that possibility. At any rate, every time I see this film I see something new and that is the mark of a true 5 star film. This is the creepiest you will ever see Jimmy Stewart in a motion picture.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Don't Look Now (1973)****
Even Venice is creepy in this thriller, from the time when movies were made for adults not teens. George Lucas would change all of that.
Even Venice is creepy in this thriller, from the time when movies were made for adults not teens. George Lucas would change all of that.
The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)
You know how there are some films that are so bad they are good? This is not one of those. This one is so bad it is VERY bad. I can't give it a rating because it is one of those rare films that I could not watch in it's entirety. Believe me, there is no reason in the world for you to try and watch this picture.
You know how there are some films that are so bad they are good? This is not one of those. This one is so bad it is VERY bad. I can't give it a rating because it is one of those rare films that I could not watch in it's entirety. Believe me, there is no reason in the world for you to try and watch this picture.
A Night to Remember (1958)****
Far superior to the execrable Titanic. The only flaw being some stilted, heavy-handed dialog in the opening and closing scenes.
Far superior to the execrable Titanic. The only flaw being some stilted, heavy-handed dialog in the opening and closing scenes.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Toxic chemicals and their effects on the body : The New Yorker:
"The inadequacy of the current regulatory system contributes greatly to the atmosphere of uncertainty. The Toxic Substances Control Act, passed in 1976, does not require manufacturers to show that chemicals used in their products are safe before they go on the market; rather, the responsibility is placed on federal agencies, as well as on researchers in universities outside the government. The burden of proof is so onerous that bans on toxic chemicals can take years to achieve, and the government is often constrained from sharing information on specific products with the public, because manufacturers claim that such information is confidential. Several agencies split responsibility for oversight, with little coördination: the Food and Drug Administration supervises cosmetics, food, and medications, the Environmental Protection Agency regulates pesticides, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission oversees children’s toys and other merchandise. The European Union, in contrast, now requires manufacturers to prove that their compounds are safe before they are sold."
I wonder just what does the Toxic Substances Control act do? According to the law then maybe Monsanto IS correct? WTF is going on here???
"The inadequacy of the current regulatory system contributes greatly to the atmosphere of uncertainty. The Toxic Substances Control Act, passed in 1976, does not require manufacturers to show that chemicals used in their products are safe before they go on the market; rather, the responsibility is placed on federal agencies, as well as on researchers in universities outside the government. The burden of proof is so onerous that bans on toxic chemicals can take years to achieve, and the government is often constrained from sharing information on specific products with the public, because manufacturers claim that such information is confidential. Several agencies split responsibility for oversight, with little coördination: the Food and Drug Administration supervises cosmetics, food, and medications, the Environmental Protection Agency regulates pesticides, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission oversees children’s toys and other merchandise. The European Union, in contrast, now requires manufacturers to prove that their compounds are safe before they are sold."
I wonder just what does the Toxic Substances Control act do? According to the law then maybe Monsanto IS correct? WTF is going on here???
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine ****
As entertaining a book about the incredibly incompetent and corrupt US financial system as there could possibly be. It's just so depressing that it is not fiction.
As entertaining a book about the incredibly incompetent and corrupt US financial system as there could possibly be. It's just so depressing that it is not fiction.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Yellow Press - Elvis Costello:
"It is after considerable contemplation that I have lately arrived at the decision that I must withdraw from the two performances scheduled in Israel on the 30th of June and the 1st of July."
Good for him.
"It is after considerable contemplation that I have lately arrived at the decision that I must withdraw from the two performances scheduled in Israel on the 30th of June and the 1st of July."
Good for him.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Mocked 'Dumb Fucks' for Trusting Him:
"More ammo for Mark Zuckerberg's privacy critics: The Silicon Alley Insider has a transcript of IMs between a then-19-year-old Zuckerberg, shortly after he launched Facebook, and a college friend. Zuckerberg's comments, strung together: 'Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard. Just ask. I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS.' Asked how, he responds: 'People just submitted it. I don't know why. They 'trust me.' Dumb fucks.'"
I really don't have a problem with a company providing free software in exchange for some personal information used to show me targeted ads while I use that software. That's the idea behind a lot of software on the Internet such as Google, Yahoo, etc. But if the company tells me to go ahead, use your real name, your real information because you can make this as private as you want and only those who you allow to see it will ever see it, when all along they had no intention of adhering to that standard, and not only that, if you opt out and want to delete your information you cannot! Really Mark? You don't know why all those people trusted you? BECAUSE YOU LIED TO THEM! That is something I have a big problem with. And that my friends is a little thing called "fraud" that apparently is no longer a crime in this country.
Welcome to the new privacy.
"More ammo for Mark Zuckerberg's privacy critics: The Silicon Alley Insider has a transcript of IMs between a then-19-year-old Zuckerberg, shortly after he launched Facebook, and a college friend. Zuckerberg's comments, strung together: 'Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard. Just ask. I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS.' Asked how, he responds: 'People just submitted it. I don't know why. They 'trust me.' Dumb fucks.'"
I really don't have a problem with a company providing free software in exchange for some personal information used to show me targeted ads while I use that software. That's the idea behind a lot of software on the Internet such as Google, Yahoo, etc. But if the company tells me to go ahead, use your real name, your real information because you can make this as private as you want and only those who you allow to see it will ever see it, when all along they had no intention of adhering to that standard, and not only that, if you opt out and want to delete your information you cannot! Really Mark? You don't know why all those people trusted you? BECAUSE YOU LIED TO THEM! That is something I have a big problem with. And that my friends is a little thing called "fraud" that apparently is no longer a crime in this country.
Welcome to the new privacy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)