Mercury Men is a fun little series I watched today. The episodes are about 8 minutes long, so it only took about an hour and a half to watch. It's about an office drone being caught up in an alien world destruction plot, oh and there's a Buck Rogers-type thrown in for god measure.
I don't care much for the 'reality' shows on SyFy, but tend to really enjoy the fictional series they put on. Despite the quality of the show I wonder if there is room for it to become a 30 minute show. I wonder how much background was written for the show. I've seen a few shows fail because they started off with a good premise, but the writers/producers didn't spend enough time fleshing out the world.
Mercury Men has steampunk elements, which is great, but the last show I can think of really showcasing that style was The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne. Before that Briscoe County Jr. We're seeing steampunk show up more often in movies, Sherlock Holmes, Pirates of the Carribean, The Three Musketeers, and Hugo (The Invention of Hugo Cabret), so it wouldn't be a stretch that it comes back to TV.
Check out Mercury Men even if you're not a steampunk enthusiast. It's set in the 70s and shot like a noir serial. Here's the link to their main website.
After I wrote this I came across The League of STEAM. It looks fun too and I may have to do another blog soon.
What does everyone else think? If you have more I should see in the steampunk genre let me know.
I just realized after writing and posting that Mercury Men is really pulp era, though it still has a steampunk sensibility. I think steampunk and pulp would mash-up greatly. I must be way sicker than I thought.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Monday, September 26, 2011
George Foreman SEO genius?
While George Foreman is famous for boxing and his grill he's also famous for his child naming convention. He has 5 sons named George, 4 daughters of mixed naming, but he does have a daughter Georgetta. When you Google his name mostly you'll find information about him. What happens if one of his children named George Foreman become famous or Google-worthy? Will the name, George Foreman, help his sons, will his son's fame help him, or will it break search engines?
Considering his children were born before search engine optimization it's difficult to say he was able to foresee this possibility, but name checking has always been around. What says, 'My dad is famous,' more than having his name? There's such a genius to this I think everyone should change their names to match the famous. Even the infamous would work.
Though a rash of people changing their names to match serial killers might be a bad idea.
Considering his children were born before search engine optimization it's difficult to say he was able to foresee this possibility, but name checking has always been around. What says, 'My dad is famous,' more than having his name? There's such a genius to this I think everyone should change their names to match the famous. Even the infamous would work.
Though a rash of people changing their names to match serial killers might be a bad idea.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
A Strange Benefit of Lying
I think Gordon Ramsay is an interesting fellow. My mother loves watching his shows and I will sometimes watch them with her, especially his new travel show. He was in Asia helping a family with their business and one of the menu items was shark fin. He tried the dish and said it had no flavor. There was nothing spectacular about the dish. He asked why they serve it when some sharks, specifically the great white, are on the endangered species list. The answer was tradition and prestige. Basically the delicacy started as a dish only for royalty and is now a high priced item sold to the wealthy.
Sharks need a dorsal fin to live. The fact that a dish involving an endangered animal that has no flavor is even worse. That tradition is so powerful it demands a lack of integrity.
I'd much rather a dish involve a mineral, say gold. There is at least a return on investment later on.
From an economics stand-point I don't see the need to use shark fin when the dish has no distinction. Chicken or even tofu could be used in its place. Sure, you'd be lying, but you'd pocket more money in the long run and an endangered animal gets a little longer to live.
Matthew Broderick and Marlon Brando were in a film called The Freshman . In it an endangered (I believe last of its kind) animal is going to be served to the rich. *SPOILER ALERT* In the end it turns out the animal is sent to a refuge and the rich are served a gourmet dish of chicken. The point is there was no way to know how the meat tastes so they could have been fed nearly anything, but the value was based on what they thought they were eating. Side note: people tend to value higher food they spend more money on, so these dinner guests would fool themselves into thinking the dinner was amazing.
Something that wasn't in the movie, but I thought about later was something of a prisoner's dilemma. The dinner guests wouldn't be able to talk about the dinner except with other guests because it was illegal.
I wouldn't put it past someone to think Canned Unicorn Meat is really made of unicorns, but since unicorns don't exist is it really a crime to tell someone they're eating shark fin soup when it's really catfish?
Sharks need a dorsal fin to live. The fact that a dish involving an endangered animal that has no flavor is even worse. That tradition is so powerful it demands a lack of integrity.
I'd much rather a dish involve a mineral, say gold. There is at least a return on investment later on.
From an economics stand-point I don't see the need to use shark fin when the dish has no distinction. Chicken or even tofu could be used in its place. Sure, you'd be lying, but you'd pocket more money in the long run and an endangered animal gets a little longer to live.
Matthew Broderick and Marlon Brando were in a film called The Freshman . In it an endangered (I believe last of its kind) animal is going to be served to the rich. *SPOILER ALERT* In the end it turns out the animal is sent to a refuge and the rich are served a gourmet dish of chicken. The point is there was no way to know how the meat tastes so they could have been fed nearly anything, but the value was based on what they thought they were eating. Side note: people tend to value higher food they spend more money on, so these dinner guests would fool themselves into thinking the dinner was amazing.
Something that wasn't in the movie, but I thought about later was something of a prisoner's dilemma. The dinner guests wouldn't be able to talk about the dinner except with other guests because it was illegal.
I wouldn't put it past someone to think Canned Unicorn Meat is really made of unicorns, but since unicorns don't exist is it really a crime to tell someone they're eating shark fin soup when it's really catfish?
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Coffee is the closest thing to magic for my brain.
{EAV_BLOG_VER:5b9fabaff1556a5f}
The question was posed the other day if the cost of a coffee maker was worth it. I think it is and here's how my logic circuit works.
If you're 3 cup a day guy like I am that equates to about $6 at your average coffee house. I haven't tried fast food places recently because past experience taught me that gagging shouldn't happen when consuming something I like.
Your average pound of coffee at the grocery store costs $12. Yes, Peet's and Starbucks are pricier, but then again did you ever notice that their pound is 12 oz and not 16 oz. I measured today that the 4 oz difference is the equivalent of 12 cups of coffee missing. Instead I recommend grinding a pound at the store. Often the coffee is good (your taste buds are your own, so try a few out to find the one you like), you can get a real pound aka 16 oz, and to rotate stock the price often drops to less than $10 per pound.
Taking the $12 average per pound I figured out that about 2 oz makes roughly a 10 cup pot of coffee. I'm a 3 cup guy so 1 oz will do. This means 16 oz lasts about 16 days. (I say about because some days I use a scoop or 2 more for added richness to flavor).
This means I spend $1 a day instead of $6. Which means a $30 coffee maker is paid for in 6 days. More expensive coffee makers are paid for by way of the $5 difference per day. So, yes, making your own coffee is way better.
Someone might say I forgot the other costs like filters, coffee mug, and electricity. I didn't. Those costs are so minor to be negligible. Filters cost about $2 for hundreds. Who doesn't already have a coffee cup? (BTW, mom has an Etsy shop with beautiful mugs ) As long as you don't leave the pot on 24/7 (ewww, burnt coffee) you'll only pay pennies a day for that.
Besides when you make your own coffee you get a chance to try blending your own beans. Or adding new flavors directly to the pot. I like adding cocoa powder and cinnamon to the coffee before brewing.
The question was posed the other day if the cost of a coffee maker was worth it. I think it is and here's how my logic circuit works.
If you're 3 cup a day guy like I am that equates to about $6 at your average coffee house. I haven't tried fast food places recently because past experience taught me that gagging shouldn't happen when consuming something I like.
Your average pound of coffee at the grocery store costs $12. Yes, Peet's and Starbucks are pricier, but then again did you ever notice that their pound is 12 oz and not 16 oz. I measured today that the 4 oz difference is the equivalent of 12 cups of coffee missing. Instead I recommend grinding a pound at the store. Often the coffee is good (your taste buds are your own, so try a few out to find the one you like), you can get a real pound aka 16 oz, and to rotate stock the price often drops to less than $10 per pound.
Taking the $12 average per pound I figured out that about 2 oz makes roughly a 10 cup pot of coffee. I'm a 3 cup guy so 1 oz will do. This means 16 oz lasts about 16 days. (I say about because some days I use a scoop or 2 more for added richness to flavor).
This means I spend $1 a day instead of $6. Which means a $30 coffee maker is paid for in 6 days. More expensive coffee makers are paid for by way of the $5 difference per day. So, yes, making your own coffee is way better.
Someone might say I forgot the other costs like filters, coffee mug, and electricity. I didn't. Those costs are so minor to be negligible. Filters cost about $2 for hundreds. Who doesn't already have a coffee cup? (BTW, mom has an Etsy shop with beautiful mugs ) As long as you don't leave the pot on 24/7 (ewww, burnt coffee) you'll only pay pennies a day for that.
Besides when you make your own coffee you get a chance to try blending your own beans. Or adding new flavors directly to the pot. I like adding cocoa powder and cinnamon to the coffee before brewing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)