1,000 True Fans

Wednesday, May 6th, 2009

The long tail is famously good news for two classes of people, Kevin Kelly says — a few lucky aggregators, such as Amazon and Netflix, and 6 billion consumers — but it’s a mixed blessing for creators, who face massive competition.

Rather than aim for a blockbuster hit, an alternative strategy is to find 1,000 True Fans willing to spend $100 per year — buying anything and everything, the t-shirt, the mug, and the hat.

So far, it doesn’t look like too many creators are successfully following this strategy, but Arizona-based game developer Flashbang Studios is giving it a try:

For the last year, Arizona-based game developer Flashbang Studios has released a game every eight weeks free of charge to play online on its Web site Blurst. The games have often been bizarre and cartoonish. “Jetpack Brontosaurus” and “Off-Road Velociraptor Safari” play exactly as they sound while “Blush” allows players to control a jellyfish-like creature through a glowing undersea world. On Friday, the company release its newest game, “Paper Moon,” a monochromatic jaunt through a dreary landscape as players control the scenery to advance through the stages. “It’s based on a pop-up book and the song by Ella Fitzgerald,” says Steve Swink, Flashbang’s game designer.

Later this year, Blurst games will conduct an experiment. In addition to giving away its games for free, it’ll charge $20 for a six month subscription for additional features such as a downloadable version. Blurst will also be taking requests from fans to add features over time. Mr. Swink and his team calculated how many people they’d need to keep a staff of six and cover a $20,000 per month budget. They arrived at what they considered to be a reasonable goal: only 5,000 people every half-year.

Prince of Ghor

Monday, May 4th, 2009

George Romero may be the King of Horror, Curzon notes, but one of his actors is the Prince of Ghor:

In today’s completely random note of trivia, it turns out that Scott Reiniger, a minor horror film actor best known for his role as the ill-fated police officer in the 1978 zombie cult film Dawn of the Dead (and who played a minor cameo role in the 2004 remake of the same name) is actually Afghan royalty!

Reiniger’s great, great, great grandfather, Josiah Harlan, was an American assisting several independent rulers of South Asia, and became the first American to set foot in Afghanistan on a punitive expedition against an Uzbek warlord. He set off with a completely modern army, and came into contact with Mohammad Reffee Beg, an ambitious prince of Ghor, located in the western part of today’s Afganistan. He and his retinue feasted for ten days with Harlan’s force, during which time they observed the remarkable discipline and organization of the modern army, while Harlan was amazed by the working feudal system and the gender equality.

At the end of Harlan’s visit, the two agreed that Harlan and his heirs would be the Prince of Ghor in perpetuity, in exchange for raising and training an army with the ultimate goal of solidifying and expanding Ghor’s power. (Harlan ended up leaving Afghanistan, enjoying a brief period of fame in the U.S., but then failed at several unique ventures and ended up working in San Francisco as a doctor, dying a forgotten man.)

Scott Reiniger is the current descendant of Harlan with claim to the title, but has stated that he considers the title a historical anecdote with no real world importance (and it seems unlikely that anyone in Kabul, or Ghor, would be ready to accept him as their sovereign).

ManBirdPig

Tuesday, April 28th, 2009

We managed to dodge the scourge of ManBearPig, but can we endure the ManBirdPig flu?

Ashes, Ashes, We All Fall Down

Monday, April 27th, 2009

Like many people, I’d heard that the children’s song Ring Around the Rosy was about the Plague:

Many have associated the poem with the Great Plague of London in 1665, or with earlier outbreaks of bubonic plague in England. Interpreters of the rhyme before World War II make no mention of this; by 1951, however, it seems to have become well established as an explanation for the form of the rhyme that had become standard in Britain. Peter and Iona Opie remark: ‘The invariable sneezing and falling down in modern English versions have given would-be origin finders the opportunity to say that the rhyme dates back to the Great Plague. A rosy rash, they allege, was a symptom of the plague, posies of herbs were carried as protection, sneezing was a final fatal symptom , and “all fall down” was exactly what happened.’ Another translation:Ring around the Rosie: people with the plague often had a bright rose-colored rash that people would see and make a large ring around them. A pocket full of posies: people without the plague often carried around posies, believing this would purify the air and protect them from getting ill. Ashes, Ashes: When people died, sometimes they would be burnt to ashes. Then those ashes would be put in a jar and buried. In this way, there was enough room in the graveyards for everyone. We all fall down: ‘falling down’ meant dying and many people did die.  Variations of the same theory allow it to be applied to the American version of the rhyme and to medieval plagues. In its various forms, the interpretation has entered into popular culture and has been used elsewhere to make oblique reference to the plague.

But folklore scholars regard the theory as baseless for several reasons:

  1. the late appearance of the explanation means that it has no tradition, only the value of its content;
  2. the symptoms described do not fit especially well with the Great Plague;
  3. the great variety of forms make it unlikely that the modern form is the most ancient one, and the words on which the interpretation are based are not found in many of the earliest records of the rhyme (see above);
  4. European and 19th century versions of the rhyme suggest that this ‘fall’ was not a literal falling down, but a curtsy or other form of bending movement that was common in other dramatic singing games.

Maybe our descendants will explain that it was about the Swine Flu of 2009.

The revolution that wasn’t

Friday, April 24th, 2009

The Economist calls the DVR revolution the revolution that wasn’t, because advertising-supported television hasn’t suffered as predicted:

On one point the Cassandras were correct. As prices fell and cable and satellite firms began to bundle DVRs with other services, their popularity soared. According to Nielsen, a media-research outfit, 29% of American homes now have one. The boxes are in a higher proportion of the households advertisers most care about. Jack Wakshlag of Turner Broadcasting, a cable company, calculates that DVR-owning households earn about $20,000 more than average. Yet those households do not use them nearly as much as one might expect. Families with DVRs seem to spend 15-20% of their viewing time watching pre-recorded shows, and skip only about half of all advertisements. This means only about 5% of television is time-shifted and less than 3% of all advertisements are skipped. Mitigating that loss, people with DVRs watch more television.

Once again I’m reminded what an outlier I am, as I must spend 99 percent of my viewing time watching pre-recorded shows, and I skip perhaps 90 percent of the ads. I even skip large portions of the program sometimes. (A two-hour MMA program might have a half-hour of fighting.)

I do watch much more TV now that I have a DVR though. I went from close to zero — I watched DVDs then — to, well, far from zero.

Far from being revolutionary, in some ways DVR has made television more stable. With the exception of live events it is broadly true that the most popular programmes are recorded the most. Mr Wakshlag describes it as “a hit-saving machine”. Broadcast television receives a bigger boost from DVR playback than cable television. The device has made it harder to introduce a new television programme, particularly at 10pm when people are likely to be playing back shows they recorded at 8pm or 9pm.

Again, I’m an outlier. I’ve found the DVR remarkably useful for taking in the “long tail” of programming from obscure channels at inconvenient times.

Anti-Capitalist Rerun

Tuesday, April 21st, 2009

Phillipe Diaz’s The End of Poverty is an uninteresting anti-capitalist rerun, the rarely strident Tyler Cowen says:

A few months ago I went back and tried to read some Ayn Rand. As Adam Wolfson has suggested recently in these pages, it wasn’t easy. I was put off by her lack of intellectual generosity. I read her claim that “collectivist savages” are too “concrete-bound” to realize that wealth must be produced. I read her polemic against the fools who focus on redistributing wealth rather than creating it. I read the claim that Western intellectuals are betraying the very heritage of their tradition because they refuse to think and to use their minds. I read that the very foundations of civilization are under threat. That’s pretty bracing stuff.

I can only report that The End of Poverty, narrated throughout by Martin Sheen, puts Ayn Rand back on the map as an accurate and indeed insightful cultural commentator. If you were to take the most overdone and most caricatured cocktail-party scenes from Atlas Shrugged, if you were to put the content of Rand’s “whiners” on the screen, mixed in with at least halfway competent production values, you would get something resembling The End of Poverty. If you ever thought that Rand’s nemeses were pure caricature, this film will show you that they are not (if the stalking presence of Naomi Klein has not already done so). If you are looking to benchmark this judgment, consider this: I would not say anything similar even about the movies of Michael Moore.

In this movie, the causes of poverty are oppression and oppression alone. There is no recognition that poverty is the natural or default state of mankind and that a special set of conditions must come together for wealth to be produced. There is no discussion of what this formula for wealth might be. There is no recognition that the wealth of the West lies upon any foundations other than those of theft, exploitation and the oppression of literal or virtual colonies.

Cowen points out that the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, dedicated to the works of Henry George, should be ashamed for having funded this movie:

George was a flawed but brilliant and incisive thinker. He understood that wealth needs to be produced, and he also understood the strong case for free trade, most of all to protect the interests of labor. His 1886 book Protection or Free Trade remains perhaps the best-argued tract on free trade to this day; in that book George refutes exactly the arguments put forward by The End of Poverty.

Ever since I read that Monopoly was created by Georgists, I’ve been seeing George’s ideas everywhere — or at least from time to time.

The best sources on terrorist activities are prostitutes

Monday, April 20th, 2009

Richard Fernandez cites a New York Times story that explains that the best sources on terrorist activities are prostitutes:

One police detective said he would not dream of enforcing the law against prostitutes.

“They’re the best sources we have,” said the detective. “They know everything about JAM and al-Qaida members,” he said, referring to Jaish al-Mahdi or Mahdi Army, a Shiite militia.

The detective added that the only problem his men had was that neighbors got the wrong idea when detectives visited the houses where prostitutes were known to live. They really do just want to talk, he said.

As I’ve written many times before, it is a mistake to think that “Muslim” pirates in the Philippine South are to be found praying five times a day in the mosque. You are going to have better luck wherever ladies and liquor are in more abundant supply. Although there are doubtless men who are motivated primarily by religious texts, I think they are outnumbered by those who have found religion to be the perfect cover under which to advance simpler ambitions for power and worldly desire.

This rarely comes as a surprise to the police. But it often comes as a complete shock to academics who believe what they read. Having found a reference to a Quranic text in a terrorist screed, they find it impossible, on aesthetic grounds, to imagine that the line might have been inserted into the communique in a dimly lit nightclub, mostly as a joke on academics and media anchormen, rather than on a windswept, desert mountain top.

There’s a classic scene in Die Hard 1 which captures this misunderstanding beautifully. Hans Gruber takes Mr. Takagi into a room to state his demands. Takagi stops by a model of his firm’s proudest project, which he believes is at the root of the terrorist attack on his headquarters.

TAKAGI: This is what this is about? Our building project in Indonesia? Contrary to what you people think,we’re going to develop that region… not ‘exploit’ it.

HANS GRUBER: I believe you. I read the article in Forbes. Mr. Takagi, we could discuss industrialization of men’s fashions all day, but I’m afraid my associate, Mr. Theo, has some questions for you. Sort of fill-in-the blanks questions actually… (He asks for the code to access vast sums of money)

TAKAGI: I don’t have that code…! You broke in here to access our computer?!? … You want…money? What kind of terrorists are you?

This exchange is arguably the saddest moment in the movie. In that split second, Takagi recognizes Hans Gruber as someone exactly like himself, only more ruthless. And the realization terrifies him. If racism, is in essence, the habit of thinking of people as being fundamentally different from oneself, then it must apply not only to imagining others as inferior but also to projecting a kind of mystical superiority upon the Other. What must have astounded Osama Bin Laden most of all about the Western intellectual elite, while simultaneously convincing him of their fatuousness, was the discovery that they would take him seriously. Groucho Marx’s once said that he would never agree to become a member of a club that would accept him as a member. Maybe al-Qaeda secretly admires only those with the sense to fight them.

Taras Bulba

Tuesday, April 14th, 2009

I’ve been meaning to read my copy of Taras Bulba for a while; now Nikolai Gogol’s romantic nationalist tale has been made into a big-budget movie that is rekindling a cultural war between Russians and Ukranians:

A lush $20 million film adaptation of the book was rolled out at a jam-packed premiere in Moscow on April 1, complete with rows of faux Cossacks on horseback. Vladimir V. Bortko’s movie, financed in part by the Russian Ministry of Culture, is a work of sword-rattling patriotism that moved some viewers in Moscow to tears.

It is also a salvo in a culture war between Russia and Ukraine’s Western-leaning leadership. The film’s heroes are Ukrainian Cossacks, but they fight an enemy from the West and reserve their dying words for “the Orthodox Russian land.”

Mr. Bortko aimed to show that “there is no separate Ukraine,” as he put it in an interview, and that “the Russian people are one.” Filing out of the premiere, audience members said they hoped it would increase pro-Russian feeling in Ukraine.

The teaser trailer has me impressed. It is odd to see Polish winged hussars as bad guys though, and it’s odd to see so much — ahem — of the love interest:

Minimum Inventory, Maximum Diversity

Tuesday, March 31st, 2009

Q: What do proteins, snowflakes, and these figures have in common?

A: They’re all instances of minimum inventory, maximum diversity, Chris Carlson notes, using the term coined by Peter Pearce in Structure in Nature is a Strategy for Design:

A minimum inventory/maximum diversity system is a kit of modular parts and rules of assembly that gives you maximal design bang for your design-component buck. It’s a system that achieves a wide variety of effects from a small variety of parts. Nature excels at this game: every one of the many millions of natural proteins is assembled from an inventory of just 20 amino acids. Snowflakes are all just arrangements of the humble water molecule, H2O.

The same idea applies to the forms in the figure above, which are all constructed from semicircles joined at connection points evenly distributed along a vertical line. I stumbled onto this minimum inventory/maximum diversity system while playing with logo designs for a previous blog post, Exploring Logo Designs with Mathematica.

In my previous post, I was exploring parametric variations of logo designs in Mathematica. Although this concert-hall logo is trivially easy to parameterize and get into Mathematica, I nearly didn’t try doing so because I didn’t think that the exploration would lead anywhere interesting. So much for my intuition. Relative to its simplicity, the idea of joining semicircles at fixed points along a line is one of the richest and most expressive component systems that I’ve run across.

Macroeconomics as Religion

Friday, March 27th, 2009

The latest episode of South Park, Margaritaville, points out the uncanny resemblance between macroeconomics and religion.

The Highs and Lows of the Great Zucchini

Friday, March 20th, 2009

Gene Weingarten tells the fascinating tale of the highs and lows of the Great Zucchini, the most popular and successful children’s entertainer in the DC area — who shows up disheveled, with no costume and a few beat-up old props, but who leaves the toddlers literally convulsing with laughter:

The show lasted 35 minutes, and when it was over, an initially skeptical Don Cox forked over a check without complaint. The fee was $300. It was the first of four shows the Great Zucchini would do that Saturday, each at the same price. The following day, there were four more. This was a typical weekend.

Do the math, if you can handle the results. This unmarried, 35-year-old community college dropout makes more than $100,000 a year, with a two-day workweek. Not bad for a complete idiot.

The Great Zucchini has mastered a brand of humor squarely aimed at toddlers:

Even before they respond to a tickle, most babies will laugh at peekaboo. It’s their first “joke.” They are reacting to a sequence of events that begins with the presence of a familiar, comforting face. Then, suddenly, the face disappears, and you can read in the baby’s expression momentary puzzlement and alarm. When the face suddenly reappears, everything is orderly in the baby’s world again. Anxiety is banished, and the baby reacts with her very first laugh.

At its heart, laughter is a tool to triumph over fear. As we grow older, our senses of humor become more demanding and refined, but that basic, hard-wired reflex remains. We need it, because life is scary. Nature is heartless, people can be cruel, and death and suffering are inevitable and arbitrary. We learn to tame our terror by laughing at the absurdity of it all.

This point has been made by experts ranging from Richard Pryor to doctoral candidates writing tedious theses on the ontol-ogical basis of humor. Any joke, any amusing observation, can be deconstructed to fit. The seemingly benign Henny Youngman one-liner, “Take my wife… please!” relies in its heart on an understanding that love can become a straitjacket. By laughing at that recognition, you are rising above it, and blunting its power to disturb.

After the peekaboo age, but before the age of such sophisticated understanding, dwells the preschooler. His sense of humor is more than infantile but less than truly perceptive. He comprehends irony but not sarcasm. He lacks knowledge but not feeling. The central fact of his world — and the central terror to be overcome — is his own powerlessness. This is where the Great Zucchini works his magic.

The Great Zucchini actually does magic tricks, but they are mostly dime-store novelty gags — false thumbs to hide a handkerchief, magic dust that turns water to gel — accompanied by sleight of hand so primitive your average 8-year-old would suss it out in an instant. That’s one reason he has fashioned himself a specialist in ages 2 to 6. He behaves like no adult in these preschoolers’ world, making himself the dimwitted victim of every gag. He thinks a banana is a telephone, and answers it. He can’t find the birthday boy when the birthday boy is standing right behind him. Every kid in the room is smarter than the Great Zucchini; he gives them that power over their anxieties.

Clearly the Great Zucchini has a talent:

“In the beginning, I had almost no clients,” he said, “and I would sit at a table like this in a place like this, and if a mom would be walking by with her 3-year-old, I would pretend to be talking on my cell phone. I’d say, ‘Yeah, I do children’s parties geared for 3-year-olds!’ And a lot of times, the mom would stop, and say… ‘You do children’s parties?’”

When he first started, he found out what other birthday party entertainers were charging — roughly $150 per show — and upped it by $25. That worked; it seemed to give him agency. After a while, his weekends were so crammed with parties — seven or eight, every weekend — he felt overwhelmed. So, applying fundamental principles of economics, he decided to thin his business but not his profits by raising his prices precipitously — from $175 to $300. It turns out that the fundamental principles of economics are no match for the fundamental desperation of suburban parents. He still was doing seven or eight shows a weekend.

Weekdays, he mostly haunts places like this, drinking coffee and tending to his cell phone. It rings a lot. It’s ringing right now.

“Hello. Yes. Okay, sure, what date are you looking at?”

He flips open the tattered appointment book that is always with him. He’s got dates penciled in as far into the future as October.

So, he clears six figures, working two days a week, and his clients come to him from word of mouth; he doesn’t even have to work to sell his services.

On the down side, he turns out to be a compulsive gambler who can’t hold onto any of that easy money. He understands toddlers, because he really is on their level.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

Friday, March 20th, 2009

You got your Regency romance in my zombie apocalypse!

You got your zombie apocalypse in my Regency romance!

It’s two great tastes in one — Pride and Prejudice and Zombies:

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies features the original text of Jane Austen’s beloved novel with all-new scenes of bone-crunching zombie action. As our story opens, a mysterious plague has fallen upon the quiet English village of Meryton — and the dead are returning to life! Feisty heroine Elizabeth Bennet is determined to wipe out the zombie menace, but she’s soon distracted by the arrival of the haughty and arrogant Mr. Darcy. What ensues is a delightful comedy of manners with plenty of civilized sparring between the two young lovers — and even more violent sparring on the blood-soaked battlefield as Elizabeth wages war against hordes of flesh-eating undead. Complete with 20 illustrations in the style of C. E. Brock (the original illustrator of Pride and Prejudice), this insanely funny expanded edition will introduce Jane Austen’s classic novel to new legions of fans.

Jane Austen is the author of Sense and Sensibility, Persuasion, Mansfield Park, and other masterpieces of English literature.

Seth Grahame-Smith is the author of How to Survive a Horror Movie and The Big Book of Porn. He lives in Los Angeles.

(Hat tip to a horrified Yana.)

God Exists, and He’s Mormon

Tuesday, March 17th, 2009

The Mormon-Galactica connection is well established — and intentional. The Mormon-Watchmen connection? Not so much:

Creation: According to Hopkins, the Mormon God is a creator in the same sense that I am the creator of this article or that Van Gogh is the creator of Starry Night. God may be an organizer, a planner, an architect, a genius, but he does not create things from nothing (“ex nihilo”). Likewise, Dr. Manhattan can manipulate matter on a grand scale, but he is only reorganizing what is already there.

Omniscience: Hopkins argues that there is “a vast difference between classical theism and Mormonism on the subject of how God knows the future” because “classical theism views God…as being outside of time and space. From this vantage, he can supposedly see any point in time he chooses.” Dr. Manhattan shares this in common with the God of Mormonism: Even though he can perceive time more fully than most humans, he is part of time. Manhattan calls himself a puppet who can see the strings, but he is much more than that.

Omnipresence: The Mormon God is not subject to the same limits that humans are but he is not everywhere at once. That’s also a pretty good description of Dr. Manhattan.

Change: Hopkins calls the idea held by “classical theists” that God is unchanging “demonstrably unbiblical” and definitely un-Mormon. Mormonism posits an ever-evolving God, not at all unlike Dr. Manhattan.

Corporeality: With the exception of the Incarnation, traditional Christianity insists that God is “spirit” only. Mormonism disagrees. Hopkins insists that if man is made in the image of God, then God must have a corporeal form. So far as I can tell, there’s nothing in the book of Mormon about God having blue skin and a symbol of hydrogen burned onto his forehead, but you never know.

Ricky Gervais and Elmo

Thursday, March 12th, 2009

Ricky Gervais and Elmo play off each other remarkably well, as these outtakes demonstrate:

Going to the Movies has Become a Political Act

Thursday, March 12th, 2009

Shannon Love read and enjoyed Watchmen back in college — when he was “still a lefty” — and he enjoyed the visual style of the new film, but he has to conclude that going to the movies has become a political act:

Most of what I did not like about the movie, came from places where the movie needlessly diverted from the book. Nixon in the movie is a bloodthirsty buffoon. In the book, he’s Nixon but he lashes back at G. Gorden Liddy for suggesting a first strike, and we last see him sitting under Cheyenne mountain with his hands on the “football” with the nuclear launch codes, clearly dreading he might have to use them. In the movie, he plans a preemptive strike at a specific hour which sets the clock the heroes must race against.

[Minor spoiler] The other deviation clearly results from the desire of the writers and directors to gratuitously inject present day leftist tropes into the movie for no other reason than political propaganda. In the movie, Ozymandias/Adrian Veidt confronts a group of stereotypical corporate executives (all older white males in business suits) who complain that Veidt’s new energy technology will give away energy for free and thereby disrupt their corporate empires. Veidt castigates them and tells them that he intends to break the world’s “addiction” to oil. Of course, that scene doesn’t occur in the book. Nobody used such a silly metaphor (do we talk about people being addicted to oxygen?) at a time when the energy crisis had just ended.

More tellingly, in the book, there were no more internal combustion cars! In one the most iconic scenes in both the book and the movie, Dan Dreiberg leaves the home of the original Nite Owl, Hollis Mason and passes by a sign that says “Obsolete Models a Specialty”. Hollis Mason lives above the auto mechanic shop he used to run and the sign is the sign for his shop. In a later flashback, we see Mason at his retirement party in the early sixties. He tells the super-superhero Dr. Manhattan, that he plans to retire and fix cars, because cars are more simple than people. Dr. Manhattan tells him that cars will be even more simple soon because he is using his power to synthesize elements to create vast amounts of cheap lithium which will make electric cars practical. By the time of the book’s present-day, 1985, no one drives internal-combustion engine cars except antique collectors. In the book, the sign refers to the obsolete internal combustion engines. The sign symbolized that Hollis had been rendered obsolete not only due to the rise of the super-powered heroes who made his mere mortal fisticuffs seem ridiculous, but also by the concomitant shift in technology that made his skills as a mechanic useless.

Hollis is the everyman of the story. When superheroes render him obsolete as both a hero and a mechanic, it shows how they render all other ordinary humans obsolete.

In the movie, no major plot element required the oil “addiction” rant. At best, the writers make a minimal one-line attempt to imply that Veidt is hiding his grander scheme behind an alternative-energy project. So, having Veidt rant about the “addiction” to oil was just a clumsy injection of leftist politics that required tossing out one of the most powerful images of the original book! I winced when I saw this gratuitous and vainglorious mutilation of the original. I knew that Alan Moore was a big lefty, and I expected that the movie would contain the leftist tilt of the book, but I got really disgusted at the gratuitous deviations. They did it for no other reason than the commandment of post-modernist morality to exploit any and all personal power for political ends. They had a captive audience and that created an obligation to engage in a little bit of indoctrination.

I really resented paying someone to rant hysterically at me about technological matters which they clearly don’t understand. I find myself growing more and more resentful of the way that leftist intellectuals use their power over our culture’s stories to glorify themselves and their ideas while smearing everyone else.