 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: American Beauty what an overrated piece of garbage, what a hopeless peice of Hollywood trash! posted by Victor Khomenko on July 23, 2000 at 06:42:27:
I loved the movie. It ranks way up there in terms of the movies I've seen.I think you just didn't "get it". No offense, though. I noticed on Amazon that it is classified as a "dark comedy". When I saw that classification everything made sense--why I was guffawing loudly in the theater by myself, being hit in the shoulder by my date because nobody else was laughing.
I can explain better if you email me.
Andrew
***I loved the movie. It ranks way up there in terms of the movies I've seen.Well, OK. Since I don't know what your reference group is, it is not possible to comment on this.
***I think you just didn't "get it". No offense, though.
Oh no, please don't worry about THAT aspect. But for 'Not getting it' - I don't think so. Once you know cars, it only takes a second behind the wheel of a Chrysler K-car to know it is piece of shit. Certain things are just too obvious given some experience.
***I noticed on Amazon that it is classified as a "dark comedy". When I saw that classification everything made sense--why I was guffawing loudly in the theater by myself, being hit in the shoulder by my date because nobody else was laughing.You enjoyed it - that is fine. What other movies have you enjoyed?
Again, I personally don't care if it is a comedy, a Greek tragedy or a piece from the late Soviet social realism school. Anything can be done with skill and taste - and that is what separates a good movie from bad one (in my view, of course).
To me the reaction was instant. Much like when most of us can walk into the room and instantly form an opinion on the general character of the sound.
***I can explain better if you email me.
Why don't you take a shot here - I am sure people would find it interesting.
In short, I've dealt with a lot of psychological disturbances and I would say I have a pretty nuanced view of the dynamics out there.I also have a certain aesthetic.
Humor is a hard thing to pull off--too simple and it's deemed unsophisticated, too far out there and it's just not even funny. The humor in American Beauty struck me just right while the rest of the movie pushed my comfort level just enough. It resonated with my personal experiences and I would hope to GOD that other people have not had to experience anything similar. Even if the cost is that they don't understand a certain movie. Although the movie's popularity would seem to indicate that a lot of people do appreciate its themes. Unfortunately.
Granted, I watched the movie before the hype engine revved up (way before the Grammies), and I don't watch much TV so I'm somewhat insulated from pop advertising, so the movie wasn't spoiled for me before I watched it. I can understand how you hated the movie. I didn't watch Titanic until two years after it came out and I hated it anyway (already hated it because of Celine Dion but that's another story).
It's easy to hate any movie if you walk in with a sour attitude. In my case I was willing to suspend my cynicism (mainly cynicism about pop culture, but I reiterate that I saw this movie before it hit mainstream) and accept the storyline on its own merits. It was hard hitting, yes, but sometimes that's what is needed.
Or maybe, like you suggest, I'm just not as sophisticated a movie-goer as you. More power to you then.
Andrew
***Granted, I watched the movie before the hype engine revved up (way before the Grammies), and I don't watch much TV so I'm somewhat insulated from pop advertising, so the movie wasn't spoiled for me before I watched it. I can understand how you hated the movie. I didn't watch Titanic until two years after it came out and I hated it anyway (already hated it because of Celine Dion but that's another story).***It's easy to hate any movie if you walk in with a sour attitude. In my case I was willing to suspend my cynicism (mainly cynicism about pop culture, but I reiterate that I saw this movie before it hit mainstream) and accept the storyline on its own merits. It was hard hitting, yes, but sometimes that's what is needed.
No, that is not right. I didn't have ANY negative feelings towards this movie before actually watching it. If you asked me about it the day before, I would have told you that it was probably a good movie that I had not seen yet.I was glad it was on because I was actually expecting a good movie - I did not presume it bad because it was from Hollywood.
I took me, nowever, VERY little time to start disliking it. As I said - few seconds, minutes is even too much, is enough to see the bad things about it.
And again, you are putting too much emphasis on the story - and I don't give one rats ass about it.
Next in line - "Being John Malkovitch". Ny presumption is that it is a good movie, even if I don't particularly like John.
Oh, come on! I put too much emphasis on the story?!?This is starting to sound like the debate about whether the music or the sound is more important. Does that mean you're more concerned with the sound? ;)
I also saw Being John Malkovich... Overall I liked it but I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't (or don't).
Andrew
***Oh, come on! I put too much emphasis on the story?!?Andrew, with all due respect, most of the stuff you had written about the movie seemed to be about the story - or at least that is the way I have read it. If I misread your comments, then I am sorry. But it sort of was clear as I read them.
Again, I believe ANY story, however insignificant, can be made in a great movie, and many, if not most great movies are based on such trivial events. Some aren't, and things like Salo or the Orange come to mind here. But then again you take another measerable flap - "Eyes Wide Shut" and you see there nothing but a rather boring and dated story. But the Autumn Sonata has NO story at all... or does it?
***This is starting to sound like the debate about whether the music or the sound is more important. Does that mean you're more concerned with the sound? ;)Sometimes I am. When I do work. When I listen for my pleasure that goes back and forth, but mostly it is music, however I do like good sound. I see ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with enjoying the sound. Some people are reluctant to admit it and I can't understand why. It is just another legitimate hobby. Do I have the right to love the swords if I don't fence? You betcha...
***I also saw Being John Malkovich... Overall I liked it but I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't (or don't).Well, here again my expectation is that it is a good movie. However, I have done some digging last night and came back somewhat Discouraged. But I have heard some folks who'se opinions I value lie it, so I am reserving my judgement.
BTW, my wife started watching the Beauty last night, I told her nothing about my reaction (I haven't even seen her since I watched that film). She also knew it was supposed to be a good movie and she LOVES Kevin. Well, she started by making some positive comments about acting, but it wasn't long before she started getting restless and eventually she turned it off.
So now you get two voices to argue with.
My exclamation/question was to imply that I see nothing wrong with putting emphasis on the story. I analogized story with music whereas acting would be akin to the sound.I don't see anything wrong with forgiving imperfections in the acting (sound) in order to enjoy the story (music). In accordance to my developing life philosophy, I'm starting to believe that in the end, only one's subjective reaction (e.g. happiness) matters. I think this is called eudaemonism. Life is too short to be hypercritical about everything.
The story in American Beauty was unique and IMO well written. (Although I did read that there was another, supposedly better precursor to the movie). The acting was better than average, and enough for me to suspend my disbelief and get enveloped in the story.
Agreed, Eyes Wide Shut was lame.
You ought to learn fencing -- it's never too late to start. My dad started when he was 40. Pick up a weapon and I'll face you on the strip -- I will defend American Beauty! This is a challenge! =)
Andrew
***My exclamation/question was to imply that I see nothing wrong with putting emphasis on the story. I analogized story with music whereas acting would be akin to the sound.
***I don't see anything wrong with forgiving imperfections in the acting (sound) in order to enjoy the story (music).Hmmm... I would put up for discussion a slightly different model - and I agree that it is way too simplistic. I would compare acting and directing to music itself, and the picture quality to sound. And the movie story - well, it is the song's lyrics, or the symphony theme. "Pastoral", "Eroica", "Moonlight" - that sort of things.
***In accordance to my developing life philosophy, I'm starting to believe that in the end, only one's subjective reaction (e.g. happiness) matters. I think this is called eudaemonism. Life is too short to be hypercritical about everything.I don't know if this is the right word - eudaemonist says that the ultimate goal in life is the pleasure - another word for epicurism. I feel that what you are really saying is that there are no absolutes and no hierarchy - so there are no low low art and no high art. That one can not and should not consider one form of expression inferior, and any form is equally acceptable, as long as it is enjoyed.
I always fiercely oppose this philosophy. I always believe that this approach is often used to simply mask lack of knowledge and experience. "My music is just as good as your music, only different " (I used to hear it a lot from my kid) line of defense is not really well, defensible.
We are talking about purely philosophical things here with no relation to anyone's particular position.
***The story in American Beauty was unique and IMO well written. (Although I did read that there was another, supposedly better precursor to the movie). The acting was better than average, and enough for me to suspend my disbelief and get enveloped in the story.
I hear you. I think I already expressed my views earlier, so I will not repeat them. Needless to say, I DO believe in certain absolutes, that Chardin is great and Warchol trash, that the M5 is better than the Trabant, and I do not see the Beauty in the same row where I place what I would call "good" movies.
***Agreed, Eyes Wide Shut was lame.
***You ought to learn fencing -- it's never too late to start.
Believe me, I would if there was a club within say, 40 minutes from me. There is none, unfortunately, just marshroom farms. I love fencing and its grace (until *I* would enter the sport, that is), and sometimes wish I lived in New York (just kidding, just kidding...) where all this is widely available.
Unfortunately, unlike bicycling, for example, you can't just start fencing all by yourself.
***My dad started when he was 40.I envy him. I am somewhat past that mark, but don't consider myself a goner just yet.
***Pick up a weapon and I'll face you on the strip -- I will defend American Beauty! This is a challenge! =)OK, my weapon is 1869 Dutch Beaumont with its 350 grain lead bullet leaving the barrel at just over 1000 feet per second. You should see the wood on that one...
Fair? No?
But I DO have several small swords that are exceptional for fencing...
Maybe we should wait till I see the "Malkivitch"?
"Needless to say, I DO believe in certain absolutes, that Chardin is great and Warchol trash,"
A belief is subjective and excludes an absolute.
I, too, enjoyed American Beauty, hated Warhol's 8 hour trip on the Empire State but bow to it's provoking effect. Art need not be 'enjoyable'.
Let's see.***"Needless to say, I DO believe in certain absolutes, that Chardin is great and Warchol trash,"
***A belief is subjective and excludes an absolute.Do you KNOW or do you BELIEVE that a falling body will accelerate at 9.8m/ses*sec? If you have not measured it yourself, it this actually not a *belief*?
You are talking about purely a philosophical notion here, and I do not see any problem in my statement.
***I, too, enjoyed American Beauty,Why specifically?
***hated Warhol's 8 hour trip on the Empire State but bow to it's provoking effect.
"Provoking effect" has nothing to do with art. One can provoke with mere trivial facts.
***Art need not be 'enjoyable'.
I think you are simpy using this word differently than I am.
I don't have time now for a "What is art?" discussion. Love the subject, though.
If Warhol as trash was an absolute, then everybody would think it's trash. It's not the case.
I'd have to verify the sources before I believed or knew about the 9.8m/se*sec. Anyway, one less ignorance, maybe ;0)
I enjoyed American Beauty mainly because, as an outsider to the US, I found it refreshingly, self critical for a US film. But I probably got it all wrong.
Sorry, but I think 'provoking effect' has everything to do with art (AND trivial facts, you're right).
Art...enjoyable...yes, maybe I'm usingit differently.
Last point? That's good 'cos I hate 'What is Art? discussions.
You probably got it right. There are subtleties there, but the nihilism or decadence or whatever you care to call it, is right upfront.The story: man loses job. Man changes his way of living. Man's new lifestyle really disturbs people. Man is murdered.
Some things that are alluded to: The American Dream, mistaken first impressions-or the truth behind the mask, alienation, does the job or economic status define the person? You could make a list.
For all that, if it did not have a powerful emotional effect, it wouldn't be worth much.
I agree with you about art being provocative. It must be at least that.
***The story: man loses job. Man changes his way of living. Man's new lifestyle really disturbs people. Man is murdered.So? This is soooooo boring......... nothing but a local paper story.....
***Some things that are alluded to: The American Dream, mistaken first impressions-or the truth behind the mask, alienation, does the job or economic status define the person? You could make a list.????? trivial.... tedious..... boring..... who cares? Insignificant yeaterday's news.
***For all that, if it did not have a powerful emotional effect, it wouldn't be worth much.That story has "powerful emotional effect"? OK. I don't find it there. It is a rather banal, boring story, a tedious regurgitation of the x-gen created mid-life crisis bullshit that only exists in semi-idle minds of few well-off dumbsters who have no moral foundation. Boring beyond comprehansion.
Like your typical poor rich girl story, torn apart by the horrible realities of having to choose the coctail dress in the next three hours.
Story, story, story, subject again. For the n-th time, story and art are separate. If you like the movie because of its story, that is swell with me (this boring story nothwithstanding), but it doesn't make that "movie" a work of art. Any newspapaper story has, well, story, some are even well written, most not art at all, just skill.As I stated before - to me the movie is usually not about the story, although it certainly can and does play its role quite often. It is about how it is all done. What is so hard about this? In art subject is not only completely insignificant, true art raises any insignificant subject to great hight without you even realizing it. What is so significant about the Corot's tree leaves? Only the fact that it was painted by Corot and how it was painted.
While true art doesn't need any sugnificant story to use as a prop, for it perfectly can stand on its own, a mediocre or sub-art collapses without a story in one picosecond - and that is one powerful diference.
***I agree with you about art being provocative. It must be at least that.
You may agree with that, but this is not what was stated (look again). While it is debatable whether the art MUST be provocative (largely depending upon your definition of that word, to be sure - I don't think it need to be: I do not find Corot's tree "provocative" in any sense of that word. I presume that "provocative" expectation is largely a product of the 1960's mentality and some "revolutionary" art for masses desire), the statement was that many other things ARE provocative without being art.
You call them boring and trivial.Some of us here in America can relate to what Lester was going through. Here was a man who lived by and for the establishment and was dumped. He came to realize what an empty and cliched life he had been living, what a mass of pottage he had sold his soul for, and decided to try to change things.
For those who cannot relate to this, I suppose the movie is worthless and meaningless trash.
***If Warhol as trash was an absolute, then everybody would think it's trash. It's not the case.Ah, but the mere existence of some absulute scale doesn't mean we can always place things on it easily or reliably. Things don't come with tags attached. For instance, if it was a popular vote, I am not sure whe Warhol would end up (probably VERY low, I don't see anyone except the 5th Ave "elite" (elite, right!) falling for that self-centered jerk). But having seen what they would buy I am not surprised of much anymore. What if the vote was limited to those with formal art education? Intellectual elite? Junkies?
***I'd have to verify the sources before I believed or knew about the 9.8m/se*sec. Anyway, one less ignorance, maybe ;0)
I enjoyed American Beauty mainly because, as an outsider to the US, I found it refreshingly, self critical for a US film. But I probably got it all wrong.OK, that is the story again. Subject, in other words, not means. As I mentioned before, I often don't even notice the subject. What was the subject of Chardin's paintings? Ah, the servant girl... Dutch? Servant girls (many of them) washing the endless tiled floors. Few trees... those funny tiny figures on the frozen lakes. A flower.
***Sorry, but I think 'provoking effect' has everything to do with art (AND trivial facts, you're right).
Art...enjoyable...yes, maybe I'm usingit differently.
Last point? That's good 'cos I hate 'What is Art? discussions.No time for it now, anyway, as much as I would love it. Difficult discussion usually, up there with "Who was worse - Stalin or Hitler?"
Have a nice day.
"What if the vote was limited to those with formal art education? Intellectual elite? Junkies?"
Hmm..I guess that if it's limited, you couldn't after connect it to an absolute value. No?
"OK, that is the story again. Subject, in other words, not means"
Hey! What's wrong with a good story? - that's how Shakespeare made his name and I would say that the first artist was a story-teller before he found out he could paint on cave walls!
Before the technique, before the aesthetic, even an abstract painting has to 'tell a good story', otherwise it means nothing. The rest is intellectual analysis.
"No time for it now, anyway, as much as I would love it. Difficult discussion usually, up there with "Who was worse - Stalin or Hitler?"
Completely agree - you, too, have a good day and...thanks!
don't cancel your root canal for this one VK. I'm getting a sense of your taste in film, and this one might pass on some criteria, except if you don't particularly care for JM, well, hey, guess why they called it what they did
?....The film doesn't really work until he appears, and then it really gains enenrgy and begins to work. Overall, it's quirky. I won't say more now. Cusack is AWOL in this one, much to my disappointment.
I like Malckavich. Liked him in Dangerous Lesbians, and liked him in that Eastwood film where he played the assin.
There's a chance this film my open a door to his mind for you (ha). can't wait to read your impressions of this one.
nt
***don't cancel your root canal for this one VK.No way. Should I schedule yet another one perhaps? It is THAT good?
***I'm getting a sense of your taste in film, and this one might pass on some criteria, except if you don't particularly care for JM, well, hey, guess why they called it what they did
?....No idea. I already failed the 'late's IQ test twice, so I am pretty darn unsure of myself nowdays. I think I do know the answer, though..
***The film doesn't really work until he appears, and then it really gains enenrgy and begins to work. Overall, it's quirky. I won't say more now. Cusack is AWOL in this one, much to my disappointment.I dunno. Cusack still has a lot of growing to do before he can apply for serious roles. But at least he is not offensive - a blessing today with all the idiots that they nail to the screen these days.
***I like Malckavich. Liked him in Dangerous Lesbians,C'mon now, he is too UGLY for that role! Valmont is supposed to be gorgeous! OK, OK, so she is no Ava Gardner either, but he didn't go well with the interiors! (My last resort)
***and liked him in that Eastwood film where he played the assin.That role was so deep that Donald the Duck could play it well. Have to admit, I took the movie for what it was supposed to be - lots of running around and some shooting, so maybe I didn't pay much attention to acting. I remember his gun, though. Nice Sig.
I feel that he's got a potential and most people tend to mix him and his potential. And maybe some day he will really make it. Until then he is one strong actor, just few trivial steps from being excellent. That head IS a big liability...
BTW, do you know one good test of actor's brain? Put him on that Actor's Studio on Bravo and see him under that soft fire. Most of them don't look too good at all. I am wondering how John would look there. He is a thinking individual, unlike the majority of Hollywood hopeless clowns.
***There's a chance this film my open a door to his mind for you (ha).
How long it took you to come up with that line?
***can't wait to read your impressions of this one.
You've got me curious.
***BTW, do you know one good test of actor's brain? Put him on that Actor's Studio on Bravo and see him under that soft fire. ***I really don't like the guy who does the interviews, at least I didn't at first. He's disrespectful, almost mean. He has a big chip on his shoulder. Who the hell is he, talking that way to Hollywood's Royalty?
But I've seen a few interviews now, and you are so right! I saw Michael Cain put that asshole right in his place. Cain has the biggest balls in Hollywood today. Another good one was with Nick Nolte. But you are right. We forget our screen actors are not much without some lines and a great director. A few however, are either intelligent, or learn the roles so well they become the parts they play. Look at the difference between Sean Connery on screen and off. If it wasn't for Hollywood, he'd fail as a trash-picker. I suppose that's true of alot of hollywood stars. I'd rather not know.
Hi Victor,
the iq test is for the species. And i am afraid the results aren't in quite yet. Btw, Freeman Dyson has pointed out that it took over 130 years from discovery of America to the first colony.
We are probably looking at a similar process, and he thinks it will take
a similar length of time. Among enthusiasts, this is common knowledge.
So...while i might want to see a serious effort begin yesterday; my expectation is that it will take another century for it to begin.
The situation is a bit more complicated than that, as there are various things that will need doing ( the most important, perversely, is someway to clean up the junk in orbit). Ah well.
late, please don't take me for no Harvard grad - talk simple to me, please. After a long day with a true Harvard grad in my office, I want to relax. The fact that he is also from Cornell doesn't make it any easier. I can't take no more humiliation!!!So what was that about sending Sean Connery into orbit to pick up trash? Hollywood trash? Watch the American Beauty onboard your permanent space station?
If you are talking about dumbing down of the America, then its speed is increasing exponentially, hell, maybe as e to the pi power, for what I know. All those billions and billions of decimal places and fewer and fewer people every year who can add 17 and 31 without a calculator.
Sorry about the Concorde, BTW. Nice plane.
It was the legendary American editor H.L. Mencken who said, "No one ever lost money betting on the intelligence of the American public."Have a good weekend.
Hi Victor,
If we don't get the ability to handle asteroids; eventually one will kill us. The test is whether we can develop the tech to stop it before it fries us.
What i meant with the Dyson comment is that i gathered from a few of your comments that you wuld find that timetable less objectionable.
Don't let Mr. Cornell walk away with the store....
Victor,Here's one for you:
Without use of a calculator, decide which of the following two numbers is bigger: e raised to the pi (e^(pi)) or pi raised
to the e power ((pi)^e) ? It is permissible to ask a Harvard/Cornell
grad for help.The Concorde tragedy is another reminder to us that ultimately we are quite fallible.
...my intuitive feel is always to favor the higher power. I have to admit that I checked my intuition with an HP-41X.Besides, I was the one to mention that story about the chess inventor.
I presume you see the parallel.
Sorry, don't know the story about the inventor of chess....would enjoy hearing it.on the 'powers problem:' please see Gnat's proof below. A more informal version of Gnat's argument would involve comparing the graphs of x^e and e^x (for positive x) --- these graphs intersect only once in the first quadrant, at x = e.
What is that movie where a lady mathematician has a brief affair with Michael Douglas?
Hi, Victor> > >
...my intuitive feel is always to favor the higher power.
< < <Though I agree that e^pi > pi^e, the higher power per se
doesn't guarrantee nothing, 2^3 is LESS than 3^2.
My proof is as follows:e^pi ??? pi^e
ln( e^pi ) ??? ln( pi^e )
pi ??? e * ln( pi )
pi - e * ln( pi ) ??? 0
Now let's consider it as the function
f( x ) = x - e * ln( x ) when x = piderivative is
f'( x ) = 1 - e / x,f( x ) minimum is when f'( x ) = 0, when x = e,
min value is
f( e ) = e - e * ln( e ) = 0Well, that means
x - e * ln( x ) > 0, when x not= epi - e * ln( pi ) > 0
pi > e * ln( pi )
ln( e^pi ) > ln( pi^e )
e^pi > pi^e
Hope my deduction is correct. :)
regards, gnat
Great! This is your second award in just few days.And of course this is the right way of approaching it if you need a precise answer - and I would not be able to do it this fast (although I believe you would certainly enjoy some time with Leon and listen to his Kolyma stories. His family history is one from Shalamov...).
My presumption was, however, that the original question was more in line of the typical American multiple choices question, where you don't have time to go through equations but need to evaluate few alternatives quickly. So you would look perhaps at three cases: =, <, and > . And yes, I did consider that 2^3 vs. 3^2 as well (that one naturally crosses one's mind, I think). I however decided that the deiviation from the center point where a=b so a^b=b^a was still small and the function monotonous. That was enough for me to feel very secure about that decision in just few seconds. Not certain, but secure.
BTW, there is a whole big school that teaches quick decision making under stress. I took numerous classes while still at HP and while I found them mostly boring, they had some interesting things in them. It is about making decisions without having enough information available. Of course you can only evaluate such approaches statistically and not on case-by-case basis.
Leon is also a man of crystal-clear thinking and bear-trap intuition. I had always enjoyed watching him to tackle a completely new task - something he had no slightest idea about. Knowing a lot of fundamental things he would always quickly arrive at the first approximation answer just standing by the coffee machine. In majority of those cases he was right on the money. I will certainly never be able to approach his speed and vision, but I know what my fifteen years of working with him had done for me. Mentors like that don't come along too often.
PS. Got in touch with folks at Souvenir - Russian music store, and again feel that I could do without it. Hope to get some CD's soon, will let you know.
Hi, Victor
This darn problem already took a few hours of my life.
And I'm still thinking about it.As I understand, your fast considerations are true only
if that center point is equal or bigger than e. Otherwise
it seems to be wrong, sorry. :) I didn't calculate, but
I SWEAR that say, 2.69^2.71 is LESS than 2.71^2.69
If honestly, I'd not be able to make a quick decision for
this question. Well, I tried to evaluate it "by fingers"
first, but after a few attempts I gave up and decided just
to do all this math. I'd like to take these decision
classes, since it's my weak point INDEED. Usually I think,
rethink, check, recheck and, after a few hours of doubts,
release the answer. ;-)
Are Vopli Vidoplyasova available on your Souvenir? Their
latest album also seems to be OK. Just spell: "Oj buli,
buli na seli".
regards, gnat
You must have one BIG dacha...***This darn problem already took a few hours of my life.
And I'm still thinking about it.Same here.
***As I understand, your fast considerations are true only
if that center point is equal or bigger than e.I didn't know that. I knew quickly that getting close to 1 was dangerous - 1^64 vs. 64^1 - hmmm... But I didn't see the e as the break point, of course. However both numbers being close to some center point gave me some assurance. Enough to bet my dollar.
***Otherwise
it seems to be wrong, sorry. :) I didn't calculate, but
I SWEAR that say, 2.69^2.71 is LESS than 2.71^2.69No questions, such quick evaluation is not always going to work. But as I said - often the decisions in life call for one being "secure" rather than right. Especially when the information is not present.
Since this subject interests me, I would be very curious if someone could provide another way of doing quick estimation on a fly.
***If honestly, I'd not be able to make a quick decision for
this question. Well, I tried to evaluate it "by fingers"
first, but after a few attempts I gave up and decided just
to do all this math.I suspect this is all in the mindset. You are obviously trained in exact science and are usually able to arrive at precise answer (and very effectively, thank you). That is great, but has a small byproduct that smart people had discovered some time ago - absence of such firm ground sometimes stops the process. But in many cases the process can not tolerate being stopped - something MUST be done and such cases call for a different approach. We all can come up with many situations like that.
I have to admit that the first time I got exposed to this concept of decision making as science I was very fascinated. Many professions - astronauts, nuclear plant operators, commandos, even government officials are trained in this. Most people never get to see it.
This resonated in me for some reason.
***I'd like to take these decision
classes, since it's my weak point INDEED. Usually I think,
rethink, check, recheck and, after a few hours of doubts,
release the answer. ;-)Your mind is very analytical. I mentioned before that you remind me of Leon - the endless resource of wisdom. He is a tremendous scientist. He graduated from the Bonch-Bruevitch, but never actually worked in Russia as an engineer - always the guy with pages of formulas, but no circuits. When he came here he had to start working as a EE and quickly had become the best EE brain in our HP division, a guy with line of people waiting to get his advice on anything, from noise analysis to trading stock to something he had never even heard about before - gas chromatography, of all fields. He then spent time doing fancy analytical algorithms, creating several interesting things along the way. And then - he jumped into the phisycal chemstry both feet. In few short years he had become a world leading scientist in several areas of gas chromatography. When HP finally decided that they were paying him too much and that some young idiot could do all the same things at 1/3 of his pay, he retired and is now one of the most respected specialists in the world. He goes to the conferences and does consulting.
Well, maybe I am just using this opportunity as an excuse to talk about him a bit.
Anyhow, what had always surprised me in him was his uncanny ability to see the right thing through any smoke and ambiguity. In subjects that he knew nothign about. No, he was not right in every case, but if someone like him was in charge of this coutry you could be darn sure his net balance would be beyond positive. He was full of simple rule-of-thumbs that he had developed over the years and some of them sounded outright stupid when you first heard them - but you could take them all straight to the bank - they were bullet-and-rocket-proof. I am still using as many of them as I was able to remember.
Which reminds me... I need to send him $300...
Anyway, a VERY fascinating field....
***Are Vopli Vidoplyasova available on your Souvenir? Their
latest album also seems to be OK. Just spell: "Oj buli,
buli na seli".With the archive being down, I forgot about this one. I had ordered a bunch of others, but boy, is interacting with those people funny! Like buying pork on the Odessa market - "Are you sure you want this one? Try this one instead! But I want this one! Leva, pidjak wants this one! Tell him he DOESN'T want it! He wants that one with the red cover!" and on, and on... you get the picture... She didn't have Alsu that I ordered, but had some disco remixes, and - but of course! - that was much better and I absolutely must have it!
So I will check on Vopli.
Getting too long, so see you later
Hi, Victor
'Tsa-gi' is Central AeroHydrodynamic Institute, dad is just
a normal :) soviet engineer.
> > >
You must have one BIG dacha...
< < <Yep, but it was NOT as big for my great-granfather family.
> > >
***As I understand, your fast considerations are true only
if that center point is equal or bigger than e.I didn't know that. I knew quickly that getting close to
1 was dangerous - 1^64 vs. 64^1 - hmmm... But I didn't see
the e as the break point, of course. However both numbers
being close to some center point gave me some assurance.
Enough to bet my dollar.
< < <It's all in derivatives to me.
f(x)=a^x, g(x)=x^a,
f'(x)=ln(a)*a^x, g'(x)=a*x^(a-1)
When x = a, we get f'(a)=ln(a)*a^a, g'(a)=a*a^(a-1)=a^a
f'(a) is less than g'(a) when ln(a) is less than 1, i.e
when a is less than eThis determines functions behaviour near the intersection
point, including which one increases faster.
> > >
***Otherwise
it seems to be wrong, sorry. :) I didn't calculate, but
I SWEAR that say, 2.69^2.71 is LESS than 2.71^2.69No questions, such quick evaluation is not always going to
work. But as I said - often the decisions in life call for
one being "secure" rather than right. Especially when the
information is not present.
< < <Yes. Another reason for it is that even these sloooooooow
decisions aren't error-free. At least IME. :) And when time
is restricted, I prefer ANY decision over the brain-lock.
> > >
Since this subject interests me, I would be very curious if
someone could provide another way of doing quick estimation
on a fly.
< < <That's not to me. I'm also familiar with a few guys like your
friend Leon. And I always admired their ability to provide not
just proper, but ELEGANT solutions - thing impossible to me.
> > >
***If honestly, I'd not be able to make a quick decision for
this question. Well, I tried to evaluate it "by fingers"
first, but after a few attempts I gave up and decided just
to do all this math.I suspect this is all in the mindset. You are obviously trained
in exact science and are usually able to arrive at precise answer
(and very effectively, thank you). That is great, but has a small
byproduct that smart people had discovered some time ago - absence
of such firm ground sometimes stops the process. But in many cases
the process can not tolerate being stopped - something MUST be done
and such cases call for a different approach.
We all can come up with many situations like that.I have to admit that the first time I got exposed to this concept
of decision making as science I was very fascinated.
Many professions - astronauts, nuclear plant operators, commandos,
even government officials are trained in this.
Most people never get to see it.This resonated in me for some reason.
< < <Gee I NEED such a training!
> > >
Which reminds me... I need to send him $300...
< < <Hey Victor, can you pass to Leon this related problem:
when a > 1 and a not equal e, a^x and x^a have ANOTHER
intersection besides x=a. How to find it analytically???? :)
I've spent last 3 or 4 days masturbating my brain over it,
but I still "can't get no satisfaction", darn.
regards, gnat
a^x=x^a
x*ln(a)=a*ln(x)
x/a=ln(x-a)
(e^x)/(e^a)=e^(ln(x-a))
(e^x)/(e^a)=x-a
(e^x)*(e^(-a))=x-a
e^(-a*x)=x-a
now take da/dx for both sides
(-a)*e^(-a*x)=1
e^(-a*x)=-a^-1
ln(e^(-a*x))=ln(-a^-1)
-a*x=-ln(-a)
a*x=ln(-a)
x=ln(-a)/a
since a> =0, ln(-a)=infinity
therefore x=infinity.
checking our work
a^x=x^a
a^infinity=infinity^a for all a> 1
yes, x=infinity is other solution.
make that take d/dx NOT da/dx
'Tsa-gi' is Central AeroHydrodynamic Institute, dad is just
a normal :) soviet engineer.I presume - retired now? Is TsAGI still strong? I believe they have lost a lot of their personnel.
< < <
It's all in derivatives to me.
f(x)=a^x, g(x)=x^a,
f'(x)=ln(a)*a^x, g'(x)=a*x^(a-1)
When x = a, we get f'(a)=ln(a)*a^a, g'(a)=a*a^(a-1)=a^a
f'(a) is less than g'(a) when ln(a) is less than 1, i.e
when a is less than e***This determines functions behaviour near the intersection
point, including which one increases faster.
Yes, absolutely true. The simple graphical analysis doesn't tell you where they intersect, just that they do.> > >
***Otherwise
it seems to be wrong, sorry. :) I didn't calculate, but
I SWEAR that say, 2.69^2.71 is LESS than 2.71^2.69No need, your formula tells it all.
***That's not to me. I'm also familiar with a few guys like your
friend Leon. And I always admired their ability to provide not
just proper, but ELEGANT solutions - thing impossible to me.
***I have to admit that the first time I got exposed to this concept
of decision making as science I was very fascinated.
Many professions - astronauts, nuclear plant operators, commandos,
even government officials are trained in this.
Most people never get to see it.***This resonated in me for some reason.
< < <***Gee I NEED such a training!
All you would need (and I am not for a second suggesting this - BTW!) would be few weeks with my wife. She would put relentless pressure on you - C'mon now, decide already! She firmly believes that all major decisions (and the resulting responsibility for the wrong ones) must fall on my shoulders. She will go with most of them but reserves the right to crucify me for bad ones. Stalin - Zhukov relationship, if you will. Freedom to make decisions for as long as you make good ones...
I'have managed to stay from the family Gulag for this long...
***Hey Victor, can you pass to Leon this related problem:***when a > 1 and a not equal e, a^x and x^a have ANOTHER
intersection besides x=a. How to find it analytically???? :)
I've spent last 3 or 4 days masturbating my brain over it,
but I still "can't get no satisfaction", darn.I gave it to him. I don't see much of him anymore, unfortunately, but just as random chance would dictate, he stopped by my office yesterday, right after you and I talked here.
BTW - explaining things like that to him is NOT trivial - he always starts asking questions that seem orthogonal to your problem.
I suspect we may get kicked out of the Film forum soon.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
