Bryce Moore's Blog, page 291

Discoveries at the 2011 Fair

I took the fam to the county fair on Monday, our fifth(!) one here in Maine. Denisa had gotten the kids all hyped for it--TRC and DC both entered paintings in the fair, and so they were excited to see how they fared in the competition. (Sorry for the pun.) Denisa had entered a slew of things, too. How did they do?



DC one first place for abstract art by a 3 year old, and TRC got second for his painting of a butterfly. (TRC was a tad disappointed DC beat him, but I reassured him that competition gets fiercer the older you get.) Denisa won best peppers, best onions, best jam, best recycled item (she turned a phone book into a basket), and various other second and third place ribbons. (I might have forgotten a first place in there, too--sorry, Denisa. You're just too talented for me to keep track of it all!)



In addition to that, I completely broke my diet, what with the fries, the donuts, the turkey sandwiches, the maple cotton candy, maple syrup testing, and other maple items. But I walked a bit. That has to count for something, right? We also practically had our ear drums blown out by the demolition derby. (Loud speakers were a tad . . . loud.)



And then there were the rides. We discovered that DC is a total daredevil. She had no fear of any ride, and thought they were all a blast. Because she's so tall (43" or so), she could go on almost any ride she pleased. A rare event for a three year old. She loved them all--here's photographic proof of all the fun that was had:

Thanks for the Birthday Wishes

[image error] While none of you arranged for Marilyn Monroe to sing Happy Birthday to me at a gala in my honor, I am nonetheless very grateful for all the well wishes and happy returns of the day that were sent in my direction yesterday.



What did I do on my Day of Fun and Celebration? I worked. I'd planned on going to the movies in the evening, but my local theater closed down for the day as they work on parking lot repair. Bummer. I had a nice family celebration, and I topped it all off with writing group in the evening.



I live an exciting life. What can I say?



Today I have a big presentation on how/if eReaders can be used in an academic library setting (exhilarating topic for most of you, I know). It's at a state-wide library conference. Fun times. Tomorrow I'm in Bangor at a cataloging standards committee meeting. I hope to be able to duck out for a bit to post an update at what my fam did at the fair this Monday--I've got some really good pictures I think you'll enjoy.



So, not much time for any specific postings. I'll just leave with an observation I've made before:



Cool People Who Happen to Share My Birthday




HG Wells
Gustav Holst
Jerry Bruckheimer
Stephen King
Bill Murray
Ethan Coen (of the Coen Bros)
Luke Wilson


Which leads me to wonder if I'm not somehow predisposed to like people who were share my birthday. Then again, Nicole Richie's on the list, too. So maybe not . . . 




Also, Sir Walter Scott died on my birthday. My birthday is the International Day of Peace (due in large parts to the wonders my efforts have worked in this world). It's Independence day in Armenia, Belize, and Malta, a line from an Earth Wind & Fire song (Do you remember? The 21st night of September.) The same evening Joseph Smith had his first visit from the angel Moroni.




Clearly, September 21st is the most awesome day of the year, and only really cool people get to be born that day. In fact, I'm betting my birthday could beat up your birthday. 




Find this and so much more information over at the wonder that is Wikipedia. What does your birthday have?




Bryce, out.

To Everyone Freaking Out about the New Facebook

It's true, folks. Facebook updated their site. Big time. And that means that the old comfy feel of Facebook that you've known and loved for the past . . . few months, isn't old and comfy anymore. There are (gasp!) new features.



If you haven't gotten used to Facebook constantly changing by now, then you're probably never going to. And the "old" Facebook that you know and love and are now bemoaning the loss of? That's the same "new" Facebook you were hating and despising six months ago. Or whenever Facebook overhauled its site last.



Take a minute and check out this post that was written a few years ago. It shows the design changes of Facebook from 2005-2009. Or go here to see an interactive timeline of the way Facebook has changed.



I don't mean to dismiss your knee-jerk panic that things are different on the site you use every day to connect to all of your friends (who also use it) for free, but in the end, wailing about how awful the new Facebook newsfeed is is like wailing how terrible George Lucas is for dinking around with Star Wars. Again. Lucas is gonna dink, Facebook's gonna tweak, and haters gonna hate.



The problem is that Facebook has changed its mind in the past and restored some features from older flavors of its site. Having set that precedent, people feel like if they just moan and complain enough, then everything will go back to the way it was.



Having looked at some of the old layouts, I can honestly say that there isn't one out there that I light a candle to every evening in its memory. (Some of that is due no doubt to the fact that Facebook changes things so frequently.)



What do I think of the design change? Mixed emotions. Things are in different places, and it took me a bit to find where everything is. But I use Facebook quite a bit, and as I'm using it today, I'm liking some things. I like the latest updates feature in the upper right. I like how easy it is to now tweak how frequently I'm updated on certain people. I think the changes have some merit, and I want to use them some more to see how much I can get out of them.



I'm hopeful, even if there's a new learning curve. Because if this update lets me customize my news feed more, then that's a good thing. Not that I ever hide any of my friends. Particularly not you. I check your FB status multiple times an hour, just to make sure I haven't missed anything. But those posts from everybody else? They distract me too much from your updates, and it would be nice to be able to trim them down some.



So to sum up: everybody calm down. It's not like Facebook is suddenly charging us to use it, or splitting up its services onto two wholly separate sites or anything. Unlike, you know, *some websites.*

Dear Netflix--Trying to Make Sense of Some Nonsensical Moves

Netflix. That wonderful little service with the red envelopes and the online streaming. That poster child of pop culture distribution goodness.



My how you've fallen.



Back in July, you were riding high. Your stocks were selling for $300/share. You were the shining beacon of how a company should operate. You kept coming up with new ways to please your customers and keep them happy. You had a tremendous reputation for Bang for Your Buck quality. Streaming. DVDs. Blurays. All in one. And for a while, you could do no wrong.



Then you decided to double your rates, offering nothing more for that price increase than a generalized "there'll be more good offerings coming later." Customers were furious, and rightfully so. (Granted, I understand why you hiked the prices, and I understand why it was necessary. But as far as a price increase goes, you're now the poster child for how *not* to roll one out--especially how not to roll such a large one out.) There were threats of canceled subscriptions. You said it would all be okay. You'd taken that into account.



Then 1 million more people canceled than you were anticipating.



Clearly the writing was on the wall. People were unhappy, and you'd do something to fix that. You did something all right. You went and split up DVD by mail and streaming offerings. And you said that you were doing that in order to rectify the previous mistake? How does this help? Your stocks are down to $130/share as of this instant. You've sunk 57% in two months. Way to go.



So . . . where do you go from here?



First, some background for your (former) customers. Streaming is the future. I get that. More and more people are going to be moving away from DVDs as their delivery choice for media. I know I stream much more than I watch on DVD or Bluray. It's more convenient. And as more people stream, the cost for those precious streaming licenses goes up. So you need to get money to get those licenses. It's a Catch-22. I'm sympathetic.



But remember this: your competitors (Apple, Google, etc.) have wallets. Deep wallets. Wallets so big, they boggle the mind. You can't compete with those wallets. If streaming rights go to the highest bidder, and those companies feel like bidding, you lose. The end.



But what am I saying? You have to be aware of this. Maybe that's why you're doing what you're doing. The best scenario I can see for consumers right now is that you're prettying yourself for an acquisition by Google or Apple. They swoop in and get your great (or formerly great) brand, and you get their big wallets. We the movie watchers get better streaming deals, and everyone is happy. Those are the rumors, at least.



I hope they're right. I really want to like you, Netflix. You've been good to me in the past. Help me help you. :-)

Dear Netflix--Trying to Make Sense of Some Nonsensical Moves

Netflix. That wonderful little service with the red envelopes and the online streaming. That poster child of pop culture distribution goodness.



My how you've fallen.



Back in July, you were riding high. Your stocks were selling for $300/share. You were the shining beacon of how a company should operate. You kept coming up with new ways to please your customers and keep them happy. You had a tremendous reputation for Bang for Your Buck quality. Streaming. DVDs. Blurays. All in one. And for a while, you could do no wrong.



Then you decided to double your rates, offering nothing more for that price increase than a generalized "there'll be more good offerings coming later." Customers were furious, and rightfully so. (Granted, I understand why you hiked the prices, and I understand why it was necessary. But as far as a price increase goes, you're now the poster child for how *not* to roll one out--especially how not to roll such a large one out.) There were threats of canceled subscriptions. You said it would all be okay. You'd taken that into account.



Then 1 million more people canceled than you were anticipating.



Clearly the writing was on the wall. People were unhappy, and you'd do something to fix that. You did something all right. You went and split up DVD by mail and streaming offerings. And you said that you were doing that in order to rectify the previous mistake? How does this help? Your stocks are down to $130/share as of this instant. You've sunk 57% in two months. Way to go.



So . . . where do you go from here?



First, some background for your (former) customers. Streaming is the future. I get that. More and more people are going to be moving away from DVDs as their delivery choice for media. I know I stream much more than I watch on DVD or Bluray. It's more convenient. And as more people stream, the cost for those precious streaming licenses goes up. So you need to get money to get those licenses. It's a Catch-22. I'm sympathetic.



But remember this: your competitors (Apple, Google, etc.) have wallets. Deep wallets. Wallets so big, they boggle the mind. You can't compete with those wallets. If streaming rights go to the highest bidder, and those companies feel like bidding, you lose. The end.



But what am I saying? You have to be aware of this. Maybe that's why you're doing what you're doing. The best scenario I can see for consumers right now is that you're prettying yourself for an acquisition by Google or Apple. They swoop in and get your great (or formerly great) brand, and you get their big wallets. We the movie watchers get better streaming deals, and everyone is happy. Those are the rumors, at least.



I hope they're right. I really want to like you, Netflix. You've been good to me in the past. Help me help you. :-)

About that BYU/Utah Game--Mormonism and Sports

First off, yes: we were crushed. Utah played really well the second half, and BYU continued to play really poorly. At the same time, the rhetoric between Ute and Cougar fans continues to disappoint me much more than the loss did. It's always so black and white with these two teams. To have anyone try and say that BYU didn't shoot itself in the foot (or blow both its feet right off) in that game--that BYU's ineptitude didn't contribute to the lopsided score--is just silly. Yes, some of those turnovers were due to Utah. But a good portion were 100% us. At least let BYU take credit for its own stupidity and butterfingers, folks.



Now that that's out of the way, I wanted to get some other thoughts down on "paper." If you're not a football fan who happens to be Mormon, feel free to ignore this next bit.



Would a Ute fan be kind enough to explain to me (in polite, respectful terms) just why you're so 100% opposed to BYU sports at this point? I'm not looking for some long diatribe about how prideful BYU is, or how we're the holier than thou school. I've heard those arguments, and I don't feel like they hold water for me. I don't see BYU as being any more or less prideful than any sports team. When we were in the same conference, I could see how BYU would be really irritating. Much of the time, we were your biggest obstacle to conference success, just like you were our biggest obstacle.



We're not in the same conference anymore. Except when we play you, your sports world isn't affected one little bit by BYU's success or failure. I'd love to see Utah succeed in the Pac-Whatever-Number-It-Ends-Up-Being. Why? For the same reason I like seeing the Phillies win games, even though I'm a Yankees fan: I have a lot of friends who are Phillies fans. (Of course, I can't say the same for the Red Sox. Their success comes at expense of my team's potential. That's what division rivalries are all about. But if the Sox and Yankees were to no longer be in the same division? Sure. Go ahead and win. Whatever makes my friends happy. But maybe I'm strange like that.)



What it boils down to for me is one question:



If you're an active Latter-day Saint, how else would you prefer your church run school to behave in sports?



Bronco talks about how much he emphasizes that players should put other things in front of football on their priority list. When asked at the press conference this morning if he thought coaches came in earlier on Sunday to get a bigger start on prepping for the next game, he right off said he hoped none of his coaches were prepping for anything on Sunday--that that wasn't the right thing to be doing on Sunday.



That's the sort of thing that makes me really happy to be a BYU fan. Ideally, I'd like BYU to succeed because of the restrictions it places on itself as a church-run school--not in spite of them. Much like I try to succeed in life because of the choices I make as a Mormon, not in spite of those choices.



When BYU gets creamed in a game against its former arch rivals, am I happy? Not a whit. I was really bummed out. But it's a new week now, and I'm back to rooting for BYU just as much as I was rooting for BYU before that atrocity that called itself a game.*



Is there a large contingent of active Catholics who hate the living daylights out of Notre Dame? Maybe there is, and I just don't follow Notre Dame closely enough to care. But if you're an active Mormon, why the hate for BYU? You're paying the tuition with your tithing. That practically makes you a BYU booster at this point. Do you feel like a church run school should have a sports program at all? You do realize how every single BYU game, the church is mentioned--almost always in a positive light. What I mean, is I can certainly see how the church can view BYU sports as being an effective missionary tool.



Loathing of BYU fans--that I can understand. There are some who are really jerks, and who view BYU sports as God's team, and that's just ridiculous. They can be loud and boorish and ill-informed. Since I don't live in Utah, I don't have to put up with those fans anymore (unless I'm stupid enough to poke my nose into the cesspool that is cougarboard).



But there are idiotic fans of every persuasion--including Ute fans (a point which you'll concede . . . unless you're one of them).



So for me, it boils down to a simple question: should a church run school have a sports program? If that's okay, then (to me) that sports program should embody the principles of the church that sponsors it. In this case, no Sunday play. Encouraging players to go on church missions. Recruiting clean cut players who are willing and ready to follow the Honor Code.



I've heard some people say our players were playing really dirty on Saturday. I didn't see that. The commentators certainly didn't see that. If our players play dirty, I'd like to think that they'd be punished--just like any dirty players should be. I saw our defense play really strongly in the first half. Those were some hard hits, but no hits that looked intentionally vindictive.



Oh well. I'll let it drop now. I'd really be interested to see some well thought out essays by people I know and trust about the topic, from a Ute perspective. Ted? Care to comment?



I suppose in the end, I fail to understand the rhetoric because I'm just a strange sports fan. Such is life. Go cougars!



*(And Ute fans, your persistence in rubbing BYU's nose into that game baffles me. If we really don't matter to you anymore--as so many of you seem to like to claim--then don't revel in your victory to that degree. It's unbecoming. Sort of like if you spent all week talking about how you smeared Powderpuff U across the field. If we do matter, then . . . congrats. We took a lead pipe to both our knee caps, and you took a sledgehammer to what was left over. Now go beat some Pac-12/14/16 teams and establish Utah dominance.)

Book Review: The Postmortal

I'm off in Bangor today, so I'm not really in blogging territory. However, I did want to mention that I have another official book review out today for The Postmortal. It's over at Elitist Book Reviews. Check it out!

http://elitistbookreviews.blogspot.co...

Happy weekend, all! See you Monday!

Reflections on Writing: Looking Back at Work from Days of Yore

As I said a week or two ago, I'm in the process of rereading one of my earliest books: Weaver of Dreams. This was the third novel I'd written, and I've always had very fond memories of it. In my head, it's a great book, and all it needs is a bit of dusting up, tightening of a few hinges, and it'll be ready for publication.



Or so I thought.



The first chapter was good. Solid as I remembered it. The second one had a few bumps. I kept reading. And reading.



And . . . what in the name of all that's good in this world was I thinking? This book isn't ready for publication *at all*. I mean, sure--there are some highlights here and there. The voice of the main character is good, and some of the conflicts in it are salvageable, but so much of it is just . . . not that great.



What, specifically?




There are whole chapters where nothing happens but two characters talking to each other. And they're not even talking to each other in person. They're using telepathy. This brings the phrase "talking heads" to a whole new level. 
The main plot doesn't really sort itself out until at least 2/3 of the way through the book
The villain doesn't show up until 1/2 way through
The writing is just terribly uneven. The mood fluctuates all over the place.
The pacing stinks. I'll have a scene where some tension is ratcheting up, and then I'll have characters start discussing the basics of grammar for two pages. (I'm not exaggerating here.)


I could go on, but I really ought to be nicer to myself. I bring all this up because I wanted to discuss a few thoughts I'd been having while reflecting on this process:


Weaver of Dreams was written about eight years ago. I really hope I don't look at Vodnik eight years from now with the same emotions I have reading Weaver.
Then again, I'm happy to see that my skill has grown so much (or rather, that I feel it has). Eight years ago, I thought Weaver of Dreams was awesome. So much so that I still thought of it that way all this time later. So if I read it now and don't like so much of it, that must mean I'm *beyond awesome* now. Right? Right?
Even with all its troubles, the book has some underpinnings that really intrigue me and make me want to revisit the world and its characters. I still have to finish reading it, but I have some good ideas about directions I want the novel to take. In other words, it's not a lost cause, and I'm happy about that.


How about you? Ever revisit something you were really proud of years ago, only to be surprised by its quality (or lack thereof) today? Do share.

What I Did on My Summer Vacation: July 24 (Last One--with Pics!)

And so we come to the end of my summer vacation series for this year. It's taken me long enough, I know. Sorry about the pauses in between posts. There's just been too much else that I wanted to blog about.



On our final day in London, we binged on museums: the Natural History Museum and the Science Museum, to be specific. Free and fantastic. TRC in particular really liked the Natural History Museum. It's a gorgeous old building, and they've done a great job converting it into a modern museum space. (Except for the dinosaur wing, which was way. too. crowded.) Here are some parting pics:






The Natural History Museum has this cool program, where you can go to the front desk and check out Explorer Kits for the kids. They come with backpacks loaded with activities, a helmet, and binoculars, and they were quite the hit with the kidlets.





Don't be a dodo.





The room's even more impressive in person.





One last explorer action shot.





The outside of the Natural History Museum





Space explorers





Last bus ride





Quite possibly TRC's favorite part of the trip. Riding a double decker bus was WAY high on his priority list.

Amazon, Netflix and Libraries

NOTE: This entry was written for my Library Blog, and I'm reprinting it here for your reading pleasure. Check out my library blog for more info on the goings on of a small academic library. Now with daily posts!



There have been rumblings this week that Amazon is considering starting a book rental service similar to Netflix (except with books, not movies--obviously). They would use the Kindle as a delivery device, and people (perhaps Amazon Prime subscribers) could get a number of books delivered each month to their Kindle at no extra cost.



On the surface, I suppose this sounds like a cool idea. Books delivered to you at home for a low cost. But the more I think about it . . .



Isn't this what libraries kind of do already? Except charging money for it instead of doing it for free?



I'm all for technological progress, but to me, having a company step in to start doing what's already being done very well--for free--seems a bit much.



Of course, the reason this is all muddied so much is that eBooks are changing the way we approach books. Libraries have been lending movies for a long time, and I didn't get my hackles up when Netflix started doing the same--that seemed to me an extension of video stores, not an encroachment on libraries. So what's the difference?



The difference is that books aren't movies, for one thing. The way licenses work is very different. When an author writes a book, she sells certain rights to that book to a publisher. North American rights, movie rights, eBook rights--whatever rights are involved in the deal. If the author was smart (or had a good agent), she retained all other rights for herself. In other words, if it ain't sold specifically in the contract, those rights are still hers.



The right to rent books? Um . . . I'm guessing that's not really in any contract.



But, you say, where was the right for libraries to lend print books for free?



Here's where things get messy. Library books have been governed by the right of first sale for a really long time, meaning that once an item is bought, the purchaser of that item is allowed to do whatever the heck he wants with it. Resell it, lend it to a friend, etc. However, on the digital side of things, software isn't usually sold. It's licensed, and the copyright laws for licensed products are a whole other kettle of pickles. eBooks are sort of kind of books and sort of kind of software. They're in a no man's land that's really murky right now. (Note: I'm not a lawyer. I might be getting some of the finer points of this wrong, but the general gist is there.)



Until our lovely judicial system works out what exactly an eBook is and how it should be dealt with, there's going to continue to be a lot of confusion in this arena. And that judicial system isn't going to be able to wrangle with the problem until there are some law suits. (Don't you love the way our country operates sometimes?) Maybe Congress would address the problem before then, but something tells me they're too busy yelling at each other to get much done in the copyright arena right now.



Which is really too bad. eBooks are the wave of the future, and it would be nice to have some clarity. But for now, we'll continue to have a variety of readers, with a variety of formats, with a variety of approaches to making money, with a whole lot of confusion. What's a lowly library to do? Press forward the best it can, and yell loudly when boneheads like Amazon try to poach our territory.



Thoughts?