Check out this short film shot entirely with a high-resolution still camera. I'd link a photo but they're under huge copyright protection. Apparently this technology is a game-changer for Hollywood and photojournalism. The shots look amazing, and the camera is cheap. Read the director's blog for more about the film and why this is such a cool technology.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Courtesy of Very Short List there is this amazing compilation of funny, yet apparently normal for Russia, things that happen on the subway in Moscow. Bit swamped with work, will finish ballot proposition stuff over the weekend.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Proposition 5 is complicated and long. It would allocate $500 million for more treatment programs for drug offenders. It would allow the state to save $2.5 billion one time because they won't have to construct as many prison beds. However, there are increased costs of $1 billion per year for drug treatment and rehabilitation programs. The proposition also changes possession of less than 28.5g of marijuana from a misdemeanor to an infraction.

My vote: NO. Having to vote yes or no on such a complex measure is like trying to type with an Acme-sized hammer. If a voter likes all parts of it but one, does he vote yes? If there is one redeeming part?I see no reason why this legislation on drug offenses should be voted on by the people and not the Legislature. Furthermore, the Legislature can change and shape the bill whereas the voter record is considered a mandate. I question the ability of voters to fully weigh the effects of the legislation. So I'm voting the same way I'll vote for anything I don't understand: no.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Proposition 4 would amend the state constitution to prohibit abortion by minors until 48 hours after a physician notifies a parent or legal guardian. Physicians who refuse to follow the rules would be held liable. Minors would have to consent to abortion. Various exceptions to these rules are also made. Costs are minimal. Proponents argue that a minor's safety is in danger unless the family knows - they cite the case of Sarah, a 15 year old who died of a cervix infection after getting a secret abortion. They argue that when abortions are secret, adult sexual predators go free, and that abortion providers have a responsibility to provide information about the crimes to a family member or law enforcement. Opponents argue that the backers are provoking fear to advance their own agenda. The cases cited are not representative, the opposition believes parental notification won't reduce teen pregnancy and puts teenagers in danger.

My vote: NO.It's easy to amend the state constitution and much harder to remove amendments. The Constitution is meant to be broad, to lay down principles for judges to interpret. This sort of specific language has no place in the Constitution. Abortion is legal in the United States. I agree with the opposition that parental notification could cause scared teenagers to do dangerous things. Furthermore if a teen can't bring a parent to the clinic they would have to wait two weeks or more for notification to be mailed back and forth from the clinic. I don't believe Planned Parenthood is a malicious force and I think they do what they can to help teenagers in times of crisis. Teens ought to have the ability to choose what they want to do with their bodies without that decision hinging on a parent.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

This bond would authorize the sale of $1 billion in government bonds for construction and renovation of children's hospitals and UC general hospitals. This would increase the budget deficit by $64 million per year. Proponents say that children's hospitals don't have enough room to currently see all of their patients, this bill would allow them to expand their operations and buy the latest equipment. Opponents say the main beneficiaries are health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies.

My vote: NO. Everyone wants to show support for sick children, and the proponents are not asking for very much money. I think that curing sick children is a public good and deserves government financing.However, I see no extraordinary reason to sidestep the normal legislative process to procure these funds. Hospital funds should be voted on by the Legislature just like everything else in the California state budget. Furthermore, the pro-Prop 3 side does not do a very good job of explaining what, if any, deficiencies exist today and why these hospitals urgently need more funding.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

If this measure passes, calves, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs will have the right under California law to lie down, stand up, turn around and fully extend their limbs. There are a number of exceptions for transportation and rodeos and such. Supporters say packing animals in close quarters is cruel and spreads disease, and this measure would help deter new farm construction in California. Negaters say the bill will hurt Californian families and egg production in California will shut down.

My vote: NO. I am no fan of cruelty to animals, but I think that progress in these areas will be made naturally over time as wealth increases. I doubt the measure will help at all. I predict that rather than comply with the new rules, California farmers will simply stop raising calves, hens and pigs, or move their farms to other states. The net result will be higher prices for Californians, less jobs and zero animals benefiting from the new law.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

If the measure passes,California will sell $9,950,000,000 in bonds to build a high-speed rail line between San Francisco and Los Angeles. The total cost of the proposition would be $647 million per year for the next thirty years. The total cost of high speed rail was estimated at 33 to 37 billion, but the true cost will likely be closer to $60 billion. Nearly every large public transit project goes over its projected budget by 10 to 50 percent.Proponents claim speeds of up to 220 miles per hour, a 2.5 hour commute from SF to LA and ease highway and airport congestion, without new taxes. Opponents attack the project's partial funding and its high cost.

My vote: NO. High speed rail sounds amazing the same way the school presidential candidate promised more field trips and Coke in all the water fountains as a kid. Given a choice between cake and nothing, most people would pick cake; given a choice between cake and $15, people would choose $15. The costs of the train network are obfuscated and indirect but ultimately will be picked up by citizens.

1. California faces a large budget deficit, estimated to be $11.2 billion this year. This project would add extraordinary new budget obligations for a nonessential service where the benefits won't be realized for another five years, at least. Furthermore, if we fund this $10 billion, the state will have to fund the project all the way through. There's no way they'll stop funding the project once they start.

2. High speed rail won't relieve much congestion. The pro-high speed rail group's impact analysis says that high speed rail will relieve 3.8% of highway traffic, or less than three years' worth of traffic growth. Furthermore, airports fly to many locations and high speed rail will only reduce airport congestion for Bay Area to LA flights, a small fraction of an airport's total flights.

3. The environmental impact is uncertain. There is a massive amount of new construction and the environmental analysis assumes cars won't get any greener.

4. The time savings are not great. Door-to-door, flying from SF to LA takes around 3 hours 32 minutes.Rail will take the same amount of time door-to-door, 3 hours and 30 minutes, and cost $50 per trip.

5. The train network will have to be rebuilt entirely every 30 years, and face annual costs of $1 billion for maintenance and repair. These are massive costs that will be offset only in part by revenue. We know this because if the costs would be offset entirely by train revenue, some entrepreneur would have raised the cash and built the rail network himself.

I'm 19, which means I will be paying taxes for quite some time. This project is an expensive pie-in-the-sky boondoggle. On all of HSR's goals - reduce congestion, reduce dependence on foreign oil, help the environment, etc. - the state of California can make better progress more cheaply than paying $60 billion for a train.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

This is 20-year old Tania Aebi who sailed around the world with no practical sailing knowledge. I am reading her book.

I want to sail to this place:

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

I have a car on campus and have started selling rides to the airport for fall break. Sure, I'm cheaper than a cab, but most people just find someone to give them a ride for free, which makes me feel a little selfish. But the beauty of capitalism is that only a small number of people need to like my idea for me to make a whole lot of money. The vast majority of people won't like my idea; only one to five percent of your audience will buy my product. That's perfectly acceptable. All I need is a few people who can't find a ride or who are too lazy to shop around.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Alcohol, or the idea of alcohol as a social lubricant? Hard work, or the idea that you're working hard? The meal you eat at a fancy restaurant, or its cost (as a signal to your dining companion)? Texting, or the idea that you're busy and have friends? Reading Dostoyevsky or the idea that you're cultured?

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.