text:
Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page :
"THE" alternative forum :
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
The time now is Wed 20 Nov 2019, 19:51
All times are UTC - 4
Forum index
Advanced Topics
Additional Software (PETs, n' stuff)
View previous topic
View next topic
Page 2 of 3
[43 Posts]
Goto page:
Joined: 02 Apr 2007
Posts: 2647
Posted: Thu 19 Sep 2013, 10:04
Post subject:
@simargl8 -the crux 'build' functions are similar to several other build systems(arch PKGBUILD, BSD pkgsrc, others). The main problem with using just one or two functions is this: all other operations are done according to some default set of rules -thus not allowing for further intervention in these operations. What if those default operations remove or add files to the package which you do/don't want/need?
The other extreme is a debian 'rules' file, where you have 58 debianhelper (dh_*) functions which must be either added or commented out. The problem here is remembering all those instructions. RPM *.spec files have a similar problem -lots of macros, but specfiles offer a bit more flexibility than debian rules files.
There are two problems which affect nearly every build-system out there. 1) They all require some sort of specfile/recipe/spell/rules file for any and every build -even when only the default settings are used. 2) They have no way of protecting the system which is being used to build on -for instance when there is no DESTDIR support. In such cases, the 'make install' (or similar) command happily installs files to the real root, spamming your system.
While the debian CDBS lets you use a minimal rules file of only three lines, with no package-specific info besides the name and version, it does still require you to create that file, as well as(at least) a 'control' file and a 'copyright' file.
Karl Godt is correct in opining that having to endlessly repeat common config settings in every build script is a useless pain. The same can be said of *.SlackBuild scripts which contain many lines of code which are simply repeated in every script. Having a lot of redundant lines in a true build-script or recipe file, means that it is harder to quickly see how this build differs from any other build.
Everything should be kept as simple as possible -but no simpler. There are two main sides to consider when building a package/bundle/fsimage. The first consideration is being able to successfully and repeatably produce/compile/assemble the actual content which should be packaged. The second side is how to arrange the content so that it conforms to the package specifications. Meeting the expectations of the targeted system and package manager is pretty easy -if the specifications are complete enough. Getting things to build in the first place is much harder because there are always unknowns -any source of content could require any number of methods of configuration/compilation/assembly.
In both cases, there may be special needs which cannot be satisfied with just default routines -no matter how smart they are. In fact, there are rarely packages which don't need some sort of tweaks which must be work in combination with, or instead of any default routines. But, on the other hand, one shouldn't have to manually write each and every step needed.
Any packaging-building scheme which does not provide repeatability of the operation is absolutely non-maintainable. Any packaging scheme which cannot reliably pinpoint the source of any content and the way to create/obtain it, will always lead to either 'dependency hell' or inconsistent results -one should never think that running programs produced on OS 'A', will work with libraries produced on OS 'B'. Hence, a 'pick and choose' approach will never be consistently up to the job.
@gcmartin, I'm interested to know what sort of a GUI you think would work for creating packages? How do you imagine that it would work? In how many steps should the user be compelled to intervene(provide input or make choices). And in how many times/places should the option to do so exist? Long ago, big_bass worked some on creating a GUI for src2pkg -actually a GUI just for setting up the configuration file. Other src2pkg users sometimes expressed a desire for a GUI -but I could never figure out how a GUI would make things any simpler. I did finally implement an AppDir which provides for drag-n-drop functionality -even simpler than a GUI. You simply drop a tarball on the icon and a package gets created -or a recipe for a package which can then be customized and dropped on the icon to perform the build.
The problem is that creating content and then packaging it requires the use of many tools -at least 50 different programs might get used for even a simple build. And each of these programs (all CLI, mind you), have any number of different options. A GUI which offered any sort of flexibility as front-end for all these programs would simply be a mess! The user would be presented with many tabs/windows of choices to make and no way of knowing which ones must be set before building -when in fact, many programs can be successfully configured, compiled and packaged without any package-specific information other than the name of the sources.
I still can't imagine anything easier than this:
src2pkg URL(or path to tarball)
drop an already-downloaded tarball onto an icon
For any package with special needs, the wealth of options which would even partially cover those needs is way beyond being helped with a GUI front-end -maybe having a whole set of GUI's would make things easier. But, even if possible, any build method which always requires human input is unsuited for production use. Any special needs should always be encapsulated in some sort of non-interactive process in order to 'prove' the repeatability of the build. Please don't let this paragraph stop you from thinking about how it might look/work to have a GUI -I really am interested to know.
Back to top
Joined: 16 Sep 2009
Posts: 2744
Location: UK
Posted: Thu 19 Sep 2013, 14:36
Post subject: Re: Buildpet is it now v0.4 or v0.5?
gcmartin wrote:
What is the chance that an elementary version of this tool could become the foundation for a GUI for newbie use?
here's a very basic gui... very basic..
if it doesnt work ur on ur own.. at least for now.. see amigos caveats above... although it includes the option to edit the buildscript yo choose..
unzip, run the script..
818 Time(s)
Back to top
Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Posts: 6730
Location: Earth
Posted: Thu 19 Sep 2013, 17:02
Post subject:
Should I have the DEVX loaded when executing the script? or is a parm/filename required?
# buildpetui
/root/my-applications/bin/buildpetui: line 58: syntax error near unexpected token `>'
/root/my-applications/bin/buildpetui: line 58: ` buildpet "$BFILE" &>>$PKGLOG && echo "Finished." >> $PKGLOG'
Thanks @Sc0ttman
Get ACTIVE Create Circles; Do those good things which benefit people's needs!
We are all related ... Its time to show that we know this!
3 Different Puppy Search Engines
or use
Back to top
Joined: 16 Sep 2009
Posts: 2744
Location: UK
Posted: Thu 19 Sep 2013, 18:52
Post subject:
gcmartin wrote:
Should I have the DEVX loaded when executing the script? or is a parm/filename required?
# buildpetui
/root/my-applications/bin/buildpetui: line 58: syntax error near unexpected token `>'
/root/my-applications/bin/buildpetui: line 58: ` buildpet "$BFILE" &>>$PKGLOG && echo "Finished." >> $PKGLOG'
Thanks @Sc0ttman
to just
on line 58.. damn bash 3/4 incompatibilities... (i think)..
.. note that's not a proper fix as such, but should work ok..
Back to top
Joined: 22 Jan 2011
Posts: 815
Location: Toronto
Posted: Fri 20 Sep 2013, 02:35
Post subject:
Thanks all for the input.
I have packaged the gui along with buildpet_nogui-0.5, plus the Sept-12-2013 scripts into buildpet-0.6.pet. The download link is on the first post.
It is still early days. Thanks, sc0ttman for the help.. I defer version 0.7 to you, when you have improved the gui. (a search function would be nice)
Amigo has some very good and valid points.
Redundant codes, such as extracting the tar files could be moved from the .bp scripts, and into /usr/bin/buildpet
Some smart code could detect if it's .gz , bz2, or xz and extract the files accordingly. I would also like buildpet to ask the user to build the dependencies first, but don't know as of yet how to implement it.
Maintaining all of the scripts would be too much for one person. It would be nice to have a group of maintainers, but I don't foresee that happening anytime soon ... so it is up to the individual using the scripts to update them to bleeding-edge versions, if that is what they wish... I only update apps which I actually compile, and for the ones which I don't, I just leave them as is. Often, just updating the version number portion of the script will do the trick.
No system is perfect, but I think it is better than having no build system at all.
thanks for the support, but please try not to insult Barry Kauler.
After all, he is the genuis and visionary who gave us PuppyLinux, without which, none of my Puplets, your Puppy forks and this entire forum would have existed.
Thanks Karl and gcmartin for the input. It's late here.. brain getting fuzzy.. must sleep.. zz zz zz
Back to top
Joined: 06 Feb 2013
Posts: 65
Posted: Fri 20 Sep 2013, 04:42
Post subject:
Tried buildpet-0.6 and for a test successfully built nano pet package in alphaos, system without pet package manager and any of other pet building tools.
Some problems to report:
- sh: line 51: defaulttexteditor: command not found
To edit buildscript instead of defaulttexteditor, you could use EDITOR environment variable, to be compatible with more than just puppy systems
- when buildpetui is started it shows this
[root@alphaos Downloads]# buildpetui
/usr/share/buildpet/buildingblock/zlib.bp: line 2: usage:: command not found
/usr/share/buildpet/buildingblock/zlib.bp: line 3: configure: command not found
/usr/share/buildpet/buildingblock/zlib.bp: line 4: [--static]: command not found
/usr/share/buildpet/buildingblock/zlib.bp: line 5: [--includedir=INCLUDEDIR]: command not found
- other window that shows package building progress doesn't scroll automatically
Back to top
Joined: 06 Feb 2013
Posts: 65
Posted: Fri 20 Sep 2013, 13:42
Post subject:
This thing needs to get more attention, if I made those scripts I'd start thread under Puppy projects, and add github or mercurial repository, so others could contribute. A bit more simplification of the build script, improved gui and this could be standard way of making packages for Puppy Linux. Then one more thing is to add information about system where pet package is built, so everyone would know where it will work.
Back to top
Joined: 06 Feb 2013
Posts: 65
Posted: Sun 22 Sep 2013, 12:56
Post subject:
Noticed this on Arch forum...
ahcaliskan wrote:
Cheflex is a package manager written in Bash. It is designed to be as
simple as possible. I like the simplicity of makepkg and it inspired me a lot.
Back to top
Joined: 22 Jan 2011
Posts: 815
Location: Toronto
Posted: Sun 22 Sep 2013, 15:02
Post subject:
hi simargl
Your points are duly noted. I think I will leave the gui building to sc0ttman and his superior skills with gtkdialog. ( if that's okay with you sc0ttman? ).
I think for now, I will just keep this project in this thread, since it's easier to maintain a higher place on the post list in the Compiling section than in the Puppy Projects section. As for github.. mabye at a later time, when I find the motivation to set it a up ( I've haven't registered for an account there yet ).
Thanks for the links to cheflex. The concept is similiar to buildpet. Our scripts cannot be so simplified becuase we need to create pet packages after the installation, but I will take a look at the code and see what usefull parts I can transfer to /usr/bin/buildpet and /usr/share/builpet/buildpet.profile.
Please note that I am juggling other Puppy projects, as well as non-Linux related things in my life, so be patient with me, if the progress is not going as fast as you would like.
Back to top
Joined: 06 Feb 2013
Posts: 65
Posted: Sun 22 Sep 2013, 17:29
Post subject:
I'm not too much interested in buildpet, simply because I use my alphaos system with pacman
package manager, only I'm sure scripts you're making are essential part of any Linux system,
and also Puppy Linux, so users if competent enough to help you should really do that.
note this all please duly or whatever.
Back to top
Joined: 10 May 2012
Posts: 1020
Posted: Tue 24 Sep 2013, 13:18
Post subject:
Hi Tman,
Many thanks to you for the scripts, they do work!
I have setup my own cflags and ran a few test builds. The first one was Geany, I've had two versions of it actually - the stock one and the latest. Both compiled OK, except that I can't make them as small as Barry's. Then I ran jwm.bp, all went well - flags, compile options, the only insignificant glitch is that there's no "jwm" in the final pet package. I say insignificant, because I get the same result if I compile it manually as "new2dir make install." Don't know, maybe it gets cut off as result of strip? If I do just "make install" manually, it does install itself. Can you please, have a look at this particular script? Something's wrong with it. The install path points to usr/local/bin, making it usr/bin doesn't change the outcome. One thing I'd like to have in the scripts is the final output as a directory structure, not a pet. Will you consider such an option?
And here's a tiny spelling wrinkle, that needs to be corrected in pinstall.sh,
change this:
many 'build scripts' are already included in /usr/share/buildpet/.
You can write
own and add them there as well."
"Many 'build scripts' are already included in /usr/share/buildpet/.
You can write your own and add them there as well."
Thank you again and everyone who has contributed to this great effort.
Back to top
Joined: 22 Jan 2011
Posts: 815
Location: Toronto
Posted: Wed 25 Sep 2013, 02:15
Post subject:
Duly noted
By the way, I tested Alpha OS. It's nice, and it appears we have similiar taste preferences in Desktop appearances. Pekwm looks pretty good as well, but I don't know if it has something similar to obconf.
Which version of Puppy did you try to compile JWM in? The reason why I am asking, is becuase, right after reading your post I compiled JWM with buildpet on Pemasu's upup Raring 3.9.9 (which I plan to make a derivative on), and it appears to be fine.. my pet contains /usr/bin/jwm.
As for having buildpet building to a directory structure, you are in luck... buildpet already does that. However those directory structures get erased once the pets are built. To keep those directory structures, edit
and add find the line near the end of the script that says the following:
rm -rf $PKG_FILE_NAME
add a
symbol to the start of that line, and you're set.
Back to top
Joined: 10 May 2012
Posts: 1020
Posted: Wed 25 Sep 2013, 07:19
Post subject:
Tested on Barry's Raring-5694, forgot to mention that.
However, I have the same result here on pemasu's Raring, usr/bin is empty
make[1]: Leaving directory `/root/my-pets/tmp.OmPIHFgmAe/jwm-868/po'
install -d -m 0755 /root/my-pets/jwm-868-raring/etc/xdg/templates
install -m 644 example.jwmrc /root/my-pets/jwm-868-raring/etc/xdg/templates/system.jwmrc
install -d -m 0755 /root/my-pets/jwm-868-raring/usr/share/man/man1
install -m 644 jwm.1 /root/my-pets/jwm-868-raring/usr/share/man/man1/jwm.1
mv: cannot stat '/root/my-pets/jwm-868-raring/usr/local/bin/jwm': No such file or directory
rmdir: failed to remove '/root/my-pets/jwm-868-raring/usr/local/bin': No such file or directory
rmdir: failed to remove '/root/my-pets/jwm-868-raring/usr/local': No such file or directory
man -> jwm_DOC-868-raring
Creating package(s):
2236 2192 98% jwm-868-raring.pet
2236 2192 98%
8516 8242 96% jwm_DOC-868-raring.pet
8516 8242 96%
If successful, the pets should be in /root/my-pets
Back to top
Joined: 22 Jan 2011
Posts: 815
Location: Toronto
Posted: Wed 25 Sep 2013, 12:02
Post subject:
try replacing
with the following code and let me know what happens..
PKG_DESC="window manager"
download() {
# download the sources
if [ ! -f $PKG_NAME-$PKG_VER.tar.bz2 ]
wget --no-check-certificate http://joewing.net/projects/jwm/snapshots/$PKG_NAME-$PKG_VER.tar.bz2
[ $? -ne 0 ] && return 1
return 0
build() {
# extract the sources
tar -xjvf $PKG_NAME-$PKG_VER.tar.bz2
[ $? -ne 0 ] && return 1
#get the actual version number, from the folder that has been unpacked
PKG_VER="`find -name "${PKG_NAME}-*" -type d | cut -f2 -d'-'`"
export PKG_VER
cd $PKG_NAME-$PKG_VER
# configure the package
./configure $BASE_CONFIGURE_ARGS --disable-debug
[ $? -ne 0 ] && return 1
# build the package
make -j $BUILD_THREADS
[ $? -ne 0 ] && return 1
return 0
package() {
# install the package
make DESTDIR=$INSTALL_DIR install
[ $? -ne 0 ] && return 1
#overwrite current jwm, if exists
if [ "`which jwm`" != "" ];then
JWMPATH="`which jwm`"
JWMPATH="`dirname $JWMPATH`"
echo "JWM PATH="$JWMPATH
mkdir -p $INSTALL_DIR/$JWMPATH
cp $INSTALL_DIR/usr/local/bin/jwm $INSTALL_DIR/$JWMPATH/jwm
rm -rf $INSTALL_DIR/usr/local
#create pinstall file
echo "#!/bin/sh
echo 'jwm' > etc/windowmanager
exec usr/bin/jwm_menu_create &
TEXT=\"JWM Installer
JWM Homepage: http://joewing.net/
JWM's config files are in the ~/.jwm directory.
JWM will start next time you restart the X server (see below)...
1. Go to 'Menu>Shutdown>Restart X' and JWM will load.
2. If that fails, go to 'Menu>Shutdown>Exit to Prompt', then type 'xwin jwm' and hit ENTER.
NOTE: To read this later, see ${HOME}/jwm-tips.txt
Xdialog --title \"JWM Installer\" --msgbox \"\$TEXT\" 0 0
echo \"\$TEXT\" > ~/jwm-tips.txt" > $INSTALL_DIR/pinstall.sh
chmod +x $INSTALL_DIR/pinstall.sh
[ $? -ne 0 ] && return 1
return 0
Thanks for testing and feedback.
Back to top
Joined: 10 May 2012
Posts: 1020
Posted: Wed 25 Sep 2013, 13:50
Post subject:
Still no joy, everything gets created except jwm itself.
Creating package(s):
10401 10074 96% jwm-868-raring.pet
10401 10074 96%
If successful, the pets should be in /root/my-pets
This is what I added to the new script
./configure $BASE_CONFIGURE_ARGS \
--prefix=/usr \
--sysconfdir=/etc/xdg/templates \
--localstatedir=/var \
--disable-debug \
--disable-icons \
--disable-nls \
--disable-fribidi \
--disable-shape \
--disable-xinerama \
[ $? -ne 0 ] && return 1
and also changed this to show 2: PKG_REV="2"
Back to top
Display posts from previous:
All Posts
1 Day
7 Days
2 Weeks
1 Month
3 Months
6 Months
1 Year
Sort by:
Post Time
Post Subject
Page 2 of 3
[43 Posts]
Goto page:
View previous topic
View next topic
Forum index
Advanced Topics
Additional Software (PETs, n' stuff)
Jump to:
Select a forum
Forum index
|___ House Training
| |___ Beginners Help ( Start Here)
| |___ Users ( For the regulars )
| | |___ Usuarios de habla Hispana
| | |___ Für deutschsprachige Anhänger
| | |___ Pour les francophones
| |
| |___ HOWTO ( Solutions )
| |___ Bugs ( Submit bugs )
|___ Advanced Topics
| |___ Additional Software (PETs, n' stuff)
| | |___ Package Collections / Repositories
| | |___ Browsers and Internet
| | |___ Business
| | |___ Compiling
| | |___ Desktop
| | |___ Documents
| | |___ Drivers
| | |___ Educational
| | |___ Engineering/Science/Simulation
| | |___ Eye Candy
| | |___ Filesystem
| | |___ Games
| | |___ Graphics
| | |___ Multimedia
| | |___ Network
| | |___ Security/Privacy
| | |___ System
| | |___ Utilities
| | |___ Virtualization
| | |___ Unsorted
| |
| |___ Cutting edge
| | |___ Multi-session live-CD/DVD
| |
| |___ Hardware
| | |___ Audio
| | |___ Networking
| | | |___ Dialup
| | | |___ Ethernet
| | | |___ Wireless
| | |
| | |___ Printers
| | |___ Video
| |
| |___ Puppy Derivatives
| |___ Puppy Projects
| |___ Next Puppy Development
| | |___ 4.x
| | | |___ Bugs (4.x dev)
| | | |___ Usability Issues (4.x dev)
| | |
| | |___ 5.x
| | |___ Bugs (5.x dev)
| | |___ Usability Issues (5.x dev)
| |
| |___ Localization Project
| |___ Documentation Project
|___ Taking the Puppy out for a walk
| |___ Announcements
| |___ Puppy Power
| |___ Suggestions
| |___ Misc
|___ Off-Topic Area
|___ Programming
|___ Security
post new topics in this forum
reply to topics in this forum
edit your posts in this forum
delete your posts in this forum
vote in polls in this forum
attach files in this forum
download files in this forum
Powered by
© 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0870s ][ Queries: 12 (0.0204s) ][ GZIP on ]


text:
$ 40.00 - a unique, tie dye graphic tee
This super comfy oversized tie dye tee has an extra soft print on the front the reads BAD SEED with a grim reaper and skeleton hand.
Female model is 5'5" and wearing a size Medium.
- 100% Cotton
- Made in the USA
- Unique Tie Dye treatment effect
Machine wash only. Do not tumble dry.
View inside label for specific care instructions.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Air exposure between blinks affects deposits on contact lenses
Modern contact lens materials are prone to drying when exposed to air, which contributes to the buildup of deposits on contact lenses, according to a study – "The Impact of Intermittent Air Exposure on Lipid Deposition", appearing in the November issue of Optometry and Vision Science, official journal of the American Academy of Optometry.
With significant differences between materials, the buildup of lipid deposits on contact lenses is affected by "intermittent air exposure" between blinks, according to Holly Loretz, PhD, and colleagues of the Centre for Contact Lens Research at University of Waterloo, Ont., Canada. The findings may help in developing new materials that are less prone to drying and lipid deposition—thus increasing the chances of successful contact lens wear.
Air Exposure Leads to Increased Lipid Deposits on Contact Lenses
The researchers built a new experimental setup, called the "model blink cell," to examine factors affecting the buildup of lipid (fatty) deposits on contact lenses. The model blink cell was designed to cycle contact lens materials in and out of an artificial tear solution containing trace amounts of cholesterol or other lipids naturally present in tear fluid.
To mimic the effects of routine lens wear, six different contact lens materials were subjected to simulated blinks and eyelid motion for varying periods. The researchers analyzed the effects of air exposure between "blinks" on the buildup of lipid deposits.
For most of the materials tested, air exposure led to increased lipid deposits. Compared to lenses that remained submerged in the artificial tear solution, the amount of cholesterol deposited on lenses was about three times greater with air exposure. For another type of lipid (phosphatidylcholine), lipid deposition was about 40 percent greater with intermittent air exposure.
Today's sophisticated contact lens materials have molecular characteristics related to "wettability" that seem to contribute to a cycle of lipid deposition that is encouraged by repeated wetting and drying. "This wetting/de-wetting cycle can occur after every blink and therefore thousands of times a day, thus allowing lipid to continuously accumulate on and in the lens material," Dr Loretz and coauthors write.
What does it all mean for contact lens wearers? "Contact lenses gather deposits during wear and contribute to discomfort and how successful the lenses are for the wearer," explains Anthony Adams, OD, PhD, Editor-in-Chief of Optometry and Vision Science. "Dry eyes can also negatively affect the chances of successful contact lens wear."
Although no laboratory model can fully simulate the effects of real-life contact lens wear, the model blink cell improves on previous approaches by accounting for the drying effects of intermittent air exposure. The effects of drying on lipid deposition may be even more important with today's sophisticated hydrophobic ("unwettable") lens materials.
"The model blink cell device allows clinical researchers to move beyond the current relatively simple in vitro models for studying deposits to a more real-life modeling of a contact lens on the eye, particularly with today's more hydrophobic silicon component hydrogel lenses," Dr Adams adds. "The authors are hopeful that this will allow research that could be expected to provide improved comfort in contact lens wear."
Explore further


text:
Xtreme Testosterone Booster
The Xtreme Stamina is an all in one testosterone, pre-workout supplement and nitric oxide booster from ANTLS Supplements. Increase libido and sex drive with a 30 day money back guarantee. A study was conducted on men between the age 40 to 70, the group which was given a high dosage of testosterone felt a significant ...READ MORE


text: Sergio says what he loves most about performing for Brazzers is the chance to film quality HD porn scenes and fuck beautiful stars with big natural tits. This Latin lover's got a raging desire for curvy women and when he gets his hand on a juicy pair of titties, he doesn't hold back. Sergio must have acquired this taste growing up in Brazil, where everyone knows the ladies are always stacked and racked, and showing off what they got at the beach. Don't take our word for it, check out Sergio pounding pussy like a champ in a couple hot scenes with hot Brazzers babes such as Shawna Lenee, Claire Dames, and Kayla Sinz.


text:
Steelers LB Shazier undergoes spinal surgery
Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker Ryan Shazier underwent spinal stabilization surgery Wednesday night on the heels of the injury he sustained earlier in the week, the team announced Thursday.
"(University of Pittsburgh Medical Center) neurosurgeons and Pittsburgh Steelers team physicians Drs. David Okonkwo and Joseph Maroon performed spinal stabilization surgery on Ryan Shazier to address his spinal injury," the Steelers' statement said.
The team initially said that Shazier, 25, would not require surgery.
The Steelers have not released any information about whether Shazier has any movement in his legs, or whether he is expected to make a recovery.
A Pro Bowl selection last season, Shazier was injured during Monday's 23-20 win versus Cincinnati while making a tackle on Bengals wide receiver Josh Malone with 11:14 remaining in the first quarter. Shazier hit Malone low with his shoulder pads, then immediately reached for his back while his legs remained motionless.
Shazier was transferred from University of Cincinnati Medical Center to the Pittsburgh hospital on Wednesday.
He leads the team in tackles (89), interceptions (three) and pass deflections (11) this season.


text:
Description du produit
Ultra High Definition 32-Bit Mastering!
Ultra High Definition 32-Bit Mastering is a proprietary ultra-high-quality mastering system. This leading-edge system has achieved unprecedented sonority and musicality, reproducing as closely as possible the sound of the original master tape! This format employs what is currently the highest attainable resolution bit depth (word length) in the professional audio field, i.e. 32-bit. 32-bit resolution makes possible maximized, undistorted dynamics, and the lowest noise floor, allowing even the quietest musical information to be heard more clearly. This breakthrough results from the development, through years of experience and application of advanced digital technology, of a sophisticated A/D and D/A processing system.
Ultra HD 32-Bit Mastering does not specify a sampling rate; this allows flexibility in meticulously choosing the appropriate bandwidth for a particular recording. The higher the sampling rate -- for example, 192 kHz -- the greater the bandwidth. However, merely employing the greatest bandwidth may not guarantee the ultimate sound. With some recordings, a lower sampling rate -- 96 or 176 kHz -- may offer better musicality and more homogeneous harmonics. This determination requires careful and discerning auditioning and professional judgment. In the end, the human being's hearing and emotions should be the final arbiter, rather than the print-out of testing equipment or technical measurements.
Recognizing these variables, FIM nevertheless tries to use 32-bit depth and 192 kHz bandwidth whenever the original analog master is at hand. Alternatively, if the original recording is on 24/96, the 32/96 may eventually be used to maintain the integrity of the sonority particular to that recording. With this flexibility, First Impression Music believes that preeminent sound is only achievable when the chemistry of the recording, mastering, glass-stamper making, replication, and quality control is right. As always, listening is believing.
This recording has been mastered by the new Ultra High Definition 32-Bit Mastering process, which creates an unbelievable sound surpassing other formats!
The benefits of Ultra HD 32-Bit Mastering:
• Ambience of Analogue Sound
• Higher Resolution
• Undistorted Dynamics
• The Lowest Noise Floor, allowing even the quietest musical information to be heard more clearly!
• Richer Sound Field
• Master-Tape Quality Sound!!!
• Delivers what musicians originally intended!
• Special Silver Logo First Pressing!
• Limited Run of Only 2,000 First Edition Pressings Available!
• Ultra HD Mastering
• Produced using PureFlection (Pure Reflection) Process
• Beautifully packaged


text: Live from Sacramento... it's Tuesday night! Featuring saxophonist, Jason Galbraith, and the Shine House Jazz Band! Come in and be part of the music. Bring your instrument and get on stage, or just enjoy the jam with any wine, beer, coffee, or tea from our extensive selections. Sacramento's coolest Open Jazz Jams happen every Tuesday Night at Shine starting at 8pm. Doors open at 7PM. Be cool. Be here.


text:
A bill that would allow Floridians to have domestic partnerships was filed in the state Senate by a Hollywood Democrat Wednesday, the News Service of Florida reported.
Sen. Eleanor Sobel's bill would allow gay Floridians to obtain some rights approaching marriage, although the legislation says it is not attempting to circumvent the state Constitution provision defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, according to the News Service of Florida.
Any two people who are at least 18 years old could establish a domestic partnership under the proposed law.
"The state has a strong interest in promoting stable and lasting families, and believes that all families should be provided with the opportunity to obtain necessary legal protections and status and the ability to achieve their fullest potential," says the legislation, which is Senate Bill 196.
Supreme Court Takes Up Gay Marriage
Sobel, who has filed similar bills before, did not immediately respond a request for comment from the News Service of Florida.
Forty-five percent of Florida voters said they oppose gay marriage compared to 43 percent who support it, a Quinnipiac University survey in December found.
The leader of a group opposed to gay marriage predicted that the bill would not get far in the state Legislature, which is controlled by Republicans.
"I think they're lucky if they get it debated," John Stemburger, the president of the Florida Family Policy Council, told the News Service of Florida.
Stemburger said that domestic partnership proposals try to avoid Florida's legal definition of marriage.
The first two openly gay lawmakers were elected to the Legislature in November.


text:
Southern Miss and Ole Miss were to meet in a neutral field matchup at the Braves' minor league park in Pearl, Miss. last night, until the rains came. The delay lasted for more than 90 minutes before being called off, giving both teams plenty of time to entertain themselves and the crowd.
Ranking the best skits, graded on originality and execution:
•Lifeguards save tarp swimmers
•Skinny guy becomes buff
•The roller coaster
•Human bowling
•Synchronized stretch-dancing
Naturally, the evening concluded with a back-and-forth dance-off. College baseball is the best.


text:
NEC Basketball Tournament Promotional Plan Announced; Fan Interaction at Forefront
Somerset, NJ - The Northeast Conference has launched its promotional plan for the 2012 NEC Men's & Women's Basketball Tournaments and it's all about the fans!
The NEC will engage fans in a number of hoops-related interactive activities with its Overtime! Blog serving as the official Tournament Fan Zone, a place where one can find fan photos, Tweets, and even fan-written game recaps!
From the last week of February through mid-March, Overtime! Blog will be the central hub for all interactive tournament activities and information. Here's what is in store…
The All-NEC Fan Vote
The NEC will release the 2011-12 All-Conference Teams as a prelude to Tournament play. All all-NEC honorees are determined through a vote of the league's head coaches, but now fans have a chance to chime in on the process.
Starting on February 23, fans can tweet their selections for the league's major postseason awards and All-NEC Teams @NECsports and/or @NECralph. The results will be displayed on Overtime! daily and all participants will be enter into a random drawing for complimentary NEC merchandise.
Any fan who correctly predicts all five members of either the All-NEC Men's First Team or All-NEC Women's First Team along with all four major individual award recipients (Player, Rookie, Defensive Player, Coach) will automatically win a prize.
Fan voting will be done on a category-by-category, day-by-day basis. Once the day concludes, voting for that day's category will be closed.
Fan Voting Timeline
Feb. 23 – All-NEC Men's First Team Selections (5)
All-NEC Women's First Team Selections (5)
Feb. 24 -- NEC Rookie of the Year (Men's & Women's)
Feb. 25 – NEC Coach of the Year (Men's & Women's)
Feb. 26 – NEC Defensive Player of the Year (Men's & Women's)
Feb. 27 – NEC Player of the Year (Men's & Women's)
Feb. 28 – NEC Unveils Official Men's All-Conference Selections
Feb. 29 -- NEC Unveils Official Women's All-Conference Selections
Watching from a Fan's Perspective
The NEC wants to see the Tournament unfold through the fans' eyes. Fans are encouraged to submit their photos via Twitter (@NECsports) or e-mail (firstname.lastname@example.com). All submitted photos will appear on the Overtime! Blog and be in the running for Overtime!'s "Image of the Day." Those responsible for winning submissions will receive a prize.
What Types of Images the NEC Wants to See
Fans decked out in team apparel
The appearance of the gym/arena (pre-game, in-game and postgame)
Fans Being Fans
Tournament Tweet of the Day
Since its inception, the Overtime! Blog has been in tune with Twitter. The blog's staff monitors the social media site on a daily basis in an attempt to discover what NEC members and their student-athletes are talking about, and, more importantly, what others are saying about the NEC and its members. Whether it's through its "Top Tweets of the Day" segment or comprehensive basketball "Tweet-caps," Overtime! has been sharing its best findings with its readers.
To celebrate March and the hoops madness that goes along with it, Overtime! will feature a Twitter Feed of basketball-related Tweets as well as a "Tournament Tweet of the Day." Any Twitterer who produces the "Tournament Tweet of the Day" will receive a prize.
The Fans' Report
In the words of MidMajority.com's Kyle Whelliston, the Overtime! Blog is crowd-sourcing the task of NEC Tournament game recaps (see MidMajority's 800 Games Project). In other words, you go to the game, you write about what you witnessed, and submit it to Overtime! with the possibility of it appearing in the following day's blog post.
Fans can e-mail game recaps to email@example.com
Sixth Man Award
After the NEC Women's Championship Game brings the 2012 Tournament to a close on March 11, the Overtime! Blog staff will sort through all of the images, tweets, and game recaps submitted amidst the madness. The staff's comprehensive review will result in the selection of THE No. 1 Fan of the 2012 NEC Tournament. This lucky fan will receive the Overtime! Blog Sixth Man Award presented by Ruby Tuesday.


text:
It is a warm afternoon in the historic center of Rome, near Piazza Margana, and the film crew of "Duplicity," a romantic spy caper, is doing repeated takes of a fifteen-second shot. The movie's director, Tony Gilroy, who also wrote the screenplay, is at one end of an alley. The British actor Clive Owen stands near him, as does Julia Roberts. Nearby hover her makeup man and bodyguard, various assistant directors, gaffers, and carpenters, and members of the Italian crew. A black tarpaulin blocks the view of onlookers and the paparazzi. An assistant director calls for "last looks"—the final touchup by the makeup artists—and Roberts takes her mark, halfway up the street; Owen moves to the top of the alley. Gilroy calls "Action!" and is echoed by a "Movimento!" from the Italian assistant director who handles the extras.
Roberts begins walking down the street, and the cameraman, using a handheld steadicam, precedes her in a backward crab-walk. On cue, three children race up the alley past her, kicking a soccer ball. Roberts looks over her shoulder and continues until she is off camera. Moments later, Owen begins to walk fast; he breaks into a trot, runs past the children, decelerates, runs again. He is pursuing her. He runs until he runs out of street.
"Cut!" Gilroy cries. "That look is so strong," he says to Roberts. "That was great. That revealed a lot. Great." Roberts, who has already done several versions of this scene, is clearly exhausted. "My mojo's gone," she says. She also has the flu and an ear infection. The cast began filming at 4 A.M., outside the Pantheon. Gilroy assures her, "Even at quarter speed, you're still a thoroughbred." Roberts sits in her folding chair and removes her espadrilles; someone's hands take them from her. She sees the kids still playing with their soccer ball and adopts a mock-Chekhovian tone: "Oh, to be young and play in the heat and do it over and over and not complain about water or time or last looks." She turns to Gilroy: "O.K., I've come up with something that's really going to rock your world."
"I need an after-lunch pick-me-up," he says.
"Coming up."
"Let it rip!"
They shoot the scene once more. The children chase the soccer ball again; Roberts looks over her shoulder again, this time more subtly. The viewer is supposed to wonder, What, exactly, is she looking for?
"Cut! Print that!" Gilroy is pleased. The actors and crew mill. Everyone avoids eye contact with Gilroy; one can read the hope on their faces. "Let's do it one more time," he says. "This time, no steadicam." As the players take their marks again, he says to himself, "It's good to be greedy." He pauses. He wants this extra take. "Maybe, if you make a thousand films, you know what you need right away, but I can't imagine not wanting to have that."
"Yeah, that's all wrong," Gilroy is saying. "Her look falls in the wrong place." He stares in silence; Owen and Roberts are now out of frame, but the children are still kicking the soccer ball. Gilroy is watching a screen in an editing suite at the Brill Building, in New York. It is more than four months later, early October. He is watching the footage that he filmed in Rome on an Avid monitor, a series of flat-panel displays with a disconcerting number of buttons. Half-eaten takeout food is on the table, and traffic from Times Square murmurs outside. The shades are drawn.
John Gilroy, Tony's brother, is editing the film. Gilroy asks him to cue up more footage from Rome. Each take presents a small variation. In one, Roberts doesn't look back at all. In another, the children steal the scene with their ebullience. The look that Roberts casts over her shoulder actually has an important structural role in the movie. Roberts plays Claire Stenwick; Owen is Ray Koval; both are career intelligence officers. Several years earlier, at a party in Dubai, Claire, then with the C.I.A., met Ray, then with MI-6; she seduced him, drugged him, then stole some military codes from his briefcase. For Ray, a ladies' man—the script describes him as "Ray with the good suit and the easy smile"—there were multiple humiliations in this fleecing. He has spent the intervening years nursing not only his anger but also his passion for her. Rome marks their first meeting since that entanglement, and Gilroy wants the audience to be unsure if Claire knows that she's being pursued. Perhaps she has laid another trap for Ray. Roberts's glance must instill the viewer with a tantalizing sense of uncertainty just this side of frustration.
John runs more film, and Roberts keeps gliding by, her face expressive despite dark glasses. In one shot, she twists her neck. "That look is way too strong," Gilroy says. In some takes, Roberts appears coyly amused; in others, she seems indifferent, a woman in a rush. Finally, in Take 5, Roberts gives a glance backward that is delectably ambiguous, turning back with a half smile. Is she looking at the children? Listening for Owen? Is she just enjoying Rome? A pigeon flies up behind her. The children play with fervor but don't distract. Owen deftly navigates the street, his unbuttoned Armani jacket flapping in the breeze. He looks great.
Gilroy, leaning back in his lounge chair, smiles at his brother. "See, it just works," he says. "She turns her head at the right moment. Where it falls—here."
Tony Gilroy is best known as a writer of movie thrillers. The screenwriter William Goldman says of him, "Right now, he is as good as the game." "Duplicity" will be the eleventh of his movies to be produced in little more than a decade. Among them are "Dolores Claiborne" (1995), "The Devil's Advocate" (1997), and the three movies in the Jason Bourne series (2002, 2004, and 2007). One of Gilroy's specialties is the potent, reflective, and often beleaguered action hero, a man with, as he says, "an incredible toolbox of skills that he has let rust." In 2007, "Michael Clayton," which he wrote and directed, received seven Academy Award nominations, including one for his screenplay and another for his direction. Clayton, played by George Clooney, is a fixer at a law firm; he helps the company's clients when they bump up against police inquiries or uncoöperative judges. He gets friendly cops tickets to the game. He is oddly dignified in his cynicism. "I'm not the guy that you kill!" he shouts at his prime adversary, a corporate lawyer played by Tilda Swinton. "I'm the guy that you buy! Are you so fucking blind you don't even see what I am?" Gilroy's movie was taut and intelligent, and evoked the Hollywood of the nineteen-seventies, when thrillers were anchored by complex characters.
Today, the film industry considers adult-oriented drama a small target, and one that is getting smaller. Middle-aged Americans don't go to the movies; young adults and teen-agers do, and they prefer action to talk, in part because they believe they know every possible movie character already. A screenwriter interested in human behavior can find himself ignored by big-studio executives looking for movies propelled by spectacle and superheroes. "The trend is making movies that don't need screenwriters," a top Hollywood screenwriter explained to me by e-mail. Gilroy is a canny player, though. He says that he's "not into building blueprints of buildings that will never get built." His movies follow two fundamental rules: "Bring it in within two hours" and "Don't bore the audience." Sitting in his office at the Brill Building one day, while his brother edited "Duplicity" in the next room, Gilroy picked up a copy of his script and riffled it. "It's all white space," he said to me. "It's all about not writing."
Gilroy loves puzzles, and "Clayton" was full of them. So is "Duplicity," with its scheming, warily passionate spies. "If I told you I loved you, would it make any difference?" Claire asks Ray at one point. "If you told me or if I believed you?" Ray responds. Gilroy calls the film "counterprogramming—not the normal thing to do next." It is fast, lighthearted, and intense. " 'Michael Clayton' could have been a novel," Gilroy says. " 'Duplicity' could only exist as a movie." Yet it, too, is out of step with current Hollywood practice. It is a thriller shot almost entirely indoors. Ray and Claire do not career through Rome in a Porsche. There are no police cruisers piling up behind them at the end. Their passion is communicated largely with faces, not bodies.
The engine of "Duplicity" is the question of who is tricking whom—and, thus, where reality lies. The movie has an array of flashbacks that scramble the time frame, a complication that almost prevented the film from being made. Steven Spielberg, who, at one point, was interested in directing it, with Tom Cruise in the Clive Owen role, was so confused by the plot that he organized a table reading in his office at DreamWorks to clarify who did what to whom. Later, he jokingly suggested that the DVD include, as a bonus track, a chronological run-through of the story. (Ultimately, he dropped out.)
The core of "Duplicity" is the screenwriting trope known as the reversal. Gilroy told me, "A reversal is just anything that's a surprise. It's a way of keeping the audience interested." A camera follows a man as he goes up the stairs to an apartment; we see his wedding ring as he pulls out his keys. He pushes open the door, slowly—a husband coming home, trudging up the stairs with his briefcase. But a woman in black lingerie greets him: he's seeing his mistress! That is a reversal. In "Good Will Hunting," when Matt Damon, mopping the floor at a university, comes upon a complicated math problem on a blackboard and solves it, the audience suddenly realizes that he is not an ordinary janitor—that's a reversal, too. "Duplicity" is so crammed with reversals that Stephen Schiff, a screenwriter who is a friend of Gilroy's, says that the story "achieves a kind of meta quality."
Not only are reversals the building blocks of Gilroy's dramas; they are often how he apprehends the world. In May, 2007, he was in a taxi, on his way to pick up his eleven-year-old daughter at Chelsea Piers, the sports complex by the Hudson River. The cabdriver was talking on his cell phone and ran a red light. The cab hit another car. Gilroy, peering from the window, could see that the other car had been totalled. He did not think that he had been hurt. "So they're lifting the other guy out of the car, and I'm thinking, I'm lucky," he said. "And—it's a great shot, but it must have been done a thousand times—I'm sitting there watching them take the other guy away and I'm thinking, Great, I'm the lucky one. Then I see them come at my cab with those things, the jaws of life." Gilroy had fractured a hip and a rib.
Gilroy believes that the writer and the moviegoing public are engaged in a cognitive arms race. As the audience grows savvier, the screenwriter has to invent new reversals—madder music and stronger wine. Perhaps the most famous reversal in film was written by William Goldman, originally in his 1974 novel "Marathon Man," then honed for the movie version. Laurence Olivier, a sadistic Nazi dentist, is drilling into Dustin Hoffman's mouth, trying to force him to disclose the location of a stash of diamonds. "Is it safe?" he keeps asking. Suddenly, William Devane sweeps in to rescue him and spirits Hoffman away. In the subsequent car ride, Devane starts asking questions; he wants to know where the diamonds are. After a few minutes, Hoffman's eyes grow wide: Devane and Olivier are in league! "Thirty years ago, when Bill Goldman wrote it, the reversal in 'Marathon Man' was fresh," Gilroy says. "But it must have been used now four thousand times."
This is the problem that new movies must solve. As Gilroy says, "How do you write a reversal that uses the audience's expectations in a new way? You have to write to their accumulated knowledge." Before Gilroy wrote "Duplicity," audiences had been trained by the mixed-up time schemes of "Memento," "Amores Perros," and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind." Moviegoers got used to an aesthetic of disorientation. They also have DVDs, so they can watch a film twice to untangle its story, and the Internet, which allows them to look up a bit of jargon or insider information. Reality is a confluence of fragments, to be apprehended bit by bit; watching a movie has begun to approximate the rhythm of a Google search. Gilroy bragged to Variety about the nonlinear structure of "Clayton": "In theory, if I make a real world, and there are some dramatic events taking place in there, I should be able to drop the needle anywhere 28 times and make something interesting out of it."
A central challenge of "Duplicity," in Gilroy's estimation, is its humorous tone. Although breaking from chronology is an established convention of the noir genre—at the start of "Sunset Boulevard," William Holden is floating dead in a pool—a comedy audience does not expect a test. Moreover, "Duplicity" is expensive. Movie stars don't come cheap, so "Duplicity" has to make money at the mall. Taylor Hackford, who directed "Dolores Claiborne" and "The Devil's Advocate," says of "Duplicity," "I'm not so sure it's a picture that's going to play to sixteen- or seventeen-year-olds, but who knows?"
If you worked in Universal's marketing department, and you wanted to make the plot of "Duplicity" sound simple, you'd probably say that it's a corporate-espionage story: two former spies work together to steal a valuable secret formula developed by a consumer-products company. A moviegoer lured in by this summary, however, will soon realize that it's equally possible that Claire is tricking Ray, or that Ray is tricking Claire, or that the company with the formula is gaming them or being gamed by a rival.
The movie makes an effort to keep the viewer off balance. The action skitters between Dubai, Rome, New York, London, the Bahamas, Miami, and Cleveland. The scammers are scammed, and those who look defeated suddenly bounce back. A whimsical score reminds you not to take any of it too seriously. Watching "Duplicity," viewers hear nearly the same conversation between Claire and Ray five times, and each time it upends what they think is going on in the movie. The first time is in New York. Ray, now working for a rival conglomerate, has just been assigned to track Claire, who has taken a job with the consumer-products company. At first glance, it's one of those happy screwball-comedy coincidences that so many movies depend on. The two confront each other at Lord & Taylor, in midtown. Claire says she doesn't know who he is. "I'm not great on names," Ray says to her. "Where I'm solid? People I've slept with. That's been a traditional area of strength for me. You charm me. Seduce me. Screw me. Then you dope me and ransack my hotel room. And how sick is this? Last thing I remember before I passed out was how much I liked you."
Claire responds that she has no idea who he is. Does she really not remember him? Is she pretending? Or are they playacting together, knowing that someone else is listening to them?
Each time this exchange is repeated, the audience feels a fresh sense of vertigo. The success of "Duplicity" hinges, in no small part, on whether the audience will experience this sensation as pleasurable. Gilroy told me that he knew of no other movie where the same dialogue gets used five times for five reversals. "What the fuck," he said. "I hope the audience thinks the film is broken."
This was Gilroy's attitude after he'd finished filming, in the early summer. But studios test the marketability of their material at screenings, many in suburban Los Angeles malls, where typical moviegoers share their responses. "We are going to get some interesting audience cards on this one," Gilroy said in June. He had final cut on "Duplicity"—his agent negotiated for it after "Clayton" received its Oscar nominations—but the studio, which controlled the production budget of sixty million dollars, could be quite persuasive.
The movie first screened in Sherman Oaks, in the San Fernando Valley. Most viewers liked it, but many were confused. "I get the same things back on every picture I've ever done," Gilroy said. "It's something about the way I write." The studio, anticipating the response, had asked Gilroy to film a scene that could be a more conventional, chronological opener—the party in Dubai, where Ray and Claire meet before sleeping together. "The studio made us shoot it," Gilroy said. At the second Sherman Oaks screening, the film began in Dubai. Gilroy says that he is happy about the change. He recalls the first time he watched the reordered sequence: "We dropped it in and we went, 'Wow!' It did all these unintended positive things." The reception of the revised "Duplicity" was stronger. "Our numbers went way up," he said.
Tony Gilroy is fifty-two years old, six feet one, and handsome—Tony of the easy smile. His father is Frank D. Gilroy, who won the 1965 Pulitzer Prize for his play "The Subject Was Roses." Tony has two younger brothers, who are twins: John, the film editor, and Dan, a screenwriter in Los Angeles. Frank Gilroy wrote a lot of scripts—some for studios, some for television networks, and some on his own—but he did not want his boys to go into the film business. He and his wife, Ruth, raised their sons far from Hollywood, in Orange County, New York. His home town, Washingtonville, was a popular community for the families of cops and firemen who worked in New York City. Frank Gilroy was home, unless he was working on a project in Hollywood. When Tony was a teen-ager, he told friends of his father's that he was being raised with "a luxurious sense of insecurity." "We'd go to Europe for the summer and then come back and work a plumbing job," he recalls.
The milieu of Washingtonville High School in the early seventies favored drugs and fighting at the expense of academics. Gilroy was intellectually curious but unfocussed. "I don't remember writing anything until I wrote my college application," he says. In 1973, he enrolled at Boston University but dropped out after two years to play guitar in local Boston bands; later, he wrote songs. For a time, he sold gray-market copier ink to pay the rent. He was talented at the work, and says that it was good training for Hollywood.
In the late seventies, he began to write fiction. He moved back into his parents' home in Washingtonville to save money and worked on short stories. Minimalist writers like Raymond Carver appealed to him, as did Robert Stone and James T. Farrell. "I was really into sentences and really into punctuation and really into rhythm, and really into compression," he remembers. He loved writers who relied on dialogue—modified tough-guy talk—to move their stories forward. "Farrell is eighty per cent dialogue," Gilroy says.
In the early eighties, Gilroy began a "rock-and-roll novel." To make money, he tended bar in various West Side restaurants, including O'Neals', on Forty-third Street. His brother John worked at the bistro Un Deux Trois, a block away. Frank Gilroy remembers, "I used to be able to go into New York and have a drink or two at Johnny's bar, then go through a parking lot and have a drink or two with Tony." He thought that Tony's writing was getting better and better. "He was getting inside the castle walls," he says.
But Tony was not finding the world of fiction very welcoming. His work sat awkwardly between the literary and the commercial worlds. "I had an open door for further rejection at a multitude of places," he says. His father had used screenwriting to support his work in the theatre; Tony decided to do the same for his fiction. "I said, 'I'll write some screenplays and make a bunch of money and I'll finish the novel and be a famous novelist.' " Soon he was selling original screenplays. One of the first to register with producers was "R.S.V.P.," written in 1985-86, a comedy about a couple who, as a joke, invite the President to their wedding and find that he accepts. In 1987 came "Tempted," a high-concept comedy about a man who steals money from the bank where he works and then tries to put it back. Gilroy found screenwriting easy: "I knew where the scenes were. I knew when to get in and out. All of a sudden, I had perfect pitch." He was by now "making a good living," though he was frustrated that none of his screenplays were actually filmed.
In 1992, M-G-M released the first movie from a Gilroy screenplay, "The Cutting Edge," a romantic comedy about a spoiled figure skater and a crude former hockey star. "'Taming of the Shrew' on ice," Gilroy calls it. The movie is an affable cliché, but Gilroy was happy to receive a writing credit. He remembers thinking, "I'm going to be the last writer on this project even if it kills me."
Gilroy bounces between two ideas of what it is to be a screenwriter: technician and artist. On one level, he is a regular guy, a union man with a job to do, just like the cops and firemen whose kids he grew up with in Washingtonville. "I hate that Paddy Chayefsky idea of a script—that it is cut in granite," he says. "Someone who directs a movie word for word—they're an idiot." And: "The most makeable screenplay idea is to write a hero part for a guy between thirty and fifty"—a pause for effect—"with a gun." He has long worked as a script doctor, and he speaks of such projects bluntly. He says, "If I come in and, say, you're going to give me the weekly"—he gets as much as two hundred and fifty thousand dollars—"I'm basically promising you that I'm going to be able to get it done. I have made a temple out of that."
In "Prater Violet," Christopher Isherwood's novel about Hollywood, a studio hire helping to write a movie says, "They torture us, and we have nothing to confess." This is part of Gilroy's self-image and part of what makes him good. But he is also a writer with ambition, and believes that his job is to create characters who are plausible, interesting, and even revelatory. "What you are really, really desperate for is for life to get out," he says. Not every movie provides this possibility. "The thing is a lot of Tony's anecdotes end with 'And then I quit,' " the screenwriter David Koepp, a friend, says. "We call him Tony (Fuck You) Gilroy," Taylor Hackford says. "He wants to do it his own way."
In 1993, William Goldman, a longtime family friend, proposed Gilroy for the job of adapting "Dolores Claiborne," the Stephen King novel, for Castle Rock. Gilroy liked the character of Claiborne, a woman suspected of murdering her husband on a small island off Maine. She had an unusual voice and a toughness that appealed to him. The problem with the story, he realized, was that "she confesses to the crime at the outset. The mystery was: Is this a reliable narrator? And that doesn't seem intrinsically very dramatic to me onscreen." Gilroy made "Claiborne" a movie by foregrounding Dolores's daughter, Selena, who was sexually abused as a child. She is a secondary figure in King's book; Gilroy made her an equal protagonist. Dolores's attack on her husband and Selena's emotional hurt are thus given the same weight—they are mutual survivors—and how they deal with their past in the present becomes the focus of the picture. This trick even impressed King, who wrote to Castle Rock to say that he wished he'd thought of it.
Taylor Hackford, who directed Gilroy's script, wanted him for his next movie, "The Devil's Advocate," starring Al Pacino as John Milton, the head of a Manhattan law firm who happens to be Beelzebub. He showed Gilroy the script. "This just sucks," Gilroy told Hackford. "It was very soapy, Satanism meets 'Dynasty,' " he remembers. Hackford pressed Gilroy, and, reluctantly, he agreed to join Hackford in Los Angeles to work for a week for free, on the condition that if he backed out of the project they would remain friends. He took a copy of "The Portable Nietzsche" and C. S. Lewis's "The Screwtape Letters," and spent the flight to L.A. thinking about how to dramatize evil.
Gilroy writes in spurts. "Dolores Claiborne" and "Duplicity" were each written in about twelve weeks. "He feels fucked up and blocked and crazy for a long time," Schiff says. "He tortures himself. Then, as it's coalescing, he sits down to outline, and when he's outlining he insists on doing it very, very fast—the whole movie he sketches out in, like, four days. I'm sure that during those four days his wife doesn't see him and no one talks to him. And the reason he does that, he says, is it's a movie and it has to move fast. 'I have to write fast. I have to think fast. My fingers have to move fast.' " Back in New York, Gilroy rewrote "The Devil's Advocate," and came up with one of the more famous rants in recent movies. "God," John Milton says, "is an absentee landlord! Worship that? Never!" He goes on, "Who in their right mind . . . could possibly deny the twentieth century was entirely mine? All of it . . . all of it mine. I'm peaking. . . . It's my time now." In the draft that Gilroy inherited, the ambitious young lawyer played by Keanu Reeves—whose seduction by New York is the film's main story—was Milton's employee. Gilroy made him the Devil's son. The paternity "makes it very manifest," Gilroy explains. " 'I'm the other side of you that says, "If you want that, you can have that." ' That means I could write it and believe in it." And the movie ends with a terrific reversal that even the most jaded viewer would not anticipate.
"The Devil's Advocate" was a hit, earning Gilroy a reputation as a guy who could fix broken scripts. The "Bourne" movies confirmed that reputation. Robert Ludlum published "The Bourne Identity" in 1980. His Jason Bourne was a former career foreign-service officer targeted by the C.I.A. for assassination. (Carlos the Jackal, for some reason, also wanted him dead.) In the spring of 2000, when Doug Liman—the director of two indie hits, "Swingers" and "Go"—asked Gilroy if he would rewrite a screenplay based on Ludlum's book, Gilroy was not enthusiastic. "Those works were never meant to be filmed," he says. "They weren't about human behavior. They were about running to airports." In general, he finds the dialogue in thriller novels deficient; it often makes him laugh. "The filter that readers put on to read a certain kind of fiction is very forgiving," he says. Liman persuaded him to look at the screenplay, and Gilroy found it awful. "It was a huge, you know, fifteen-gunmen-on-the-Metro-blowing-the-fuck-out-of-everything kind of movie," he says. Liman pushed for a meeting anyway. They got together at Bubby's, a coffee shop in Tribeca. Gilroy asked Liman why he wanted to make "this absolute piece of shit," and said to count him out. Liman asked him for his ideas. Gilroy gave him one: Throw the novel out and just take the idea of an assassin with amnesia. Fill him with both doubt and an amazing set of lethal skills. Then what was interesting was how he was both like the rest of us and different from us. "If you woke up, and you didn't know who you were," Gilroy later told Liman, "you only have one way to find out, which is, like, the things you can do. What language do you speak? Do I know how to lay bricks? What do I know how to do? I guess your movie should be about a guy who finds the only thing he knows how to do is kill people."
By the time Gilroy got to his office, Liman and the executives on the movie had left him a dozen messages. He agreed to work on the film. As he put it in a letter to Matt Damon, who played Bourne, the DNA of the movie was "action with intimacy. Emotional credibility. Exotic locations treated in a completely nonglamorous way. Molecularly real people thrust into a heightened realm." He characterized Bourne's thoughts: "Who am I? If I'm a bad person, do I have to stay that way? Can I stay alive long enough to work it out?"
"The Bourne Identity" was a character-driven movie that young audiences would actually sit through: it made more than two hundred million dollars worldwide. The script was admired by other screenwriters. (Rob Kamen, a friend of Gilroy's, remembers, "I would just sit there and hate him because he was so good.") Gilroy is proud of the film, except for the parts he did not manage to rewrite. "Anything that's from the book is in the first five minutes, in which Bourne, inexplicably, has got microfilm in his ass. Why? I don't know! After that, when he steps off the boat, everything else is mine."
Gilroy did not like working with Liman, who constantly reshot scenes. "He didn't have any sense of story, or cause and effect," he says. As quickly as he would write a reversal, Liman would undo it, which angered him. "My scripts are very, very difficult to fuck with," he says. Liman, for his part, found Gilroy "arrogant." He remembers a fight with Gilroy early in the preproduction process: "I was telling Tony, I'm going to spend the next two years of my life on the movie . . . and Tony's saying to me he showed the script to his friend Billy Goldman, and Billy Goldman said it was perfect, and he didn't want to change a word." At one point, Liman hired a new screenwriter; Matt Damon threatened to walk off the movie if Gilroy's script wasn't used.
For the next "Bourne," Universal invited back Damon and Gilroy but looked for a new director. The studio offered the writer three million dollars if he wrote a script good enough to be filmed. Gilroy agreed, on the condition that the second "Bourne" not be a repeat of the first. He asked himself what was wrong with "The Bourne Identity," and decided that Damon's character had got off too easy; he was a murderer, if a reluctant one, and he had to suffer for his crimes. Gilroy's new script took Bourne on a voyage to Russia to apologize to a girl whom he had orphaned. Years before, the C.I.A. had sent Bourne on a training mission. His target was a Russian politician, but his wife was in the room when Bourne arrived, and he killed them both. Afterward, he covered up the double murder as a murder-suicide. Bourne's apology to the girl would have to be deep—a true repentance. This time, Bourne would earn the affection that the audience felt for him. As he was working to get his past back, he would give the girl her past back. "I think that movie could have been 'The Searchers' of action films," Gilroy says.
The studio, with Gilroy's help, hired a new director, Paul Greengrass, who had made "Bloody Sunday," about the 1972 British massacre of Irish protestors in Derry. Greengrass's aesthetic was cinéma vérité, his trademark a constantly moving handheld camera. Greengrass made the "Bourne" sequel a visually innovative picture, one in which dialogue was scant and motivation gave way to momentum. The Times praised the look, the speed, and the sheen of the film, calling a chase sequence "one of the three or four most exciting demolition derbies ever filmed." There was no mention of Bourne's atonement. Gilroy is still angry about it. "It was sort of like a crime against the gods of storytelling," he says.
In 2005, the studio used another large check to persuade Gilroy to write the third "Bourne" movie. One of the conditions of his taking the money was that he would not have to speak with Greengrass. Gilroy wrote a draft of the script, and then left the project. Then Greengrass passed the script on to four other writers, among them Tom Stoppard. Frank Marshall, one of the series' producers, says that "The Bourne Ultimatum" is, at its core, still Gilroy's story. Its worldwide gross was four hundred and forty million dollars. Gilroy never saw it.
By the late nineties, Gilroy knew that he wanted to direct his own script. He wrote "Michael Clayton," which drew on his childhood in Washingtonville, and on themes he cared deeply about: morality, corruption, marginality. He saw the consequences of selling it for someone else to film: "I could wake up in five years and be sitting across from some production person, taking notes, and no one would be able to save me from that." His friends weren't surprised that he was thinking of directing. David Koepp says, "If it's a screenwriter with strong opinions, which certainly describes Tony, it's likely." Gilroy took his pitch to Castle Rock: "I want to do a movie about a lawyer who's a fixer, and it'll be in New York, and there won't be any courtrooms and someone will die and it will have a good starring part, and I want to direct it." Despite Gilroy's reputation as a writer, he could not get the backing to film "Clayton." He recalls, "No one wanted to work with a first-time director. . . . But what actor who's that kind of actor doesn't look at 'The Verdict' at three in the morning and say, 'Fuck, I'd love to play a part like that. How do I get that part?' " It took him more than five years of meetings and a change of agents—from International Creative Management to Creative Artists Agency—before George Clooney, also a C.A.A. client, committed to the title role. Clooney waived his usual fee; in return, he became one of the owners of the film. For Gilroy, it was worth it. Here, at last, was a chance to make a movie unencumbered by the intervention of the directors and studios that had "whimmed to death" his other work.
"Clayton" is layered with reversals, some so subtle that you may not notice them. In one of the first scenes, the camera notes that Clayton's car has a malfunctioning G.P.S. unit. You think, Good set design—those things never work. But the scene runs a second time, toward the end of the movie, in its proper chronological place, and this time you realize that the reason the G.P.S. unit is broken is that someone opened up the device and spliced a bomb into it. Similarly, there is a quick shot early in the movie of Tilda Swinton having a panic attack in a ladies' room. She is sweating, practically hyperventilating. In her next scene, she has stepped out for an interview with the company's in-house camera crew. The juxtaposition leaves the viewer a bit mystified: She sure is nervous. But a careful observer might notice that Swinton wears a different outfit in each scene, and that the pink blouse from the first scene matches one she wears an hour and a half later in the movie, at a moment when she has just ordered a second murder. Now you understand her anxiety.
Gilroy's favorite scene is a delicate exchange between Swinton, who plays the attorney Karen Crowder, and Robert Prescott, an assassin named Mr. Verne, in which she may or may not be authorizing him to kill someone:
VERNE: We have some good ideas. You say move, we move. The ideas don't look so good we back off, reassess.
VERNE: Is that O.K. "you understand"? Or O.K. "proceed"?
The answer is in Swinton's face—an analogue to the look that Claire throws over her shoulder in "Duplicity." In an e-mail, Swinton told me, "Tony places at the centre of a scene an unsaid—maybe unsayable—thing and then sets his characters dancing around it: some beating a path towards it, others flashing up decoys of distraction."
In "Clayton," Gilroy nailed the character that he had been chasing, with variations, for so many years—an updated version of the role Humphrey Bogart used to play, the idealistic burnout with one last fight in him. It also provided a gloss on Gilroy's own career: in the film business, who is the fixer—skilled at his work, necessary for his industry, and underappreciated, even resented, by the people who depend on him—if not the screenwriter?
In late May, the cast and crew of "Duplicity" were in a ballroom at the St. Regis Hotel in Rome, preparing to shoot another key scene in the movie. Gilroy, from his days as a script doctor, is used to rewriting scenes on the fly. He was still trying to fine-tune the relationship between Ray and Claire, the balance between passion and competition, professional admiration and mistrust. By now, the audience has heard their key exchange several times. They might not be sure who is gaming whom, but it is increasingly clear that they mean something to each other.
To shoot the scene, the lighting crew lit the ballroom beyond its norm, highlighting the hotel's nicked paint and faded curtains. Roberts and Owen sat down in overstuffed armchairs. A single camera would begin close in, and then pull away slowly. Gilroy wanted a lengthy shot, one in which the audience would have a lot of time to examine the two actors' faces and bodies for clues. There would be no second camera, meaning that, when Gilroy set to work in the Brill Building, there would be no alternative angles to choose from.
The assistant director called, "Lock it up!" Gilroy said, "Lights, camera. Action."
Roberts asked, "Does action mean talking? I'm new around here."
Gilroy said it meant action.
CLAIRE: It's really that bad, isn't it?
RAY: Kind of. Yeah.
Gilroy interrupted. He reminded the actors that they were no longer facing off. "There should be no hostility," Gilroy explained to me. They had suffered a reversal, and the effect, for now at least, was to bring them closer together. A second take: Roberts and Owen leaned toward each other as they spoke. They took each other's hands.
CLAIRE: I can't breathe.
RAY: You'll be O.K.
CLAIRE: When?
RAY: After we wake up in Rome.
CLAIRE: We might have to wake up in Rome for a long time. . . .
RAY: That sounds like a plan.
"Cut," Gilroy said. He still didn't like it. The actors tried the scene different ways. Gilroy changed Ray's line to "Sounds like a plan." After each take, the camera, the lighting, and the sound had to be fixed. The hours dragged on.
At midnight, the crew broke for a meal, and Gilroy joined them. He gets along well with technical crews. A grip distributed homemade mozzarella as Gilroy mulled. "We don't want to tee the ball up," he said. Upon returning to the ballroom, Gilroy offered a variant line. The actors tried it:
CLAIRE: We might have to wake up in Rome for a long time.
RAY: Plan on it.
The line still felt too much like a zinger. Owen looked like he'd rather be saying something else; Roberts looked like she'd rather hear something else. The techies looked pained. Gilroy quietly gave the actors notes. "Action," he said.
CLAIRE: I can't breathe.
RAY: You'll be O.K.
CLAIRE: When?
RAY: After we wake up in Rome.
CLAIRE: We might have to wake up in Rome for a long time.
RAY: That's the plan.
The flatness of the line worked against Owen's British accent, eliminating the whiff of effortful wit. The more serious tone suggested that running a "triple game" had been difficult for Ray; it humanized him. He was no longer just a man with a good suit and an easy smile. The actors had given the scene a useful tentativeness: the sexual bond between Ray and Claire was clear, but now something deeper was at stake. At the same time, the underlined intimacy of the scene—the silence around the dialogue, the sustained shot—would make the viewer suspicious. Hadn't we fallen for this sort of thing many times before? Was a new trick coming? This was a movie about acting, after all. The camera slowly pulled back, all the way out of the room, teasing the audience.
"Cut. Star it!" Gilroy said. ♦


text:
Nutrition Facts
Percent Daily Values (DV) are based on a 2,000 calorie diet.
Servings and Times
Cups of Fruits and Vegetables Per Person: 1.0
Ingredients and Preparation
- Mix apple, banana, and grapefruit sections with juice to prevent darkening of apple and banana.
- Add grapes and pineapple; chill.
- Fresh fruits in season may be substituted, as desired.


text:
We've become conditioned over the last few years of this Great Recession to negative data, but S&P's downgrade of U.S. debt securities—following an ugly fight in Washington over lifting the debt ceiling—seems to have marked a turning point in global markets. Of course this happened at the same time Europe's sovereign debt crisis threatened to spread its contagion to Spain and Italy—countries thought "too big to bail"—so the increased level of shock sent a powerful market signal to run for cover.
After all, government debt securities of advanced market economies were always seen as the conservative floor from which investors could securely venture out to riskier assets. When "safe" investments become scary, it eventually must affect the psyche of the investor.
In this context, weak home sales, new unemployment claims, sluggish manufacturing, signs of inflation and forecasts of imminent recession become more than just the same-old, new-normal bad data. The market blithely ignored such data in the huge bull runs of 2009 and 2010. The trouble is today's environment is starting to feel an awful lot like 2008.
Eminent voices on Wall Street are capturing this zeitgeist. DoubleLine's Jeffrey Gundlach has warned of a "serious possibility of a global banking panic" like we had in 2008. He notes that European banks sitting on mountains of toxic debt are closely tied to U.S. banks through swap contracts as we saw three years ago with AIG. He called this week's market mayhem a "small drop" that should not be seen as a buying opportunity.
Economist Nouriel Roubini, in a video interview with the Wall Street Journal a week ago, was among many others counseling investors to avoid stocks at this time. He said: "We don't know whether this volatility is temporary and things are going to improve or whether there's going to be a nasty recession and another 30-40% fall in equity prices. So until the fog of uncertainty is resolved, my view is that it's better to be safe rather than sorry. This is not the time to be in risky assets."
To anyone who has been following the world economic situation recently, it seems hard to dispute this. But consider the fact the economy and markets don't track each other perfectly in the short-term. If they did, the market should have plummeted in 2009 and 2010. Far too many poor suckers were "right" about the market crash a year or two or three in advance.
In 2008, there were lots of articles with the theme that "buy and hold is dead," but far deader were those who liquidated their portfolios in panic and then waited more than two years for the market to pause to get back in. Well, here's the pause you've been waiting for, right? I am not arguing that the recent retreat of the market is a buying opportunity. Further declines seem likely to me. What's more, my expectation is that economic conditions will deteriorate further for at least another year. But I have enough experience watching the market to know that short-term movements are hard to predict on a consistent basis and that trying to do so involves too great a risk of wealth destruction.
So here's my advice to investors. To the standard and not always satisfying "buy and hold" axiom we should append "and don't look." Quarterly reports can be frightening, monthly reports downright terrifying. They all go against the very idea of an investing strategy, which is inherently long-term. If the strategy is sound, there is no need to take any action on capital that has already been invested. The wise course is to adopt an investment strategy with your eyes wide open, but once adopted to keep them tightly shut.
It is the nature of human beings in general and investors in particular to be highly insecure about their wealth. No matter our individual "risk tolerance," we all tend to buckle when faced with losses. Behavioral finance research shows that the pain of loss is felt with approximately two and half times the intensity as the joy of gain.
The last decade was a lost decade in the financial markets, and the present one could be as well. But with a long-term horizon and adequate diversification, investors will come out ahead. And besides, what alternative is there given that the asset class historically understood as "safe" has never held greater risk.
Treasury securities depend on two things: responsible management of debt and a government's ability to tax private wealth–two bedrocks that have cratered in recent times. While stocks are considered "risky assets," they are based on companies selling goods and services that people need and want. If that ever stops, there will be nothing for governments to tax, so bonds will be worthless and cash useless; but that of course would be the least of our problems.
If you're invested in the market, stay in … and don't look.


text:
The Continuing Committee was one of the highest governing bodies of the Romulan Star Empire. Headed by the Praetor, the Committee comprised members of the Romulan Senate as well as other high-ranking officials. Usually the chairman of the Tal Shiar serves on the Committee, although this is not always the case (the Praetor is the only member who is guaranteed a seat on the Committee - all others must compete to be allowed in).
One of the Committee's duties was the confirmation of a new praetor. The Committee also served as a court when criminal charges were brought against members of the Senate.
In 2375, Senator Cretak and Chairman Koval were both vying for an open seat on the Committee. Koval was given the seat after a Section 31 plot eliminated Cretak from consideration. (DS9: "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges")
See also Edit
External link Edit
- Continuing Committee at Memory Beta, the wiki for licensed Star Trek works