text:
Legendary blues singer Etta James dies in Calif.
Like this?
Log in to share your opinion with MPR News and add it to your profile.
Like this?
Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.
By ROBERT JABLON, Associated Press
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Etta James' performance of the enduring classic "At Last" was the embodiment of refined soul: Angelic-sounding strings harkened the arrival of her passionate yet measured vocals as she sang tenderly about a love finally realized after a long and patient wait.
In real life, little about James was as genteel as that song. The platinum blonde's first hit was a saucy R&B number about sex, and she was known as a hell-raiser who had tempestuous relationships with her family, her men and the music industry. Then she spent years battling a drug addiction that she admitted sapped away at her great talents.
In other words, she was one of music's original bad girls.
Create a More Connected Minnesota
MPR News is your trusted resource for the news you need. With your support, MPR News brings accessible, courageous journalism and authentic conversation to everyone - free of paywalls and barriers. Your gift makes a difference.
"The bad girls ... had the look that I liked," she wrote in her 1995 autobiography, "Rage to Survive." "I wanted to be rare, I wanted to be noticed, I wanted to be exotic as a Cotton Club chorus girl, and I wanted to be obvious as the most flamboyant hooker on the street. I just wanted to be."
James' spirit could not be contained -- perhaps that's what made her so magnetic in music; it is surely what made her so dynamic as one of R&B, blues and rock 'n' roll's underrated legends. The 73-year-old died at Riverside Community Hospital, with her husband and sons at her side, De Leon said.
"It's a tremendous loss for her fans around the world," he said. "She'll be missed. A great American singer. Her music defied category."
Despite the reputation she cultivated, she would always be remembered best for "At Last." The jazz-inflected rendition wasn't the original, but it would become the most famous and the song that would define her as a legendary singer.
Over the decades, brides used it as their song down the aisle and car companies to hawk their wares, and it filtered from one generation to the next through its inclusion in movies like "American Pie." Perhaps most famously, President Obama and the first lady danced to a version at his inauguration ball.
The tender, sweet song belied the turmoil in her personal life. James -- born Jamesette Hawkins -- was born in Los Angeles to a mother whom she described as a scam artist, a substance abuser and a fleeting presence during her youth.
She never knew her father, although she was told and had believed, that he was the famous billiards player Minnesota Fats. He neither confirmed nor denied it: when they met, he simply told her: "I don't remember everything. I wish I did, but I don't."
She was raised by Lula and Jesse Rogers, who owned the rooming house where her mother once lived in. The pair brought up James in the Christian faith, and as a young girl, her voice stood out in the church choir. James landed the solos in the choir and became so well known, she said that Hollywood stars would come to see her perform.
But she wouldn't stay a gospel singer for long. Rhythm and blues lured her away from the church, and she found herself drawn to the grittiness of the music.
"My mother always wanted me to be a jazz singer, but I always wanted to be raunchy, she recalled in her book.
She was doing just that when bandleader Johnny Otis found her singing on San Francisco street corners with some girlfriends in the early 1950s.
"At the time, Hank Ballard and the Midnighters had a hit with 'Work With Me, Annie,' and we decided to do an answer. We didn't think we would get in show business, we were just running around making up answers to songs," James told The Associated Press in 1987.
And so they replied with the song, "Roll With Me, Henry."
When Otis heard it, he told James to get her mother's permission to accompany him to Los Angeles to make a recording. Instead, the 15-year-old singer forged her mother's name on a note claiming she was 18.
"At that time, you weren't allowed to say 'roll' because it was considered vulgar. So when Georgia Gibbs did her version, she renamed it 'Dance With Me, Henry' and it went to No. 1 on the pop charts," the singer recalled.
The Gibbs song was one of several in the early rock era when white singers got hits by covering songs by black artists, often with sanitized lyrics.
After her 1955 debut, James toured with Otis' revue, sometimes earning only $10 a night. In 1959, she signed with Chicago's legendary Chess label, began cranking out the hits and going on tours with performers such as Bobby Vinton, Little Richard, Fats Domino, Gene Vincent, Jerry Lee Lewis and the Everly Brothers.
"We would travel on four buses to all the big auditoriums. And we had a lot of fun," she recalled in 1987.
James recorded a string of hits in the late 1950s and '60s including "Trust In Me," "Something's Got a Hold On Me," "Sunday Kind of Love," "All I Could Do Was Cry," and of course, "At Last."
"(Chess Records founder) Leonard Chess was the most aware of anyone. He went up and down the halls of Chess announcing, 'Etta's crossed over! Etta's crossed over!' I still didn't know exactly what that meant, except that maybe more white people were listening to me.
"The Chess brothers kept saying how I was their first soul singer, that I was taking their label out of the old Delta blues, out of rock and into the modern era. Soul was the new direction," she wrote in her autobiography. "But in my mind, I was singing old style, not new."
In 1967, she cut one of the most highly regarded soul albums of all time, "Tell Mama," an earthy fusion of rock and gospel music featuring blistering horn arrangements, funky rhythms and a churchy chorus. A song from the album, "Security," was a top 40 single in 1968.
Her professional success, however, was balanced against personal demons, namely a drug addiction.
"I was trying to be cool," she told the AP in 1995, explaining what had led her to try heroin.
"I hung out in Harlem and saw Miles Davis and all the jazz cats," she continued. "At one time, my heavy role models were all druggies. Billie Holiday sang so groovy. Is that because she's on drugs? It was in my mind as a young person. I probably thought I was a young Billie Holiday, doing whatever came with that."
She was addicted to the drug for years, beginning in 1960, and it led to a harrowing existence that included time behind bars. It sapped her singing abilities and her money, eventually, almost destroying her career.
It would take her at least two decades to beat her drug problem. Her husband, Artis Mills, even went to prison for years, taking full responsibility for drugs during an arrest even though James was culpable.
"My management was suffering. My career was in the toilet. People tried to help, but I was hell-bent on getting high," she wrote of her drug habit in 1980.
She finally quit the habit and managed herself for a while, calling up small clubs and asking them, "Have you ever heard of Etta James?" in order to get gigs. Eventually, she got regular bookings -- even drawing Elizabeth Taylor as an audience member.
In 1984, she was tapped to sing the national anthem at the Olympic Games in Los Angeles, and her career got the resurgent boost it needed, though she fought addiction again when she got hooked on painkillers in the late 1980s.
Drug addiction wasn't her only problem. She struggled with her weight, and often performed from a wheelchair as she got older and heavier. In the early 2000s, she had weight-loss surgery and shed some 200 pounds.
James performed well into her senior years, and it was "At Last" that kept bringing her the biggest ovations. The song was a perennial that never aged, and on Jan. 20, 2009, as crowds celebrated that -- at last -- an African-American had become president of the United States, the song played as the first couple danced.
But it was superstar Beyonce who serenaded the Obamas, not the legendary singer. Beyonce had portrayed James in "Cadillac Records," a big-screen retelling of Chess Records' heyday, and had started to claim "At Last" as her own.
An audio clip surfaced of James at a concert shortly after the inauguration, saying she couldn't stand the younger singer and that Beyonce had "no business singing my song." But she told the New York Daily News later that she was joking, even though she had been hurt that she did not get the chance to participate in the inauguration.
James did get her accolades over the years. She was inducted into the Rock Hall in 1993, captured a Grammy in 2003 for best contemporary blues album for "Let's Roll," one in 2004 for best traditional blues album for "Blues to the Bone" and one for best jazz vocal performance for 1994's "Mystery Lady: Songs of Billie Holiday." She was also awarded a special Grammy in 2003 for lifetime achievement and got a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.
Her health went into decline, however, and by 2011, she was being cared for at home by a personal doctor.
She suffered from dementia, kidney problems and leukemia. Her husband and her two sons fought over control of her $1 million estate, though a deal was later struck keeping Mills as the conservator and capping the singer's expenses at $350,000.
In December 2011, her physician announced that her leukemia was terminal, and asked for prayers for the singer.
In October 2011, it was announced that James was retiring from recording, and a final studio recording, "The Dreamer," was released, featuring the singer taking on classic songs, from Bobby "Blue" Bland's "Dreamer" to Guns N' Roses "Welcome To the Jungle" -- still rocking, and a fitting end to her storied career.
(Copyright 2012 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)


text:
Chad Billingsley (5-2, 3.66) vs Tom Gorzelanny (2-4, 3.09).
COMMENTS: Fine. I hereby banish the 1980s music references, as the last two GameThreads both resulted in defeats for our Dodgers. Or was that our Dodgers playing at all yesterday? I thought Rafael Furcal was making his return appearance to the starting lineup, but with an 0-for-4, 2K performance in the leadoff spot, coupled with a two defensive errors (fielding AND throwing), I'm sensing the balls yesterday must have been "wriggly" indeed.
So today we go at it again, the Dodgers starting the eleven-letter Billingsley (coming off a big win vs. Dontrelle Willis; however, winless (0-2) lifetime at Wrigley Field), vs. the Cubs' ten-letter Gorzelanny, who was hit on the left hand in his last start vs. the Phillies (he still got the win, with 6.2 IP of shutout ball). Accuscore in today's WSJ says we're going to lose today, 4.7 runs to 4.2 runs, but given yesterday's blanking, I'd almost take it just to see a number other than "0" in our box score line. And how about we make fewer than three errors this time? And try and overcome the Collins Curse?

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Gryphon: Several other companies Fantasy Roleplaying games are doing very well in sales -- Chivalry and Sorcery, for example.The mind simply boggles at these numbers. 12,000 a month just for the D&D Basic Set, which, in 1980, would mean the Holmes-edited one. And FGU's Chivalry & Sorcery was selling 1000 copies a month? If true, that's simply amazing and further evidence that we're not likely to ever see the hobby achieve a comparable amount of mass market success.
Gygax: Where do you think "very well" is?
Gryphon: Probably nowhere near Dungeons and Dragons.
Gygax: 1000 copies a month is what I heard.
Gryphon: For Chivalry and Sorcery?
Gygax: Uh-huh.
Gryphon: What's Dungeons and Dragons a month?
Gygax: 12,000 a month. That's the basic set.
Gryphon: So the various manuals and the original stuff would add on above that.
Gygax: Oh, sure, sure.
I doubt most RPGs sell 12,000 copies over their entire lifetimes, let alone over a single month (or a single year, as in the case of C&S). I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, I'm generally of the opinion that the mainstream success of D&D was bad for the game, or at least the version of the game I most enjoy, so I don't pine for a return to those days. Barring some unforeseen shift in popular culture, a return is pretty much impossible anyway. Still, it's fascinating to be reminded of just how much of a fad roleplaying was back in the late 70s and early 80s.


text:
I made this Longan Pudding 2 days ago as the weather here was so hot and hazy, about 2 weeks no rain at my place. I need something to cool me down...
You know what, after i made this jelly, my place started to rain, hahaha....
The original recipe is using soy milk, but soy milk was run out stock and i was lazy to go out to get some, I replaced evaporated milk with soy milk. I like the texture of this pudding, not too soft and not too firm. But my kids and hubby still prefer the soymilk pudding with palm sugar syrup and minced ginger that i prepared earlier.
Longan Pudding/Jelly
(recipe source: adapted from The Kitchen 70's with minor changes)
1 canned Longan fruit in syrup
1tsp agar-agar powder
1tsp gelatin powder
100g sugar
700ml water
200ml evaporated milk or soy milk
100ml Longan syrup (from canned longan)
3tsp lemon juices
1. Mix agar-agar powder, gelatin powder, sugar and water in a saucepan, cook over low medium heat until bubbles form around the edges of the saucepan.
2. Add in milk and Longan syrup, stir and mix well. Add in lemon juices and turn off heat, keep aside to cool for 5mins.
3. Pour the mixture into prepared jelly cups, let it cool for 30mins and firm on top.
4. Spoon canned Longans and 1-2tbsp of Longan syrup on top, refrigerate until set.
5. Serve cool.
Ya, before I forgot, I draw again for new winner under "other countries" category for my 1st giveaway as the winner did not send me an email to claim the gifts from me. The new winner this time is " Three -cookies" from Sweden..quickly come to claim your gift as I don't want to draw again, hehehe..


text:
Product Description
This is a DOWNLOAD product.
"Murder as a steady occupation has its handicaps… the pay is high, but so are the gallows from which, sooner or later, they hang you."
Former real-life private detective William Gargan stars as Barrie Craig, a confidential investigator working out of an office on New York's Madison Avenue. Prowling the dirty, crime-ridden byways of a city in the midst of violent post-war change, he kept a wry sense about the frailties of human life.
Ralph Bell co-stars as Lt. Travis Rogers, and Parker Fennelly supplies his trademark Vermont wit as Craig's elevator operator, Jake, in ten digitally restored and remastered episodes of bookies, broads, masquerades, and murders!
Includes a Program Guide by William Nadel.
Episodes Include: Ghost of A Chance 12-19-51; Death of a Private Eye 01-02-52; The Girl on the Doorstep 02-15-53; Behold A Corpse 03-01-53; The Lost Lady 06-14-53; The Thirteenth Guest 08-09-53; The Lonely Corner 11-03-53; The Schemers 04-06-54; Death Buys a Bedroom 07-27-54; Dead Bull in a China Shop 12-19-54.
Download Collection: 10 Episodes
Running Time: Approx. 5 Hours
Item: D46142


text:
Dear everyone suggesting a rating system of LFD
No really. Lol. I laugh at your idea.
It will be abused. Or, it will be so uselessly gimped as to be... useless. Let's all think about what happens when anonymous interacts with anonymous. Yep, the exact LFD system we have right now. Pretty awful, isn't it? What makes you think the god-awful DPS, elitist tank, or whiny healer are going to suddenly start being calm and sensible when presented with a survey about the other players in the group?
One of my last experiences in randoms was to get kicked by a group. Why? I wasn't kissing the tank's ass properly, pointing out that he was in frost presence. Pressed on it, also pointing out that it was my sheeping, kiting, and interrupts that were keeping the healer alive when the tank as busy being garbage. Hey, I never said you can't carry a tank, just that it's not as common as so many DPS seem to think. That is the result of an anonymous system in which you'll never meet people again: good players get kicked and people reactive extremely badly to the slightest negative thing.
WoW used to have a rating system. No really, it did. We called it a "server" or sometimes "realm." Gather round and let me tell you about a time when people played with people from their own server and only their own server. When there are only a few thousand people to keep track of, it's a lot easier to get the word around that someone is a complete jackass, or amazing. Of course a few thousand is still quite a lot, but not everyone is logged in at the same time.
When you're going to be around the same people again, then you're going to care more. Their opinions will matter, not merely "I don't want people to think badly of me" sense, but "if I act like a total jackass people will know not to group with me again." It wasn't an explicit rating system, but it was there, some way to measure and communicate performance. Yep, trade chat used to serve an essential function of giving groups a place to complain about shitheads. It wasn't a perfect system. For instance, it can be hard to sustain a solid flame wall about a bad group member if there are a hundred enchanters desperately looking for customers. Things were bad before vellums were added.
No wait, don't say it. If we go back to single-server grouping queues will go up. You think so? Maybe. But maybe not. Listen to the tanks; how many are complaining that their short queue times cause them to have to tank too much (none) compared to how many are complaining that randoms are too often hellish nightmares of awful and bad? (many) So I suggest this: even if we lose some liquidity by cutting off servers, that could be compensated for by tanking being less stressful, thereby causing more tanks to queue and possible more players to tank.
More players tanking? But won't they all be garbage? Maybe. Or maybe when people are no longer just a bunch of anonymous jackasses they'll be more willing to talk and listen. The awful tank will know that if he doesn't listen and improve he'll be kicked to the curb whereas if he does, then he can get some tiny bit of reputation for listening and improving. Meanwhile if they have a good chance of possibly seeing him again, the group will be willing to talk and help improve, since if they can fix a tank, that's one more good tank for them. When we'll never see them again, we shovel off bad players as a problem for someone else (guess what happens when everyone does this, oh right, we get their garbage), whereas if we have to acknowledge that they are in fact our problem, we fix it.
Oh, you just never want to have to deal with bad players? Fine, go play in your guild and never touch LFD. That's fine. You can go away and have no affect on anything. Good. Everyone wins.
As for the rest of us, who care to fix the world rather than just grab at the last few scraps and whine about how bad everything is, we can do something.
Or we can't. What the fuck am I thinking? We're never going back to servers. We're too attached to the idea of fast queues for groups we don't want to be in, somehow imagining that a lot of not having fun is better than a little of having fun.
But hey, at least there's RIFT, right? Maybe. At least until they get around to their own tools and the inevitable cross-server implementation, and there we go again.
Yesterday I remarked at how I remember when ramen noodles were a dime. I think MMOs cause premature aging. Now get off my lawn.
26 comments:
- Anonymous said...
Sounds to me like you were being a bit of a jackass as well. You can send someone a tell rather than pointing it out in group chat. You can ask questions politely, but you decided to be a condescending asshole.
That's why the tanking bribery will probably not work, because of the possibility of getting in a group with someone who thinks they are being polite when they say "you suck and your tanking is garbage" or something to that effect. Really, they are being unhelpful asses. - April 9, 2011 at 7:08 AM
- Anonymous said...
He didn't tell him that he's garbage, he told us that he was garbage.
The notion of being obliged to send a private whisper rather than using group chat is preposterous to me. There's nothing private about the tank being in the wrong presence. It's a matter that concerns the group. The very purpose of group chat is discussing matters that concern the group. And if it's so embarrassing for the tank to be caught in the wrong presence that he'll consider himself mortally insulted and swear a blood feud upon being publicly called on it .. guess what .. I think he should pay more attention to not being in the wrong presence to begin with.
I sincerely hope that when RIFT implements some LFD functionality, they'll keep it server-confined. They already acknowledged that they are aware of issues with cross-server LFD - how they'll approach and solve it, time will tell. - April 9, 2011 at 8:04 AM
- Anonymous said...
I have levelled various characters (paladin, druid and DK) with the idea that I would try this tanking thing, but considering the shit you can get as a healer - there is no way I would step foot in a pug group as a tank.
I recently went into Ragefire Chasm with my boomkin and people were raging about the tank not keeping aggro (never mind the mage attacking everything and anything) - but the guy politely said that he was still learning to tank and would welcome help. The narky healer says that the tank should learn to tank elsewhere and not waste people's time by queueing as tank if he doesn't know how to do the job. o.O
If that is the attitude in the very first instance you can get into in the game, then I am seriously surprised that there are any tanks at all in randoms...
I agree with you that the server bound instance groups were better in that most people would behave reasonably as they knew that there were consequences if they didn't. - April 9, 2011 at 8:43 AM
- Klepsacovic said...
@Anonymous: I can't find the point where I said any of that and I'd certainly never refer to "you suck and your tanking is garbage" by saying "I wasn't kissing the tank's ass properly, pointing out that he was in frost presence." I forgot whether I did it in whisper or group, but I'm pretty sure it was in group, right after he'd yelled at someone for pulling aggro. On the first pull. The healer wasn't zoned in. So he yelled at him too.
"The narky healer says that the tank should learn to tank elsewhere and not waste people's time by queueing as tank if he doesn't know how to do the job."
I was lucky to have managed to get used to tanking before running into this. That's something I can't stand, bashing new players who admit they're new and are just trying to learn. I have sympathy for newbs after a memorable incident when my shaman pulled aggro and died so many times in a row, immediately after being ressurected, that I got to a two minute res timer. - April 9, 2011 at 10:19 AM
- Stabs said...
I still think it will be of some value to have a rating system.
There is a problem that outspoken (good) players are disliked, I've been kicked too for offering advice or just plain talking.
But it's dwarved by the perception that the others are utterly unimportant, you'll never see them again and that they can do nothing that has any impact on you.
So people bailing on their groups for instance - that would be cut drastically if you knew the others could downrate you but you couldn't vote on them (if only people who finish runs are enfranchised for instance).
The real problem is that in a sufficiently large community people tend not to care about random strangers. That's the line you walk when you expand your community to optimise convenience. - April 9, 2011 at 12:49 PM
- Shintar said...
I think a rating system simply wouldn't work because people don't even agree on what qualifies as a good run anymore. The dps might consider it awesome that the tank chain-pulls as if he was on speed, but at the same time the healer might think that he sucks because he never allows time to drink. One person's great run is another one's nightmare. You'd need to differentiate between a lot of different preferences and I don't think the system could support that kind of complexity.
- April 9, 2011 at 12:55 PM
- Klepsacovic said...
@Stabs: If outspoken players are disliked, won't a rating system just give people another way to attack them, without even needing a vote kick majority? Or if only people who finish can vote, that encourages kicking people who might vote negatively, such as the outspoken people.
@Shintar: Then there's this problem. One guy wants every mob for rep, another wants a very fast run, and a third guy is hanging back to read quest text, all thinking that the others are inconsiderate and ruining the run. It reminds me of a post I wrote last year: Don't lave until the instance is done, about how there's no consensus on what instance completion means, and worse, not attempt to reach a consensus.
http://trollshaman.blogspot.com/2010/11/dont-leave-until-instance-is-done.html - April 9, 2011 at 2:02 PM
- Max said...
Look good rating system is not about facebook "epeen" friends. - Who is was rated bad and who was good is not visible to anyone but yourself
If you go ahead and mark player "bad" or "good" system will judge that to group(or not) YOU , not anyone else
In your example - you get kicked. YOu can mark those players as bad ,and they mark you as such. That doesnt mean they , or you, are "bad". It means you wont get grouped together (which I am sure none of you will miss)
For example I would tolerate assholes if they perform top notch. In my experience many of top players are actually assholes. But I dont want group with the nicest guys on earth if he is clicker and backpedaler.
I am sure that nicest guy wont appreciate either when some elitist will tell him to "gtfo scrub"
Beauty of good rating system is that you decide who is good and who is not. Not some arbitrary criteria. If you want fast run - you will be grouped with those who wants same, and so on. - April 9, 2011 at 2:44 PM
- Imakulata said...
Good point. While I still think that people in the LFD group are generally good (with a couple of bad apples which form a minority), I am quite surprised that someone who thinks that 90% of players are bads who are too busy insulting others to do anything besides pulling 3 packs while still fighting a boss (and the rest are rude players who do all of that and MD it to the healer just out of spite) - that someone who thinks all this would not mind - no, that they would request in no unclear words, that these players would judge their performance.
PS: Of course, if someone assumes the "bad" players are rare, they can conclude that judging will work well. But I've never seen anyone saying: Hey, this LFD tool is the best thing since sliced bread, but I think it would be even more awesome with a system to give +points to other players in place! - April 9, 2011 at 3:09 PM
- Imakulata said...
Of course, I was not talking about the system Max proposed. He has a point although I'm wondering how would he implement it to make it work the way he wants it.
- April 9, 2011 at 3:13 PM
- Anonymous said...
Agreed. A LFD rating system would never, ever work. I found it surprising easily to get people kicked from groups (you only pretty much need to initiate the kick and everyone else will approve it mindlessly) so I can just imagine the havoc a rating system would cause...
- April 9, 2011 at 5:56 PM
- Klepsacovic said...
@Max: The rating system is so I can avoid grouping with people who I will probably never see again anyway? Players who give each other positive ratings could be grouped together, but that would require a few timing issues to be sorted out, and still would not address the overall GIFT problems.
@Imakulta: In my experience, elitists have little ability to comprehend reciprocity, either positive or negative.
@Gordon: I imagine there would be a whole lot of neutral ratings mixed with negative, as we anonymously and wordlessly coast through and forget the people the moment it's over, while remembering the bad, which partially accounts for the negative perception of LFD: we better remember the minority bad than the majority neutral. - April 9, 2011 at 10:47 PM
- Anonymous said...
Then there is the issue of how long a rating would haunt you.
So you were a bad tank/healer/dps on your 1st 1/2 dozen outings. Does that preclude you the right to improve and when you do, can you strike the bad ratings from your permanent record? - April 10, 2011 at 1:17 AM
- Imakulata said...
Klepsacovic: You might be right; for my part, I find it hard to comprehend this social interaction that doesn't work in the LFD groups (*) but would work when judging the other players. There would be reciprocity for bad behavior - but there won't be any reciprocity for bad judging, will there?
The way I can see it working is assuming that the players with negative rating are going to be roughly as good as those with positive, so it really wouldn't matter which rating you get but the players might still be motivated to get a better rating for prestige. I do not think we can assume that, though.
(*) I think it does for the most of the time - although not always - but many people claim it doesn't. - April 10, 2011 at 3:17 AM
- Mangara said...
I think Gazimoff has an excellent point in his latest post. Netflix manages to find movies you like based on what people who liked similar movies as you liked. This could work for the dungeon finder as well. If you liked grouping with someone and he liked grouping with someone else, then there's a higher chance that you'd enjoy grouping with that player as well.
- April 10, 2011 at 10:47 AM
- Klepsacovic said...
@gnomeaggedon: I'd not even considered that. A decay system could do the trick, slowly moving scores toward the middle over time. Bad scores decaying faster than good scores, but all decaying slowly enough that new ratings are going to be the primary driver.
@Imakulta: In your second paragraph I'm not sure I understand what your rating system would do. Is it purely visual, with no influence on grouping? In that case it might only act as a trigger for confirmation bias: low rated players are assumed to be worse, treated worse, and rated worse, independent of their actual performance.
@Mangara: I can't seem to find that post, but it's an idea worth considering. A more direct version could be to allow players to add some more criteria to LFD, such as "fast", "all mobs", "all bosses", so that players who want to burn through quickly are in different groups than players who want to farm rep. - April 10, 2011 at 1:39 PM
- Mangara said...
The post I referred to can be found here:
http://www.manaobscura.com/2011/04/bribes-karma-and-recommendations/ - April 10, 2011 at 3:49 PM
- JoeNavy said...
@Mangara Thats a really cool idea...Very indirect.
I was thinking about the "tanking bribery" people keep refering too. For people like me, who do enjoy tanking, I like to think of it as a "Thank you" gift. - April 10, 2011 at 4:26 PM
- Klepsacovic said...
Thanks for the link, it was a good read.
- April 10, 2011 at 8:47 PM
- Anonymous said...
LFD = 4chan
To hell with that.
I'd rather have a reputation on my server and play with people who have an incentive to play nice, because they know I'm on their server and I'm good and I'll be there next week, too. And next year.
If you want that community feel back on your old release-server, then skip LFD and head straight to the old whispers and friends list and trade chat. - April 11, 2011 at 8:49 PM
- Anonymous said...
I remember the days before the dungeon finder when we'd advertise in trade for heroics or any other dungeon... And maybe getting a whisper the next week for a heroic by someone you just made friends with in an excellent run :)
- April 12, 2011 at 12:36 AM
- nugget said...
Ratings only have real meaning if you are familiar with the raters.
Ommm. - April 12, 2011 at 2:30 AM
- Imakulata said...
Coldbear: There's an interesting point, despite people being unhappy with the LFD tool, only a few of them switch to server-based groups. Maybe the LFD tool actually is better but people are so used to LFD's advantages (quick groups and easy replacement of leaving players) they are taking them for granted and instead they focus on the disadvantages (even though they're only perceived ones IMO).
- April 12, 2011 at 7:44 AM
- Klepsacovic said...
@coldbear: At least 4chan is funny sometimes.
I've talked about this before, but the damage is done. So much of the population has transitioned away from manually forming groups that it's much harder now than it used to be, especially now that players congregate differently.
@nugget: Deep man, deep. Like. Woah. But yes, a good point.
@Imakulata: I'm pretty confident in the objective truth of the general statement "LFD-formed groups have worse social interaction than the groups formed before the tool." The degree of this is debatable, but LFD has definitely had negative effects. - April 12, 2011 at 10:30 AM
- Imakulata said...
I think it's disputable; in my opinion the LFD groups have less social interaction, whether it's for better or worse is disputable. Based on my RL experience, I think the GIFs are caused by lack of any reciprocity to their actions and the anonymity factors only little.
I agree it has some negative effects and I don't think I ever said it hadn't. On the other hand, I think there are positives (this isn't really disputed either) and the total sum is positive. It seems to me that majority of people prefers the tool over server-based groups which - in my opinion - is a strong indicator about the total sum. - April 13, 2011 at 8:32 AM
- Klepsacovic said...
I agree with the total sum being greater, I just don't think it's as great as it could be. But beside that, I think LFD is a drug of sorts. When it started it didn't have much of a negative effect. We all played like we were in our usual server-based groups, for a while. By the time it started to go to crap, LFD had taken over as the way to get groups and server-based formation was dead and not much of an alternative anymore. We were addicted.
- April 13, 2011 at 10:47 AM
Post a Comment
Comments in posts older than 21 days will be moderated to prevent spam. Comments in posts younger than 21 days will be checked for ID.


text:
"Pull up a chair. Take a taste. Come join us. Life is so endlessly delicious."
~ Ruth Reichl
Welcome to the Paleo AIP Recipe Roundtable!
If you're not familiar with the paleo autoimmune protocol (AIP), check out my series of articles. In a nutshell, it's an elimination diet, designed to help people with autoimmune disease identify food intolerances. When you're on the protocol, it can be hard to find recipes, because so many food groups are excluded. This recipe roundtable is here to help!
- Every week, I'll be hosting this roundtable. The post will go live Wednesday nights, and the link-up feature will stay open for 7 days.
- Bloggers can share as many AIP recipes as they like. Feel free to choose new recipes or old ones from your archives. Just don't repeat them in future roundtables. We want the archives to be full of 100% unique recipes. When you link-up, type in the URL of the actual recipe rather than your blog's home page.
- Recipes cannot have any of the following ingredients: processed foods, food additives, refined sugars, refined oils, grains (including corn), dried legumes (including soy), fresh legumes (green beans and peas), dairy (including ghee), eggs, nuts and seeds (including nut/seed milks an oils), nightshades, and most spices (herbs are OK). Phew! You can see why we need a Recipe Roundtable.
- Please ONLY post recipes (not other kinds of articles). This roundtable is all about the food.
- Every week, I'll highlight two reader favorites (most clicked links) from the prior week's roundtable, as well as my favorites.
- Please provide a link back to the roundtable, somewhere in the post(s) you're sharing.
- Recipes that don't comply with stated rules and guidelines will be respectfully removed.
- To be reminded of each week's roundtable, simply subscribe to my blog.
- To browse through past roundtables, you can find the whole list here.
Highlights from Last Week's Roundtable:
Reader Favorites
- Grain-Free Naan from Cook 2 Nourish
*These naan can be cooked in a pan or you can bake them in the oven. - Healthy Soft Serve from A Clean Plate
*This treat is fruit sweetened, takes 5 minutes to make, and with only 3 ingredients!
My Picks
This week, I'm highlighting two green recipes!
- Green Chicken Zoodle Bowl from Autoimmune Wellness
*I'm always on the hunt for more spiralizer recipes how about you? - Kale and Preserved Lemon "Couscous" Cauliflower Rice from Joanna Frankham Coaching
*This side dish sounds incredibly vibrant and flavorful with that lemon!
What's Cooking This Week?
To see the favorites from this week + a whole new group of recipes, visit Roundtable #260!
You May Also Be Interested In:


text:
The information contained in this report was obtained from The County Information Program's on-line database. The data contained in the database are obtained from official sources and are not the product of the CIP. The CIP, therefore, does not expressly or impliedly warrant the accuracy of the data. Questions regarding the accuracy, methodology, etc. should be directed to the original source of the information. The sources may be obtained from the CIP by contacting the County Information Program, Texas Association of Counties at (512) 478-8753.
Last Updated on 09/22/2022
Contact CIP.


text:
Hogan Glass, LLC
TOP COMPANY Industry Type: Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing
Would you like to order a list of companies similar to
"Hogan Glass, LLC"?
Primary Industry Codes
Business Overview
"Hogan Glass, LLC" of Buffalo, NY 14220 operates primarily in SIC Code 3211 - Flat Glass and NAICS Code 327211 - Flat Glass Manufacturing. Hogan Glass, LLC is a small-sized business with medium revenue, that is established in its industry.
Premium Business Details
A purchased business list contains the following fields:
* Options: HQ, Subsidiary, Branch, Franchise, Single Establishment
Included in every order: Free Industry Overview Report, Free Sample List, Continuously Updated & Verified Data, Premium Support by Phone/Email
Industry Badges
The industry badges represent the primary business activity of Hogan Glass, LLC at this specific location.
Some of the main competitors to "Hogan Glass, LLC" in SIC Code 3211 - Flat Glass and NAICS Code 327211 - Flat Glass Manufacturing are the following:
About SIC & NAICS Business Data
SICCODE.com compiles comprehensive business data and executive contact leads for businesses in the USA and Canada. Order a list of companies within SIC Code 3211 - Flat Glass and NAICS Code 327211 - Flat Glass Manufacturing for marketing (postal mailing, telemarketing, executive emailing) or analytics-use. Our data analysts are standing by to assist in your list setup and target marketing.
Get Data From 15 Million Businesses
Contact 40 Million Executives


text:
This crustacean is so complex and majestic looking, cute and fierce at the same time with their threateningly powerful claws, graceful ballerina legs, elegant fan-like tails, tiny naive black eyes, harmoniously aerodynamic bodies and their bionic/Gigeresque (see H.R. Giger) exoskeleton. A real piece of art!
Apart from being considered a delicacy, this sea-dwelling animal also commands respect and admiration. They can live as long as 100 years and are similar to knights in armor. Their exterior skeleton is made of 21 different pieces and is a real shield that protects them from agressions.
Did you know that this decapod sheds it's shell frequently while young and less frequently as it grows? Once it has molted, the lobster is helpless and cannot defend itself against predators. The only way to not get attacked by it's enemies is to hide under rocks, reefs, caves, and any other structure that will shield him, and wait until the new shell hardens. If a lobster loses a leg or a claw, it is capable of growing a new one. Intriguing! No?
Molting is very important for lobsters as it is the only way they can grow since they are somehow trapped in their exoskeletons considering the fact that their shell cannot get any bigger than it is. In order for it's body to grow larger, it must shed it's shell and replace it with a bigger one.
To get out of it's exoskeleton, a lobster has to shrink it's muscles in its limbs by releasing fluid out of the tissues. This helps it release it's appendages from the surrounding shell which cracks open to release the entire body. Very disturbing, but so praiseworthy at the same time.
Therefore it is such a pity to see how they are treated once they have been captured. Since our modern world (globalisation) demands drastic actions and measures to fulfill our exagerated needs, lobsters (amongst other animals) are victims of our propensity for constently wanting what cannot be found where we live.
Most of lobsters are shipped living (apart from those which have been cooked and frozen beforehand) to far away countries, travel in terrible conditions and are sold piled up, with broken antennas and trapped by restraints. Apart from those offered on seaside markets (or in stores situated close to the seaside), most of them suffer hell for many hours or days before meeting their death, sometimes in a dreadful manner (especially when the person in charge doesn't know how to do it correctly - boiling & cutting open).
It seems that certain people see them as critters with less value than other animals that we feed on. They are treated like mere objects without souls or feelings. Just because they are crawlers with whom we cannot socialize or interact we tend to handle them little dignity and fairness compared to mammals. All feelings are denied to them and nobody seems to care about the revoltingly abominable and cruel fashion in which they are dealt with...
Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against eating lobsters and I absolutely don't condemn the consumption of that delightfully tasting shellfish. I only believe that there should be some ethic rules regarding their manipulation (transportation, storing and cooking).
1. Cut the lobster meat into 1cm (1/2 inch) pieces. Set aside.
2. Make a mayonnaise with mustard and garlic.
3. In a salad bowl, toss together the lobster meat, cubed avocado (not too ripe), a few tablespoons mayonnaise (to taste), chopped fresh tarragon (to taste), a few tablespoons (to taste) lemon or lime juice (to taste), sea salt (to taste).
4. Serve as apperitive with some crackers (Cream Crackers, Krisprolls, Carr's Water Crackers, Wasabröd, Knackerbrod, lavash bread/crackers, toasted pita bread, tortilla chips, Norwegian Mountain Bread, pumpernickel, etc...).
You can also make that salad with shrimps, crab or krayfish.
I used a frozen lobster (I'm too chicken to kill my own and and cannot accept the way they are being treated - all the travelling & hours of suffering in order to be sold living here -, so that's the best solution for me).
Une petite salade à faire avec du homard cuit (parfaite si vous adorez les smörgåsbord/Koltbord) - Copyright par Rosa's Yummy Yums 2011:
1. Couper la chair du homard en petit cubes de 1cm.
2. Faire sa propre mayonnaise avec de la moutarde et de l'ail.
3. Dans un bol à salade, mélanger ensemble le homard, de l'avocat en cubes (pas trop mûr), quelques cuillères à soupe de mayonnaise (selon goût), de l'estragon frais haché (selon goût). quelques cuillères à café de jus de citron ou de lime (selon goût) et du sel de mer (selon goût).
4. Servir en appéritif avec des crackers (Cream Crackers, Carr's Water Crackers, Krisprolls, Wasabröd, knackerbrod, pain lavash (ou lavash crackers), du pain pita toasté, des tortilla chips, du pain de seigle ou du pain norvégien, etc...).
Vous pouvez aussi remplacer le homard par des crevettes, du crabe ou des écrevisses.
J'ai utilisé du homard congelé (je suis pas confortable à l'idée de tuer mon propre homard - je ne serais pas sûre de le faire de la bonne manière - et la façon dont ils sont traités -entre le moment où ils sont capturés et vendus en magasin/toutes ces heures à soufrir et à voyager afin d'attérir vivants sur nos étals - ne me plaît pas).
If you want to know how to kill a lobster the most humanely possible, you might want to read the following articles:
The Independent
Time Magazine
Daily Mail UK
Now you know what to do.
Apparemment si on utilise un couteau pour fendre la tête en deux cela les fait souffrir et ils ne meurent pas sur le coup. L'électrocution est meilleure (pratiquée dans l'industrie), mais où trouver l'instrument pour faire cela (voir article sur 750g)?
A vous de choisir.


text:
Release Number 6511-13
February 6, 2013
Federal Court in Texas Orders Rodney Wagner and Roger Wagner, and their company GID Group, Inc., to Pay Over $2.4 Million for Fraud in Foreign Currency (Forex) Ponzi Scheme
Court finds that defendants fraudulently solicited and accepted funds from 99 Retail Customers in connection with a Forex Scheme
Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) obtained a federal court Order against defendants Rodney Wagner and Roger Wagner (Wagner brothers) and GID Group, Inc. (GID), all of Grand Prairie, Texas, requiring the Wagner brothers and GID to jointly pay approximately $1.37 million in restitution to defrauded customers and a civil monetary penalty of approximately $1.05 million. The consent Order of permanent injunction also imposes permanent trading and registration bans against the defendants and prohibits them from violating the anti-fraud provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act, as charged. The Wagner brothers were the owners and only employees of GID, and none of the defendants has ever been registered with the CFTC.
The Order, entered by Judge David C. Godbey of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, stems from a CFTC enforcement action filed on November 8, 2011, against the Wagner brothers and GID, charging them with solicitation fraud and misappropriation in the operation of multi-million dollar foreign currency (forex) Ponzi scheme (see CFTC Press Release 6137-11, November 9, 2011).
The Order finds that the Wagner brothers fraudulently solicited and accepted at least $5.5 million from approximately 99 customers to trade off-exchange forex contracts on a leveraged or margined basis. In soliciting customers, the Wagner brothers represented that they were experienced and successful forex traders who generated six percent returns per day through their forex trading and could return principal plus 200 percent of customer deposits, the Order finds.
The Order finds that these representations were false. Specifically, the Wagner brothers transferred only a total of $590,000 of GID customer funds into two personal trading accounts and sustained consistent net trading losses each month, the Order finds. In fact, the Wagner brothers misappropriated the majority of customer funds, using some of the stolen funds to pay for their personal expenses and other pool participants' purported returns. To conceal their fraud the Wagner brothers distributed false account statements to customers that reported returns supposedly earned as a result of the brothers' forex futures trading, according to the Order.
CFTC Division of Enforcement staff responsible for this case are Eugene Smith, Patricia Gomersall, Melanie Devoe, Christine Ryall, Paul Hayeck, and Joan Manley.
Media Contact
Dennis Holden
Last Updated: February 6, 2013


text:
'Breaking Bad' Writers: 'This Is It; There's No More'
The AMC show about a high school chemistry teacher turned meth dealer ended its fifth and final season on Sunday. Writers Peter Gould and Thomas Schnauz say there was "absolute sadness" in the writers' room as they put the last plot points into place.
Related Topics
October 3, 2013
Guests: Thomas Schnauz & Peter Gould
TERRY GROSS, HOST:This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross.
BRYAN CRANSTON: (As Walter White) I am not in danger, Skyler, I am the danger. A guy opens his door and gets shot, and you think that of me? No, I am the one who knocks.
GROSS: Oh, Sunday nights won't be the same without "Breaking Bad." The series ended last Sunday after five seasons. With me to ease the pain of saying goodbye to the series and answer a lot of questions about it are two of the show's writers, Peter Gould and Thomas Schnauz, who were also producers of the program. Gould worked on "Breaking Bad" from the start. Schnauz entered the writers' room in season three.
I have two things to tell you before we start. The first you've probably figured out: spoiler alert. The second, I loved this show, so I couldn't resist asking some questions about plot points that I realize will make no sense to people who haven't followed the series. Nevertheless, I think what Schnauz and Gould have to say about the writing process will be interesting even if you haven't watched the show.
If you're unfamiliar with "Breaking Bad," it's the AMC series that began with a high school chemistry teacher, Walter White, diagnosed with terminal lung cancer. He starts cooking meth in order to have money to leave behind for his family. With every episode, Walt became more devious and criminal, lying to everyone, including his family.
But in the series finale last Sunday, after coming out of hiding, Walt surprised his wife by showing up at her home and making an unexpected admission.
CRANSTON: (As Walter) Skyler, all the things that I did, you need to understand...
ANNA GUNN: (As Skyler White) If I have to hear one more time that you did this for the family...
CRANSTON: (As Walter) I did it for me. I liked it, and I was good at it, and I was really - I was alive.
GROSS: Thomas Schnauz, Peter Gould, welcome to FRESH AIR. It's such a pleasure to have you here. Congratulations, and thank you for years of just wonderful television viewing, so exciting and fulfilling to see the series.
THOMAS SCHNAUZ: Thank you very much. It's great to be here.
PETER GOULD: It's awesome to be here.
GROSS: Thank you.
SCHNAUZ: Hello, bitches.
GROSS: Yes. Who came up with that, the bitches and the yo for Jesse?
SCHNAUZ: The bitches and the yo, I think those are right from the pilot. I think that's Vince.
GOULD: Yeah, that's got to be all Vince.
SCHNAUZ: Yeah, that's Vince.
GOULD: That's the way he talks. Vince created a very full world for us to play in, so it was very simple for us writers to jump in and continue that wonderful dialogue.
SCHNAUZ: Although sometimes there was a trip to Urban Dictionary.
GROSS: Well, let's start with the very ending and the clip that we just played. Why was it important at the end to have Walt say yeah, yeah, you were right, it wasn't really about the family, it was about me, I liked it, I liked doing this?
GOULD: We had talked over and over again over the years about when is Walt going to see himself the way we see him? When is he going to have, like, a revelation of what he's done and who he really is? Sometimes there would be a big episode, you know, he let Jane die or something else, and we'd play with the idea of having him start to see himself, and it never felt right.
And we came to the realization that once he really sees himself, once he has a full idea of who he is and what he's done, the show's over.
GROSS: Well, he had a much more honorable and redemptive end than I was expecting. You know, he tells Skyler he knows it wasn't about family, it was about him, implying that he's been selfish. He makes the police think that she was a victim and never went along with anything involving the meth business. He figures out a way to get money to his family. He kills the white supremacists, and he liberates Jesse.
GOULD: And then he dies, but of course like he has to die at the end, either of the cancer or of a bullet. I was expecting something closer to, like, a Shakespearian tragedy where, like, everyone on the stage is dead, you know.
GOULD: We talked about it. We talked about every possible ending, I think, and that was - I think that was also a favorite I would have really enjoyed if Walt was the last man standing, but it just felt right for him to go out in the end like he did.
SCHNAUZ: You know, it's interesting, I don't really see him redeemed. I just the fact that he sort of accepts what he's done and who he is, that's not redemption to me. I mean, I think ultimately - you know, we all, we talked about the morality of the show a lot while we were working on it, and to me, you know, he's - the actions he's taken are beyond redemption.
There may be some lightening or some understanding that he has, but I think I would distinguish between self-understanding and any kind of redemption.
GOULD: The pizza on the roof was unforgivable.
SCHNAUZ: Yeah, well it's a waste of food.
GOULD: It is.
GROSS: No, redemptive was definitely the wrong word, but still like he makes some things right. He ties up loose ends to the extent that any person would be capable, which is more than I was expecting of him considering how delusional he's been right from the start.
So what was putting together the finale like? I know Vince Gilligan has official writing and directing credit for it, but I'm sure you were in on the process.
SCHNAUZ: Yeah, like every episode, we all sit together in a room in Burbank, and we talk about every single beat, and we write them down on index cards and pin them to a board and figure out what each episode is going to be, and it was that same way for the final episode except for the absolute sadness after we were done, that we were like this is it, there's no more, it was over.
GROSS: So what's the difference between writing an episode and not writing an episode? Like what - if your name is on the credits what does that mean?
SCHNAUZ: Well, like I said we go over every single beat, and we write them on index cards and pin them to a big corkboard and get it in extreme detail and try to get every writer in agreement for every single beat. And once the board is full, the writer will take that board and go off and actually write the script and write the dialogue and the scenes and fashion the script for the actors and the crew to use.
GOULD: I mean, you know, we say we talk everything out, but there's a lot - a lot of the time there are blank spaces, or there are parts where there's a lot of improvisation. Vince has a phrase that he'll use, he says feel your way through it.
GOULD: And sometimes, especially when there's something really dramatic, or there's a long run of discussion, we'll have maybe a key phrase or a key idea or a key turn for the scene but not all the details about what happens or all the visuals. It's a great way to work because what happens is you have what I - what really is a rock solid structure because we spend a lot of time making sure that each scene has a reason for being.
But then after that you get to kind of write and, and there's a certain - you know, you get to do a little bit of jazz while you're writing it and really try to bring something of yourself to it and bring the emotion to it.
SCHNAUZ: Yeah, one of my favorite cards that we ever did was in episode 411 called "End Times," that I wrote with Moira Walley-Beckett, and there was a card that just said Jesse confronts Walt.
GROSS: Peter, you wrote and directed the next-to-the-last episode of "Breaking Bad," "Granite State," in which Walt and Saul go into hiding with the help of...
SCHNAUZ: Fabulous episode.
GROSS: Oh yeah, with the help of the Robert Forster character.
GOULD: Thank you.
GROSS: So Robert Forster is providing them each with a new identity and a new location to live, and for Walt that new location is going to be a cabin in a remote part of New Hampshire in the winter. But when Walt and Saul meet in the vacuum place that's a cover for this, like, false identity trade, Walt is still planning his revenge, and Saul is trying to convince Walt to give himself up so that his family won't be hounded.
But Walt, Walt still wants to keep taking revenge, and he wants Saul to be with him and to advise him and to come with him, and Saul refuses. And here's that scene between the two of them because I want to play that scene where Saul's refusing to go along with Walt.
BOB ODENKIRK: (As Saul Goodman) Hey, I'm a civilian. I'm not your lawyer anymore. I'm nobody's lawyer. The fun's over. From here on out I'm Mr. Low Profile, just another douche bag with a job and three pairs of Dockers. If I'm lucky, a month from now, best-case scenario, I'm managing a Cinnabon in Omaha.
CRANSTON: (As Walt) You're still part of this whether you like it or not.
ODENKIRK: (As Saul) I'm sorry, I don't think so.
CRANSTON: (As Walt) Do you remember what I told you? It's not over until...
ODENKIRK: (As Saul) It's over.
GROSS: I love that scene because first of all it's an echo of when Walt earlier tells Saul we're not done until I say we're done, and now it's not over until I say it's over. And it's also great to hear him be unable to get through that phrase, even though it's kind of a catchphrase for him because he's choking so hard because of the lung cancer.
But anyways, it's not over until it's say it's over, and we're done when I say we're done. They've become, like, famous phrases from the show. Are you ever writing a phrase thinking to yourself this phrase is going to really live on?
GOULD: No never, never. I'm always - well, I don't know about you, Tom, but I'm always thinking am I - is this something that the character can say, does it sound good enough to be on "Breaking Bad." That was usually, that was usually my concern. I never thought that...
SCHNAUZ: Yes, not until I see it on the air sometimes do I realize oh wait a minute, that sounds like something that's going to sort of catch on, catch on and people are going to quote back. But never - I've never written a line and thought oh, this is going to be great, people are going to repeat this or put it on poster.
GOULD: Well, the things that people catch on to are just kind of unpredictable to us. I mean, I would have never expected the pizza on the roof would be something that we'd still be talking about, you know, whatever it is, two and a half seasons later.
GROSS: And this is when, like, Skyler's basically throwing Walt out of the house, and he brought over pizza, and he just, like, throws it on the roof.
GOULD: Yes, yes, and it lands perfectly because...
SCHNAUZ: There's a whole documentary on one of the DVD sets.
GROSS: Are you kidding me, really?
GOULD: That's right, and in fact the very nice couple who own that house...
GOULD: Have come out of their home several times to find that someone's thrown a pizza there.
SCHNAUZ: Some fans have come by and decided to throw pizzas on their house. So as long as they don't break in their Heisenberg on the wall, I think we'll be OK.
GOULD: My suggestion was always that we should have someone throw money onto the roof so that, you know, that would be maybe a little bit nicer for them.
GROSS: Are there other lines that either of you have written that really caught on?
GOULD: Better call Saul.
SCHNAUZ: Yeah, that's great.
GROSS: Right.
SCHNAUZ: The line's fantastic.
GOULD: I don't know if I can take full credit for that.
GROSS: My guests are Thomas Schnauz and Peter Gould. They were writers and producers for "Breaking Bad." We'll talk more after a break. This is FRESH AIR.
GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guests are Thomas Schnauz and Peter Gould. They're both writers and producers of the series "Breaking Bad." Jesse is such a great character, and he really became the conscience of the series in many ways, even though he's such a flawed character himself. And Peter, one of your great Aaron Paul scenes, one of your great Jesse scenes, is in the episode "Problem Dog," in which Jesse has killed Gale at Walt's insistence, and Jesse feels so overwhelmed by guilt.
And he's going to one of his 12-step meetings for his drug addiction. He needs to get this off his chest, but he can't very well say I killed somebody. So instead he confesses that he put down a dog that was a problem, a problem dog, and he kind of breaks up in telling the story.
Tell us from your point of view what it's like to write the Jesse dialogue.
GOULD: Jesse is so much from the heart. You know, Walt always covers his emotions, or he often covers his emotions with this layer of logic. And writing for Aaron and for Jesse, you know, they're - it's extremely emotional. One of the things that I think is really special about the show, it's unusual, is that in screenwriting textbooks and classes they always tell you to keep the speeches short.
And we have scenes with, you know, a page of dialogue that's uninterrupted. On the other hand, we also have one of my favorite things, which is scenes with no dialogue whatsoever. But we are able - because we have this great cast, we knew they could tackle anything that we threw at them. And so it was really pleasurable to write that scene and to have the emotion and the guilt finally bubbling up, because this is something that's been cooking inside of Jesse for seven episodes, and to finally have it boil over in that scene was very special, and it was fun to have it kind of under the guise of being about this dog, and of course that prevents anyone from understanding what he's talking about, except for us in the audience.
GROSS: So Thomas, you wrote the episode in which Hank is shot from earlier in the series. There's two cousins who are out to get Hank. Hank's in a car...
SCHNAUZ: The Moncada brothers.
GROSS: Yeah, and Hank's in...
GOULD: Silent but deadly.
GROSS: Hank's in a parked car, and he gets this message that they're coming in a minute, and then he sees they're coming at him. One of the shooters is behind him. So Hank backs up his car and pins the shooter between his car and the car behind him and amputates his legs. And then later, in a hospital scene, the guy who's not got legs anymore sees Walt through the hospital door window, and he's so upset seeing Walt, he kind of dives off the bed, and his bloody stumps have this, like, trail of blood behind him.
SCHNAUZ: Mm, bloody stumps.
GROSS: Yes, so the whole thing is so gruesome, and it's - "Breaking Bad" on the whole wasn't a gruesome series, but there's a few really gruesome moments in it. What were those conversations like in the writers' room about how gruesome to be?
SCHNAUZ: It was, you know, kind of played it by ear a lot. I mean sometimes you just want those little - a little goes a long way at the end of one minute. I mean, there's a pretty graphic head explosion right into camera. So you know...
GOULD: The thing about it is, I think for us, usually in discussion we would make it much bloodier, much more disgusting than anything you saw onscreen, and then we dial it back as we went.
SCHNAUZ: You kind of get a feel in the editing room for what is - how much is too much, and probably sometimes we went too far and sometimes not far enough.
GOULD: It's interesting, though, because once you've done it, you don't need to do it again. I think one thing that's sort of interesting about the last few episodes, there's a lot of cutting away from the violence so that when Hank gets shot, the actual moment, we're cutting way back to the landscape.
When Andrea gets shot, we cut way back to Jesse's point of view. We don't linger on those moments or show them in slow motion.
SCHNAUZ: But when Jack gets shot, there's a big spray of blood right into the lens of the camera.
GOULD: That's right, that's right.
SCHNAUZ: So maybe the characters we hate more, maybe their deaths are a little more - the more villainous you are, you know, the more - you know, Gus's face gets completely shredded off in his death.
GOULD: That could be, that could be. I think the other thing about it is that there's - it's also where's the real drama. Is the drama happening to the person who's being, having this violent act, or whose head is exploding, or is it on the person who's reacting to that?
GROSS: Throughout the series, we're wondering when is Hank going to figure out that Walt is Heisenberg, that Walt is behind the meth ring.
GOULD: Dean Norris was wondering that also.
SCHNAUZ: Yeah, he was very - yeah, he was like when am I going to figure this out already. He was afraid Hank was looking a little stupid for not figuring it out. But I mean, to us it was like why would he see that. I mean, Walter White, who - how could he possibly be a meth kingpin? So hopefully Hank - I think Hank came off pretty smart in the run of "Breaking Bad," even though Heisenberg was living right under his nose.
GOULD: That was - the question of when Hank catches on to what Walt's up to was so far over the horizon. We would think about it, and then we'd say, well, the show is going to be over. As soon as Hank finds out, that's endgame, and I don't think it's a coincidence at the very end of 508, we waited until just to kick off the last eight episodes to have Hank find out, because it really, it really is endgame stuff. So we...
SCHNAUZ: We almost ended season four with the WW. It was on the board.
GOULD: Did we?
SCHNAUZ: Yeah, it was on the board, and we were just - there was just too much happening with Gus's face getting blown off, but it was going to be a possible tag at the end, but then luckily we held off.
GROSS: I always assumed, like you were saying, that once Hank found out that Walt was Heisenberg, things are over. Walt's arrested, and that's that. But it didn't work out that way. Like Walt..
SCHNAUZ: We were surprised as well. I mean, we really - I mean for a while we thought as soon as Hank knows, it's - we're done. And then I think once it happened, once we started Season 5B, we realized Heisenberg, Walter White, is the ultimate chess player.
GROSS: At the very beginning of "Breaking Bad," you had no idea how many seasons you'd be on, and I'm not sure what you knew about how the plot would develop. What were the sure things that you knew at the beginning?
GOULD: I think the biggest sure thing that I knew was that I identified very strongly with the Walter White character. When my wife got pregnant, I was not working fulltime, I was teaching part-time at USC. We were living in a tiny apartment. We had no separate room for the baby, and I was filled with anger and rage.
And if I had been a chemistry expert, who knows? Maybe I would have cooked meth. And the fact that I was teaching at the time, all those things in the pilot just rang for me so strongly that I just knew that I had a good grasp of the basics of where he was emotionally. So that was something that I knew right away.
And then as we started talking about the show, the other thing that I knew for sure was that this was going to be a visual television show, that this was going to be a show where the words weren't doing all the work, that our visuals would do a lot of the work of the storytelling, and that I found incredibly exciting and I still find exciting. I think it's one of the things I think sets the show apart from a lot of the other great work that's being done out there.
GROSS: Did you always have a fallback plan, like if AMC called and said, sorry, fellas, the show's ending next week, or the show is ending at the end of the season, we're not renewing?
SCHNAUZ: The fallback plan was to cry uncontrollably.
GOULD: Yeah, you know, Terry, we never knew at the end of each season if we would be back for another one. I remember season one - I have been in show business for a little while, and in my experience nothing good ever happens.
GOULD: Until "Breaking Bad." And so I really felt that those first six episodes, there was a good chance that would be it. I was just, just delighted when we came back for season two, but likewise at the end of season two, I could have easily seen us not coming back because, you know, frankly not that many people were watching.
GROSS: Peter Gould and Thomas Schnauz will be back in the second half of the show. They worked on "Breaking Bad" as writers and producers. I'm Terry Gross and this is FRESH AIR.
GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross. Let's get back to my interview with two of "Breaking Bad's" writers. Peter Gould was with the series from the start. Thomas Schnauz entered in Season Three. They both were also producers of the program. "Breaking Bad's" finale was last Sunday, after five seasons.
Peter, you actually wrote the episode in which Hank finally confronts Walt. Like, Hank's not only figured it out, but this is where he's telling Walt that he knows. And it's in Hank's garage, and Walt's actually walked into the garage to say to Hank, did you put this GPS on my car? Are you trying to follow me? And then Hank closes the garage door and confronts Walt with the truth, that he knows that he's Heisenberg. And Walt tries to, like, talk him out of thinking it's true.
CRANSTON: (as Walter White) Hank, my cancer is back.
DEAN NORRIS: (as Hank Shrader) Good. Rot, you son of a bitch.
CRANSTON: (as Walter White) I'm sorry you feel that way. I want to beat this thing, I do. I'm back on chemo, and I am fighting like hell. But the truth is, in six months, you won't have someone to prosecute. But even, even if somehow you were able to convince anyone that I was capable of doing these things, you and I both know I would never see the inside of a jail cell. I'm a dying man who runs a car wash. My right hand to God, that is all that I am. What's the point?
NORRIS: (as Hank Shrader) Have Skyler bring the kids here, and then we'll talk.
CRANSTON: (as Walter White) That is not going to happen.
NORRIS: (as Hank Shrader) I don't know who you are. I don't even know who I'm talking to.
CRANSTON: (as Walter White) If that's true, if you don't know who I am, then, maybe your best course would be to tread lightly.
GROSS: So, Peter, now we've heard how it turned out when Hank finally confronts Walt. Tell us a little bit about what went on in the writing room before that, with alternate scenarios for what that confrontation would be like.
GOULD: We thought a lot about not doing that scene in the first episode. We had a lot of different versions where - because the smart thing for Hank would be to either go right to his DEA superiors and tell them what's going on, or to keep quiet while gathering some evidence to see if this is really true. And we tried to figure out why he wouldn't do that, or if he should do that. And as it worked out, it just felt right to end the episode with this confrontation, partially because we had - we started to realize how much story we had to tell him these last days, and we really decided to just kick it off big. And that was really the origin of the scene.
It's really a question of whether Walt can provoke Hank into revealing himself. And I think it happens really early on in the scene. I think really early, Walt realizes once the two of them are in the same room, that Hank can't look at him, and he just knows. And so at that point, Walt has the option to just leave - which again, probably would be the smart thing.
SCHNAUZ: One of the reasons to have Walt figure out that Hank knows is that just when - we were talking about it in the writer's room and just thinking about the audience experiencing what they're watching, you want to be in Walt's head. And if Walt is behind the story, it just feels unsatisfying. You just want your main character to be caught up with everything that the audience knows. And it just felt right.
GOULD: This was dubbed Tom's Law in the writers' room.
GOULD: Sometimes - and I think there are many exceptions to Tom's Law, because sometimes it's fun to have your character driving along in his car, and we know that there's a bomb in the trunk, and he doesn't. But a lot of the time...
SCHNAUZ: You are misinterpreting Tom's Law, I have to say, right now.
GOULD: I know. OK, but sometimes, it's frustrating for the audience to watch the characters go off with partial information.
SCHNAUZ: He's totally screwing up Tom's Law. I don't know how it came...
GROSS: What's Tom's Law?
SCHNAUZ: ...known - Tom's Law. Sometimes there's a need to - you show a character, and we don't see him on camera being given a specific piece of information. And there's always this need to have, oh, we need to have Skyler tell Walt some plot point, so that everybody in the audience knows that Walt knows it. Well, my feeling for a lot of it was you don't need to see that. Just let it go. Because if the audience knows it, a lot of times, you're going to assume the main character knows it. It's getting rid of a lot of shoe leather that's boring, because you don't need to fill in those gaps for the audience. The audience gets it.
GOULD: I think you're misquoting Tom's Law.
GROSS: So, Peter, a question for you about the scene that we just heard. At the end, Hank says to Walt: I don't even know who you are anymore. And Walt says, well, if that's true, maybe your best course would be to tread lightly - another really famous phrase from the series now. So, can you talk about a bit about writing that phrase?
GOULD: For me, the key of it was when Hank says, I don't even know who you are, I don't even know who I'm talking to, that thought was a surprise to Walt. Suddenly, Hank's realizing that there are two sides to Walt, and the idea of having someone realize that in a deep way, I think, takes Walt aback a little bit. And I think the other thing that we really - we talked a lot about in the room was the fact that Walt doesn't want to strike out at Hank. Actually, there's a lot of affection between these two guys, which is, I think, one of the things that gives the scene power, because there's a history between the two guys, and even sometimes we would say love between the two guys. And that's what really makes it painful, and that's ultimately what gives it that extra jolt at the end, I think.
GROSS: And I...
GOULD: And that's what - when he says you better best tread lightly, to me, that's part of what he's saying is, don't make me do something that I don't want to do.
GROSS: But Walt also has this new power, because Hank always used to think Walt was a wimp.
GOULD: Mm-hmm.
GROSS: And, you know, he thought he was weak. And, like, the cops like Hank. And so Walt now realizes he can actually be very threatening to Hank, like, he can intimidate Hank. That's a new power.
GOULD: I don't know that he's trying to intimidate. In that moment, for me, I don't know if he's trying to intimidate him or if there's...
SCHNAUZ: He's trying to warn him. I always thought he's...
GOULD: Yeah.
SCHNAUZ: ...giving him a warning.
GROSS: Oh, OK. Mm-hmm.
GOULD: I think it's, I mean, you know, everybody has their own interpretation. But to me, it wasn't one of those Heisenberg hat moments where he was really getting himself up to stare someone down. For me, it was more, well, now that you know that there's another side of me, back off, because you're my brother-in-law and you're family, and back off.
GROSS: My guests are Peter Gould and Thomas Schnauz. They were writers and producers for "Breaking Bad." We'll talk more after break.
This is FRESH AIR.
GROSS: So, if you're just joining us, my guests are Peter Gould and Thomas Schnauz. They're both writers and producers for "Breaking Bad."
When you're mapping out plot points for an episode or a season, do you map out all the plot points for the whole season before actually shooting, so you're sure of where everything is going?
SCHNAUZ: No. We have two boards next to each other with every episode number going across the top, and we'd sort of put ideas, sort of a wish-list of things we'd like to get to. But sort of a mantra in the room that Vince always, you know, we always followed was that, you know, let the characters tell us where we're going to go. So even though we might have had some cool idea to get to, if we weren't going to get there, then we didn't force it.
And something I keep bringing up in a lot of interviews is the shooting of the boy on the motorbike. That was something that came pretty last minute. We were in the middle - I think we had a pretty good idea where that first half of season five was going. And then when the idea came up that Todd pulled out a gun and shot that boy, it altered everything. It changed Jesse's opinion about cooking meth. I mean, I think we - before that boy died, we even had some idea about Walt was going to retire and Jesse was going to be the - you know, the big kingpin, and that just all went out the window.
GOULD: And it was partially because we knew that there had to be a consequence to this, otherwise this heist would've been basically, there would have been no reason for it.
GROSS: And it was this incredibly almost impossible heist that they pulled off, where everything worked out, in the long run, perfectly. And then Todd just shoots his little boy. And Jesse's heartbroken. And Walt's, like, well, whatever, you know.
GOULD: You know, it's interesting, because that was always the question of the show. I think the biggest question we always had to answer was: Where's Walt's head at?
GROSS: Mm-hmm.
GOULD: And we would often come up with sequences that we really liked, or that were very interesting to us, and then wonder, well, what's the point? What is this telling us about the where the character is? What's the psychology? Another example would be at the beginning of Season Five, we had the magnet caper, where - which came out really of the logical question is: What are the consequences of Gus's death? What are the pieces of evidence that are left over?
And so Walt and Jesse and Mike come up with this bigger-than-life plan of using an enormous magnet to demagnetize the evidence. And we had this, and it was fun, and we liked it a lot. And then we were thinking, well, what's the end of it? What is - and the end of it was Mike saying: How do we know if it worked? And Walt saying: Because I said so. And so we - that told us where Walt's head was at, that he was now filled with confidence. But that's a kind of a long-winded way of answering your question, because we would have ideas pinned up to the board, but then what the characters were doing, what their reactions were in the moments, moment to moment of the show would sometimes mean that there were a lot of cards that just ended up coming down.
Or, there might be something like in season two. We thought that the character of Tuco was going to play all through season two, that he was going to be this enormously important opponent for Walt and Jesse. And we have a lot of great ideas about that. And then we found out, as we were starting to break season two, that Raymond Cruz was actually committed to another TV show and we would be...
GROSS: Oh.
GOULD: ...it would be very difficult to even get him back for one episode, which is really all we had. We basically had him for one episode, which we had to rearrange our entire schedule in order to do. That season was shot out of order, which is very difficult on a show like this. So we had to shoot that episode where Tuco, Tuco is out in the desert with Walt and Jesse and Tio. That was shot much later in the schedule than it normally would have been.
And so, for instance, one question that we had was: Can Hank get nicked or shot in that shootout with Tuco? And we decided not to have any damage to Hank, because we knew we would have - we would shoot the aftermath of the Tuco shooting much of earlier in the season. And so that's an example of sometimes production extengencies(ph) will cause you to change your plan a little bit.
GROSS: Were there times where you ever felt you wrote yourself into a corner and you didn't know how to get out of it?
SCHNAUZ: I think the classic one was an episode called "Sunset," where we got Walt and Jesse together in the RV, tracked by Hank on the outside. And we had no idea what we were going to - we just had - and we were just coming up with bad idea after bad idea that we ultimately gave to Jesse to pitch about, well, what if we just ran him, or we drill a hole on the bottom of the RV and escape through a manhole?
SCHNAUZ: Or - they were just so many bad ideas. And I remember, it was Peter who finally came, I think, this sort of dark cloud came over Peter - like, I know what I would do.
GOULD: Yeah?
SCHNAUZ: He pitched - I'm pretty sure I remember you pitching calling Hank and saying something horrible had happened to Marie.
GOULD: Oh.
SCHNAUZ: That sort of sticks in my in my head, that it was your idea.
GOULD: Wow. I'm really smart.
GROSS: You don't remember coming up with that?
SCHNAUZ: You're a despicable man.
GOULD: No. It's all...
SCHNAUZ: It's so hard to remember these things.
GOULD: It's a mush, because as Tom says...
SCHNAUZ: But I'm giving credit to Peter.
GOULD: ...it's a - I'm taking credit, gladly. Gladly.
GROSS: There were times when something would happen, and it would continue to have repercussions, like the ricin cigarette. Like, that played out for a long time, and was in the conclusion.
SCHNAUZ: A long time.
GROSS: Because it was...
SCHNAUZ: That was season two, and it was a funny - we just, we got great amusement out of the fact that this ricin would keep coming up and coming up, and no one would ever die from it.
SCHNAUZ: And it just became sort of a running thing of mentioning the ricin, but nobody - we were finally - we were glad that somebody finally died from it.
GOULD: We knew somebody had to finally buy it via ricin.
GROSS: Speaking of which, how, really, how does won't get the ricin into the stevia packet that Lydia puts in her tea? Because I kept thinking, like, in order to get it in there, he'd have to break open the packet. And she's so kind of fastidious about everything, that she would've noticed that.
GOULD: He's a very meticulous guy.
SCHNAUZ: Yeah. He found a way to open and close that stevia packet without Lydia noticing.
GOULD: He - you know, we...
SCHNAUZ: Don't start poking holes, Terry.
GOULD: Well, Terry, you know, you could...
SCHNAUZ: I'm going to flip this table over.
GOULD: We could easily have had a scene where, you know, Walt was in his Volvo cutting apart dozens and dozens of stevia packets...
SCHNAUZ: ...till we finally got the right stevia packet.
GOULD: Until he finally got the right one. But I - literally, that's a scene that we could've pitched. I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if one of us had pitched it. But then sometimes you say, well, if he can put together this gun the way he does, then maybe we don't need to see him do the stevia packets.
GROSS: Yeah, but if you rip it open to put the ricin...
GOULD: And that's a lot of the time...
GROSS: ...in it, she would've seen it was ripped, right?
GOULD: I don't, you know...
SCHNAUZ: He could've unglued and glued that packet back together in a way that...
GOULD: You know...
GROSS: You guys don't know.
GOULD: People tamper with products all the time.
SCHNAUZ: That's right.
GOULD: You know, it's a - I don't want to make you paranoid, Terry.
GROSS: Oh, all right. All right.
GOULD: Anything can happen. If something can be opened, it can be closed.
GROSS: That's not a threat, right?
SCHNAUZ: It might be. It might be.
SCHNAUZ: It might be.
GROSS: Because if you know who I really am, you should tread lightly.
GOULD: Well, you know what...
GOULD: What's interesting, Terry, though, is that in storytelling - and I think this is part of what Tom was talking about when he was talking about Tom's law - so much of it is what you leave out, the choices of what you decide not to show. I remember in season one, one of the moments that we were always talking about is, you know, Emilio - the character Emilio gets melted in acid. And then later in the episode, Crazy Eight is dead. And what are they going to do with the body?
And what we decided to do was just have Jesse show up, go into his basement, and have everything perfectly clean. Because we know that Walt knows how to dispose of bodies using acid at that point in the story. And we thought it was sort of - it was more interesting to give the audience just a few pieces, and let them put it together.
There's a quote from Billy Wilder - I'm probably misquoting him - that we would often talk about in the writer's room, which is give the audience two and two, let them make four, and they'll love you forever.
SCHNAUZ: Mm-hmm.
GOULD: And the storytelling is really a collaboration between all of us on the side of making the show and what's going on in the audience's head. And so sometimes we like to keep things a little ambiguous and let people be smart.
GROSS: Something that I was surprised didn't have a continuing presence was the videotape that Walt makes in which he confesses that he's innocent, and that Hank put him up to all of this. And what I really thought was going to happen was that Walt would be killed and Hank would be killed, but this video would survive, and everybody would get the story wrong.
They'd think that this fake story that Walt tells on the video was the real thing. But nothing really happens with that. What did you think was going to happen with it?
GOULD: I think Marie demands that Skyler destroy all the copies, and I think at that point, Skyler is sort of compliant.
SCHNAUZ: Right.
GOULD: You know, what you're suggesting is the Liberty Valance version, which is, you know, you print the - you know, if the truth isn't as interesting as the legend, print the legend.
SCHNAUZ: Print the legend.
GOULD: Which is, you know, we had definitely thought about "Taxi Driver"-esque endings where Walt would, you know, be portrayed as heroic, when we all know the real truth. We ultimately - that wasn't what we decided to do, I guess.
GROSS: My guests are Peter Gould and Thomas Schnauz. They were writers and producers for "Breaking Bad." We'll talk more after a break. This is FRESH AIR.
GROSS: Let's get back to our interview with two of the writers for the series "Breaking Bad," Peter Gould and Thomas Schnauz. They were also producers of the series. Were you in on the casting at all?
SCHNAUZ: The original casting?
GROSS: Or later characters like Todd.
GOULD: Oh, absolutely.
SCHNAUZ: Oh, later characters, absolutely. Yeah. Vince, you know, we weren't there for the pilot, when all the main characters were cast. But as the series went along, we were absolutely involved in all that. And I'm ashamed to say I was voting - I was a big fan of "Friday Night Lights," and I couldn't distinguish Landry from Todd. And I was one of the few people who didn't want to cast Jesse Plemons. And I'm glad I was outvoted on that one.
GROSS: You thought he was too nice a guy?
SCHNAUZ: I just - yeah. I was - I watched every episode of "Friday Night Lights," and I loved him on that, and I kept seeing Landry, Landry, Landry every time I was picturing Todd. But then, of course, he's an amazing actor and totally proved me wrong.
GROSS: So were you both in on the casting of Jonathan Banks as the hit man Mike Ehrmantraut and the security guy?
GOULD: Well, that was season two, and that was sadly...
GROSS: That was before you were there.
GOULD: Sadly, Tom was not with us. I was in on it to the extent that when we broke the episode, his scene was actually Saul Goodman's scene. The original break at the episode was that Saul Goodman came to Jesse's apartment and helped him clean everything up. And Bob Odenkirk was actually not available for the episode.
So, at the last minute, Vince rewrote the scene for this new character Mike, who had been a private investigator who had been spoken of and mentioned and never seen. And I think Vince - I think that that casting came from Vince, because he's a big fan of...
SCHNAUZ: Yeah. The light I can shed on this is that I've known Vince since 1986, and we were giant fans of the show "Wiseguy." And we loved...
GROSS: He was great in that, Banks. Yeah.
SCHNAUZ: He was fantastic. And we love Jonathan Banks. And I know just the excitement just to be able to get him to be on the show was, you know, just - Vince leapt at the chance to do it.
GOULD: He was just wonderful.
GROSS: So the presence of that character was an accident?
GOULD: Yes. It was an accident to the extent that - maybe we would've had him in eventually, but it was really responding to Bob's lack of availability.
GROSS: And what about Bob Odenkirk? Were you in on the casting of him?
GOULD: Absolutely. You know, we had a few possibilities in mind, and then when - you know, I think, actually, my wife might've made a list. And I was - we were going down the list of - because of course - and we were, everybody in the writer's room, but especially I am a huge fan of "Mr. Show" and of Bob. And I would say I kind of championed having Bob on the show.
There was some concern from, I don't want to say studio or network, but perhaps somewhere, somewhere in the exec-u-sphere(ph)...
GOULD: ...that the character might not belong in the world of "Breaking Bad." That, you know, he was too broad. And that got me very worried. But once we got Bob in, doing what he does, it really - he fit right in. And, of course, as the other characters' lives became more miserable, he was incredibly useful to us to inject a light note. But also, he was often the only person Walt could talk to.
GROSS: So, just one last question. I spoke to one showrunner who said there's a lot of writers' rooms where people are not nice to each other and people are really, like, kind of nasty in the way they reject each others' ideas. Was "Breaking Bad" a friendly a writers' room, and what's the nicest way of rejecting somebody else's idea?
SCHNAUZ: It was what we would call a safe room, where we could say any dumb thing and not feel bad about it, because that's really the best way to work. I mean, if you feel like you're going to be criticized for something you say, then you're not going to say anything. You're going to shut up. And you've got to be free to say any dumb thing, because a lot of times when you say something stupid, a good idea arises from it.
So probably the best way Vince would reject an idea would be he'd kind of look at you and said, oh, that's interesting.
GOULD: I like the way you're thinking.
SCHNAUZ: Yeah, I like the way you're thinking.
GOULD: Although sometimes it was tricky, because sometimes he really did like the way you were thinking.
SCHNAUZ: Yeah. You had to sort of interpret it.
GOULD: Yeah. It reminds me a little bit of the way they teach improve comedians at places like "Second City," where instead of trying to negate what the other person is saying, you try to build on it. And that is ultimately why it's so much fun. Because, you know, you build on each idea, and then you come up with a run of thoughts.
And then, at that point, maybe it just kind of ends, and then you move on and you find something else that you like better. But it's really a sophisticated form of play. And it's - I just miss the hell out of it, I've got to say.
GROSS: Well, I could listen to you both talk about "Breaking Bad" for hours. Unfortunately, that's a luxury I don't have, because I need to let you go.
SCHNAUZ: I think we actually would like our own radio show.
GOULD: Yeah.
SCHNAUZ: Can we get that done?
GOULD: Yeah. Is there some way we could just book the room for a couple hours every week?
GROSS: I'd like that.
SCHNAUZ: I got nothing going on. I could be here all week.
GROSS: It has been so great to talk with you both. Thank you so much, and thank you so much for the series. It's been just a great experience watching it.
GOULD: Thank you, Terry.
SCHNAUZ: Bye, bitches.
GROSS: Thomas Schnauz and Peter Gould were writers and producers of the AMC series "Breaking Bad," and directed some episodes.
Transcripts are created on a rush deadline, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of Fresh Air interviews and reviews are the audio recordings of each segment.


text:
TALLINN, Estonia – Criminal investigators, bomb technicians, forensic scientists and other specialists from around the world are gathering at the INTERPOL Chemical and Explosives Terrorism Prevention Global Conference in Tallinn, Estonia.
The two-day conference (18 and 19 September), organized by INTERPOL's newly created Chemical and Explosives Terrorism Prevention (ChemEx) unit with the Estonian Ministry of Interior and Police and Border Control Board, brings together more than 140 participants from 50 countries, to study past incidents, discuss current prevention programmes and share expertise to help prevent future attacks.
Opening the conference, Estonia's Minister of the Interior Ken-Marti Vaher, emphasised that no single country can cope with the threat of terrorism on its own.
"Terrorism knows no state borders and the only thing to give us a sense of security and adequate preparation for actual threat situations is international cooperation. The extensive and serious consequences of terrorism have unfortunately clearly demonstrated the critical importance of joint preventative activities and exchange of information," said Minister Vaher pointing to Estonia's strong partnership with INTERPOL since becoming a member 20 years ago.
Addressing the participants, Jeffrey S. Muller, Assistant Section Chief from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate said that the key in addressing the challenge of terrorism is coordination.
"The next terrorist attack in one of our countries could utilize a weapon of mass destruction, including a chemical agent, to cause panic, injury and even death. It is imperative that we are doing all that we can to address this chemical threat," said Mr Muller.
"The goal is prevention, and ChemEx, by its design aims to assist the establishment and enhancement of global countermeasures with the goals of assisting police services worldwide in the prevention of the malicious use of chemicals and explosive materials, addressing such use should it occur and bringing perpetrators to justice," concluded Mr Muller.
The new ChemEx Unit is part of the INTERPOL Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosives (CBRNE) Terrorism Prevention Programme, complementing the existing Bioterrorism Prevention Unit and the Radiological and Nuclear Terrorism Prevention Unit and will provide support to all 190 INTERPOL member countries in three main areas: criminal intelligence analysis; capacity building programmes, such as training courses for law enforcement officers; and operational support.
"By sharing information and working together, we can support the international law enforcement community in engaging the threat posed by chemical and explosives terrorism, which continue to claim lives every day across the world," said Anthony J. Thomas, INTERPOL's CBRNE Programme Manager
"INTERPOL created the Chemical and Explosives Terrorism Prevention Unit in order to help all member countries comprehensively address this threat, and in doing so, INTERPOL has built the last pillar in its CBRNE structure, thereby making the programme complete and fully operational to address all aspects of the CBRNE threat spectrum."
Among the organizations taking part to provide specialist input are the FBI, the Australian Federal Police, Europol, the World Customs Organisation, the European Union, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the United Nations.


text:
Paws and Sneakers 5K Fun Run
August 24, 2013 | 8:00 am - 12:00 pm
- Cost:
- $10-25
Additional Information
Come support the Humane Society of Weld County by participating in the 25th Annual Paws and Sneakers 5K Fun Run!
The run takes place on August 24th at the Twin Rivers Park in Greeley with the race beginning at 9 AM.
12 years and up is $25 and under 12 is free, though the free t-shirt is not included.
Even if you do not wish to participate in the race, there is still a chance to donate to the cause or sponsor it. To learn more about the donation or sponsorship opportunities, click HERE.
Need directions to the event? Click here for a map.


text:
Welcome to the CPU-Central Message
Board! If you have any questions, comments, suggestions, etc., please feel free
to post them here. NOTE: Please make
sure the messages are appropriate. SPAM of any kind will not be tolerated.
[Post Message] [Refresh] [FAQ] [Search all Messages] [Poll] [Customize] |
Current Poll:
Most noticeable Improvement of the Computer Hardware
<<Previous 500 | >>Next 500 | ||
Copyright © 2008 CPU-Central, All rights reserved. | |
Webmaster at email@example.com |


text:
Name | Release Dates | |
Financial Soundness Indicators | 2011-11-01 | 2024-05-01 |
Link | ||
http://data.imf.org/?sk=9F855EAE-C765-405E-9C9A-A9DC2C1FEE47 | 2011-11-01 | 2024-05-01 |
Source | ||
International Monetary Fund | 2011-11-01 | 2024-05-01 |
Notes | ||
The Financial Soundness Indicators (FSIs) were developed by the IMF, together with the international community, with the aim of supporting macroprudential analysis and assessing strengths and vulnerabilities of financial systems.
The website, hosted by the Statistics Department of the IMF, disseminates data and metadata on selected FSIs provided by participating countries. For a description of the various FSIs, as well as the consolidation basis, consolidation adjustments, and accounting rules followed, please refer to the "Concepts and Definitions" document (http://data.imf.org/?sk=9F855EAE-C765-405E-9C9A-A9DC2C1FEE47). The Statistics Department will steadily increase the number of countries reporting FSIs for dissemination on this site. Reporting countries compile FSI data presented on this website by using different methodologies, which may also vary for different points in time for the same country. Users are advised to consult the accompanying metadata (http://data.imf.org/?sk=9F855EAE-C765-405E-9C9A-A9DC2C1FEE47) to conduct more meaningful cross-country comparisons or to assess the evolution of a given FSI for any of the countries. |
2011-11-01 | 2024-05-01 |
46 Series Revisions