![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Oz blogging: Ozma of Oz
Oct. 22nd, 2009 01:11 pmI chatter about one of my favorite Oz books, Ozma of Oz, this week.
Oct. 22nd, 2009
Frog hunting
Oct. 22nd, 2009 02:05 pmIn the ancient, time honored tradition of hunting frogs, and particularly hunting frogs on soft cushy paws with claws that have recently been treated with human toenail clippers because of the tendency of said paws to land with outstretched claws and a hard bang on the soft and generally unshielded stomach or breasts of an innocent human, one rule has held paramount: Frog hunting should be done in UTTER SILENCE. Otherwise, the frog – no matter how stupid for entering the realm of said soft cushy paws might – just might – hear you, and hop away.
You would think, indeed, that the practical utility of this rule would be so obvious that I should not need to say it, much less shout it, but apparently even shouting this obvious point is not enough to keep a certain black and white furry creature from squeaking "SQQQUUUUUUUUUUUUUEEEK! SSSQQUUEEEKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKkk! MMMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWW!" By which he meant, apparently, "There's a FROG! It's on the WALL! I get to PLAY with it! But it won't PLAY with me! There's a FROG!"
Said frog had left its considerably more useful career as a consumer of insects to hop into the apartment and hopped merrily along the floor, not seeing the Little One, who was happily buried under a blanket that was meant to be covering my legs, not his fur. (This remains an ongoing source of household tension. I will point out again that he has fur and I don't, and I have swollen feet and he doesn't, therefore, I get the blanket, but it must be confessed that the Little One is not always a follower of logic and fairness.) So, the frog hopped up and landed on the wall.
This made just enough noise to alert the Little One, who emerged from the blankets to see the frog and immediately start squeaking at it. "Leave it alone," I said. "It eats insects. We like that."
"EEEK!"
The frog, regaining some common sense, clung to its spot on the wall near the ceiling, and if it had remained still, all might have been well, but it decided to wiggle, inspiring the Little One to do a series of hops towards it, and then climb up the aquarium and up the bookshelf so it could take a flying leap over the paintings and unto the frog. Not only is he distinctly not allowed on the aquarium (whenever he jumps on it the tiger barbs take out their tensions on other fish) but I did not think this maneuver would benefit the paintings or the couch below, to say nothing of the frog. So this experiment was rapidly halted, giving the frog just enough time to leap to the other wall and cling there tantalizingly out of reach.
"EEEK EEEK EEEK EEEK!"
"Maybe," I said, "it doesn't want to play with you. And – this is just a thought – if you shut up, it might forget you're there and return to the floor."
My kindly advice was ignored. Instead, the Little One squeaked, then jumped, then proceeded to chase the frog all throughout the house, with the frog ably and easily evading him, until with one more wild leap the frog went soaring over the loveseat and right into the paws of the until then utterly silent Grey One, who proceeded to calmly and not at all efficiently deal with the frog in a manner that I will not describe. This lead to more wails, since this was – or rather, had been – clearly the Little One's frog and he was upset that the Grey One had broken it, and, as the dominant cat, he felt that the best way to deal with this was to pounce on her and bite her neck until she cried. It took some time for the drama to die down. And even less time for most of the frog to end up on my bed in a distinctly unpleasant manner.
I can only hope that word will go through the frog telepathy line (they have one, right?) to avoid this apartment entirely if you want a quiet death.
You would think, indeed, that the practical utility of this rule would be so obvious that I should not need to say it, much less shout it, but apparently even shouting this obvious point is not enough to keep a certain black and white furry creature from squeaking "SQQQUUUUUUUUUUUUUEEEK! SSSQQUUEEEKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKkk! MMMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWW!" By which he meant, apparently, "There's a FROG! It's on the WALL! I get to PLAY with it! But it won't PLAY with me! There's a FROG!"
Said frog had left its considerably more useful career as a consumer of insects to hop into the apartment and hopped merrily along the floor, not seeing the Little One, who was happily buried under a blanket that was meant to be covering my legs, not his fur. (This remains an ongoing source of household tension. I will point out again that he has fur and I don't, and I have swollen feet and he doesn't, therefore, I get the blanket, but it must be confessed that the Little One is not always a follower of logic and fairness.) So, the frog hopped up and landed on the wall.
This made just enough noise to alert the Little One, who emerged from the blankets to see the frog and immediately start squeaking at it. "Leave it alone," I said. "It eats insects. We like that."
"EEEK!"
The frog, regaining some common sense, clung to its spot on the wall near the ceiling, and if it had remained still, all might have been well, but it decided to wiggle, inspiring the Little One to do a series of hops towards it, and then climb up the aquarium and up the bookshelf so it could take a flying leap over the paintings and unto the frog. Not only is he distinctly not allowed on the aquarium (whenever he jumps on it the tiger barbs take out their tensions on other fish) but I did not think this maneuver would benefit the paintings or the couch below, to say nothing of the frog. So this experiment was rapidly halted, giving the frog just enough time to leap to the other wall and cling there tantalizingly out of reach.
"EEEK EEEK EEEK EEEK!"
"Maybe," I said, "it doesn't want to play with you. And – this is just a thought – if you shut up, it might forget you're there and return to the floor."
My kindly advice was ignored. Instead, the Little One squeaked, then jumped, then proceeded to chase the frog all throughout the house, with the frog ably and easily evading him, until with one more wild leap the frog went soaring over the loveseat and right into the paws of the until then utterly silent Grey One, who proceeded to calmly and not at all efficiently deal with the frog in a manner that I will not describe. This lead to more wails, since this was – or rather, had been – clearly the Little One's frog and he was upset that the Grey One had broken it, and, as the dominant cat, he felt that the best way to deal with this was to pounce on her and bite her neck until she cried. It took some time for the drama to die down. And even less time for most of the frog to end up on my bed in a distinctly unpleasant manner.
I can only hope that word will go through the frog telepathy line (they have one, right?) to avoid this apartment entirely if you want a quiet death.
Hulu charging for content in 2010
Oct. 22nd, 2009 06:47 pmEntertainment Weekly reports that Hulu.com will start charging for content in 2010.
As a long term strategy for Hulu.com, I think this is a mistake. Largely because Hulu.com is not offering any unique content: everything is shows is either already available on regular broadcast TV (unless you are this household which hasn't gotten around to installing the little digital switcher thing so that we can see the two networks that broadcast here), cable TV (admittedly paid, but with a considerably greater selection of realtime content in better, often HD quality, although also admittedly with way too many ads, which drive me so nuts that we aren't bothering to get cable), network sites (same quality, same amount of ads, still free), iTunes (paid but better quality), Netflix, or DVDs. The only thing Hulu.com really offered was an aggregate service that meant not needing to click around to various sites. And I don't think that charging for content will do much to increase their site visitors.
As a long term strategy for Hulu.com, I think this is a mistake. Largely because Hulu.com is not offering any unique content: everything is shows is either already available on regular broadcast TV (unless you are this household which hasn't gotten around to installing the little digital switcher thing so that we can see the two networks that broadcast here), cable TV (admittedly paid, but with a considerably greater selection of realtime content in better, often HD quality, although also admittedly with way too many ads, which drive me so nuts that we aren't bothering to get cable), network sites (same quality, same amount of ads, still free), iTunes (paid but better quality), Netflix, or DVDs. The only thing Hulu.com really offered was an aggregate service that meant not needing to click around to various sites. And I don't think that charging for content will do much to increase their site visitors.