Wizard's Blog
Magic Shills
There is an interesting thread about Three Card Monty, in particular how shills are used to help the "dealer" cheat his victims. This got me thinking about the use of shills in magic. In my opinion, any trick done with the aid of shills is completely illegitimate.Lots of magicians are guilty of this. Here is an example by David Blaine. In the video I linked to he apparently levitates about six inches off the ground. Scroll down to read how he did it. If you don't want to know, click the back button.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
This trick looks like it took place on the Boardwalk in Atlantic City. Here is how I think he did it:
- He found the three girls at the beginning, who were legitimate strangers.
- Off camera he did a simple levitation trick known as the ' rel='nofollow' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balducci_levitation] Balducci levitation, which even I can do (although I achieve the right angle and distance only about half the time). He probably did it well, but it isn't nearly as impressive as what he appeared to do in the video.
- The cameras record the girls reaction to the Balducci levitation for later use.
- Next, hours or days later, he gets some shills to dress the same way as the girls in the video. Note how in the video you only see them from the back.
- With wires and cranes he does the trick seen in the video. The shills act amazed.
- The video cuts to the reaction shot from step 3.
I applaud street magic, and used to be into doing it myself. I've had great success with it in China. However what you see in that video is cheap and easy, done with shills and deceiving camera work. For that reason, I don't have any compunction to explain the secret. I know this will never happen, but I would applaud any magician who will publically declare they subscribe to a "no shill" policy. Already some have stated a no "camera trick" policy, at least on a trick by trick basis. I've heard David Copperfield make that promise before, which I highly respect. What do you say magicians? Anybody care to make the pledge?
The 1 to 10 scale
Two things that annoy me are:1. When people ask others to rate something on a 1 to 10 scale.
2. When the response is outside of the indicated range.
The reason the 1 to 10 scale annoys me is that it should be a 0 to 10 scale. To not start at zero takes us back 2000 years when the modern calendar began at year 1. Remember the big argument about when the new millennium was supposed to start, January 1 2000 or 2001? That could have all been avoided if the first year was year 0. It is simply mathematically ignorant to start numbering anything with 1.
The second reason is more obvious. I'm big on structure and rules. To go outside the range just makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.
Thanks for listening to my rant. How much did you like it on a 0 to 10 scale?
Comments
I give it an 11! Haha just kidding...the only time you're allowed to go out of the 1-10 scale is "Spinal Tap".
Here's something that perplexed me that only marginally relates to your blog. When basketball began using tenths of a second, I was always confused if the clock prior to 59.9 was showing the time without the tenths, or the time as it would have been shown the old way. Why is there a difference? Well, on the old clock, showing 1 second left actually meant there was between 0.1 and 1.0 second left, because the instant the clock went to :00, the game was over, so :01 represented 0.1 to 1.0. When the tenths bwe added to the clock in the last minute, to me it meant there was an "extra second", because now :00.1 to :00.9 was shown. What I decided must have happened was when the game/half/period started the old way, it must have stayed at the start time (let's say college, 20:00) for a full second, but when they switched to the tenths, then the start of the half must have INSTANTLY gone to 19:59, meaning the tenths are always there, just not shown (ie 19:59 is 19:59.9 to 19:59.0). I have thought about this since middle school when I first saw a tenths of a second clock at a game, and I have never tried to articulate it before, but I figured the Wizard might have some input.
The high school I attended set the lowest possible grade as 1. Apparently the grading software collapsed if you input a 0 (BTW Mexican schools grade on a numerical basis).
Counting depends on what's being counted. If you're counting money after you cash a $3 check, for example, you wouldn't think to count "zero, one, two, three," would you? On the other hand when counting a person's age, you wouldn't say he was 1 year old the moment he was born, instead you count days, then weeks and months until one full year has passed.
As t the counting of years, we're stuck with the Romans' ignorance of the concept of zero. Worse yet we're stuck with 99% (at least!) of the population's ignorance about the Romans' ignorance.
Most mathematicians consider it logical to count from zero. I think all the modern computer programming languages start counting with zero by default.
I have a pet peeve with the metric system. Although we all understand the logical progression of the decimal based system, the core measure (the meter) had to be set somehow. It was set so that the distance from the equator to the pole was 10,000 km. If it was set so that one km == 1/2 minute then the metric system would line up with the customary planet based measurement system of degrees, minutes and seconds by easy fractions. Global navigation could very easily be done in metric. The correlation of the current metric system had a side benefit that appealed to politicians. The line of longitude that went through Paris and bisected France was almost exactly 1000 km long.
The opportunity came and went, and now we are stuck with an old English system built around the human body, a global navigation system, and a metric system.
At least the metric system makes sense. How many feet in a mile? Cups in a quart? Quarts in a gallon? Acres in a square mile? What's worse is that there are TWO english systems: one where there are 5 cups in a quart and another where there are 4 cups in a quart. In Canada, a pint of beer (which is 1/2 a quart) is 20 ounces. In the United States, that same "pint" of beer is 16 ounces.
In Canada, car companies get away with overrated fuel efficiency numbers because they can rate (and advertise) MPG where the gallon is based on the 5 cup quart. Instead of there being 3.785 liters in a gallon, there is 4.732 liters. The Honda Civic in the United States that gets 50 mpg on the highway gets 63 mpg here in Canada, yet when we fill up our gas tanks over the border in the United States, the Civic gets 50 mpg.
So I'll take the metric system any day.
I would rate the metric system an 11 and the Wizard's rant a -1.
But seriously, Wizard, we have ten fingers. We don't count 1 to 10, we count 0 to 10. When we are asked to rate something, we have to indicate the range available. When I ask somebody to rate something, I say "out of 10, not from a scale of 1 to 10". Why should 1 be the lowest.
So I guess I agree with you.
My own pet peeve is related to the 1-10 scale. How often do you take/review surveys and if you got rid of the numbers 1-4 and 9-10, the survey results would stay the same. Everyone is always in the 5-8 range no matter what the question. As for the 2nd, I view that as a failure to follow instructions, which can always lead to bigger and better issues. ;)
-B
until programming can be done in trinary, the whole world is binary. So you only need two response choices (0 -dislike , 1 - like). Everything less than 0 = 0, anything greater than 1 = 1. So now there is no out of bounds either.
If only it were so simple.............
Quote:How much did you like it on a 0 to 10 scale?
Pi2
I hate to be the cotrarian, but it should be 1 to 10.
Allowing a score of 0 makes it impossible to differentiate between the lowest score, and no score.
You know, I would have to say that I am quite the opposite of a "Control Freak", but when it comes to games, some people must consider me one, as I go to great lengths to insist on transparency when playing. I play board games on the internet human vs human, using software aids that generally have no ability to enforce rules [and this is not playing vs the computer]. Perhaps a thread in future on that.
Anyway, I'd say that is possible to be "big on structure and rules" in games and such without being the same in one's personal or professional life. Just my 2 cents.
Thanks for all the comments. I later found a good video on the topic of going outside the range at http://www.youtube.com/user/communitychannel#p/u/27/cSmrsYbz4Qs. However, she still makes the mistake of starting the scale at 1.
Jury duty
I have always wanted to be required to do jury duty. As I write this I'm almost 45, and still have never even seen the inside of a courtroom as a prospective juror. Today was the third time I was called. Before I get into that, here is a summary of what happened the first two times.Baltimore circa 1995: I watched movies in the jury pool all day and then sent home because they didn't need me.
Las Vegas circa 2005: I was given an automatic excusal for owning my own business.
About five years later the city of LV summoned me again. Although I still wanted to serve, it is hard to justify taking the time when you can get out of it. So I tried to invoke my business owners privilege, but they said they no longer accept that as an automatic excuse, but have to talk a judge into it.
The night before I was supposed to serve I called the phone number on the summons, as you're supposed to do, to see if they still need you. My juror number was not in the range to appear the next day, so the message said they would send me another notice with another date, which they did.
The next date was during my spring break vacation. I asked for a deferment, which was granted. My reschedule date was May 3. I never received another summons letter. The weekend before the Monday I was supposed to appear I tried to determine if I was still needed via the automated phone system and web site, but to no avail. My old juror number was not in the range of numbers addressed. So I showed up to the courthouse anyway at 8AM.
I stood in line to get in, and made my way to the juror pool on the third floor. I was one about about 160 people. I'm not sure if they were expecting me, but accepted me anyway. At 8AM somebody explained the nuts and bolts of what to expect that morning, and then they showed a video which explained courtroom basics. About 9AM those with badges numbered from 1 to about 50 were asked to line up. A marshal then led them to a courtroom elsewhere in the building. About 10AM badge numbers of about 51 to 100 were lined up and led to a different courtroom. The rest of us just sat there. Unlike the jury pool in Baltimore there were no movies to watch, and just a few old magazines to read, and some jigsaw puzzles. Another room had a small television set, turned to a channel showing, appropriately, Law & Order. I bought along a book, but forget my reading glasses, so it was a strain to read more than about 5 minutes at a time.
About 11:30 we were told to break for a two-hour lunch, and return at 1:30. We were told to expect to see the noon arrivals when we returned. During this break I did wandered around the downtown casinos, made a couple baseball bets, but didn't see anything interesting. It was sad how many 6-5 blackjack has taken over downtown. I would estimate at that time 75% of the blackjack games open paid 6-5, or less. The number of 3-2 games open at Binion's was zero. When I was in my twenties that place was single-deck heaven, and 6-5 games were unheard of. Sad how things have changed.
When I returned at about 1:15 somebody saw my badge and said they were letting us out early. He must have recognized me in the group of uncalled jurors. However, I still needed my card stamped to prove I made a good faith effort, so went back to the juror pool. At the time they were busy lining up a group from the 12:00 people. After that group cleared out they evidently let everybody left from the 8:00 group go home.
So once again I wasted a day with jury duty. I'm kind of angry that both here and in Baltimore I was asked to show up, sat around for hours, and then sent home. I can understand that they need to call more people than they need, because some jurors won't be suitable, and maybe some cases will settle at the last second, but based on my limited experience, I think they are inconveniencing more people than they need to. Downstairs in the lobby they have screens showing the docket for that day. If they can foresee every case, why can't they foresee how many jurors they will need? I might also add they didn't pay me the $40 jurors are supposed to get per day. Perhaps you have to serve the full day to get it.
Comments
Many jurisdictions have adopted the One Day, One Trial rule wherein veniremen (that's what you are) are summoned to the central jury pool. If you are not seated on a jury panel that day, your obligation is over with. If you are actually seated on a jury panel that day, you serve for whatever the duration of that trial turns out to be.
Courts are often very inefficient: think monopoly casino operator.
Note: if you are actually quite interested in serving they will often send you down somewhere on a prospective panel but they are not really set up for volunteers since if an attorney finds out that you were a gung-ho volunteer he will likely be tempted to utilize a peremptory challenge if he can't challenge you for cause.
In the old days, Blue Ribbon juries were composed of persons who had indicated that they would not be inconvenienced by lengthy or complex trials. Getting on that list was fun!
Wasting a day waiting to get into the courtroom sucks. To be sent home without compensation sucks more. To be sent home WITH the compensation, only to realize how pitiful the compensation is, also sucks.
Is it any wonder that people go togreat lengths to dodge jury duty?
But you know what else sucks? The flip side of the story:
The real problem with the American Judicial System is that the accused is judged by 12 people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty!
Here's a quick and modest reform proposal:
1) Recruit volunteer jurors
2) In order to achieve 1), offer a modest monthly payment for being in the prospective jury pool. Say $100 a month.
3) Once a volunteer is called to serve on a jury, he cannot be excused for anything short of a personal or family emergency.
3.1) Volunteer jurors could buy their way out of serving, by returning all the money they've been paid since volunteering, plus interest, plus a fine equal to twice that much.
4) Once on a jury, each juror shall be paid the median salary per diem current on the jusrisdiction where the trial is held. Trial time would be limited to 8 hours per day (not counting a lunch hour). If the time is exceeded either at court or in deliberation, then overtime shall be paid.
Thoughts?
I don't think volunteer jurors will work. You could end up with something like the book/movie "The Juror". Extreme, but not out of the realm of possibility.
Up here in King County, WA (Seattle area) the summons are for 2 days or 1 trial. If you are put into a pool but excused for whatever reason, you go back into the pool for the remainder of the 2 days. You get a bus ticket and $10 per day for lunch. (My employer pays me my regular salary while on jury duty, so I donate the $10 to the daycare center at the courthouse) They have TV's to show the into video but then turn them off. Seems like they could leave them on cable news or something. Wi-Fi is available which is good.
Part of why so many are needed is they never know for sure that far in advance which cases will be brought. Also, like Wizard mentioned, some cases require larger pools based on what type of case it is. As an example I was recently in the prospective pool for a felony sexual misconduct case. They brought up 60 people for a 12 person (+ 2 alternates) panel. We had to fill out a multiple page questionnaire and go thru a few hours of questioning. In the end they settled on a panel about 2-3 people before they got to me. I think I was number 40-somethnig.
Judges salaries and court budgets have outstripped inflation but juror's compensation rarely gets adjusted to a decent wage. When those five and ten dollar a day laws were originally passed that was a fair but not stunningly desirable day's wage.
Questionaires? Some veniremen say: Sound of mind and body, speak and understand the English language, lived in the State for one year or more and lived in the county for thirty days or more... and anything else is none of your business. You want to know what bumper stickers are on my car, I can't stop you from going out to look but I'm not going to tell you. You take your twelve Good Men And True and you roll the dice!!
I dont do jury duty- no reasonable defense attorny would let someone who work at the police department (me) be a jurer. lol. Ive been requested a couple times.
How ironic,
I just finished jury duty yesterday. We heard a civil case. It took just todays.
I actually enjoyed it.
Another of my anecdotes:
Back about 1992 while I was teaching, I was sharing an elevator with two of my students who asked something about what we would be doing in class the following week. I told them I was on call for jury duty and wasn’t even sure whether I would be able to attend class. Another passenger in the elevator was a practicing attorney who was there teaching a business law class. He said, “Do you want to serve? If not, tell them you are highly educated. Then neither side will want you.”
I wound up in the pool for a criminal trial related to drug trafficking. The procedure at that court was that each prospective juror completed a form asking basic info. Next, general questions were asked of the entire pool, like whether any of us knew the defendants or any member of the court, whether we or any family member had ever been accused of a drug-related crime, etc. Then, the prosecutor and a defense attorney asked specific questions of each of the candidates to gather info on individuals. Finally, the prospective jurors were addressed one at a time. The prosecutor first indicated whether he accepted or excused the juror. For those he accepted, the defense then decided whether to accept or excuse (strike).
As the prosecutor was asking questions of individuals and got to me, he looked at my survey form and said, “I see you work for Georgia Tech. Did you study there?” I confirmed I had. He then asked, “What kind of degree did you get?” I listed the degrees, and he didn’t ask anything else of me, nor did the defense attorney.
When it came time to make the strikes, the prosecutor accepted every candidate juror, while the defense eliminated a fair percentage. There were multiple defendants, each with his own attorney, so there were numerous defense strikes available. That was the pattern until they got to me, about the 20th candidate. With basically no information other than my education, the prosecutor excused me from serving – his only strike used! – and I never had a chance to see whether the defense wanted to strike me also. It appeared that the business law instructor was right!
Doc -
That just confirms what I already said:
The real problem with the American Judicial System is that the accused is judged by 12 people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty!
As a prosecutor, I have plenty of thoughts on jurors and jury duty. I will not bore everyone with all of those thoughts, but I will mention two:
(1)Try and think of any jury duty pay as a bonus. Serving on a jury is a civic duty, and our court system won't function without it. Nearly every juror loses money by taking time to serve, but that is the price to pay for a jury trial system, which is a necessary safeguard to be in place before taking someone's liberty and/or property. This also ties in with point (2) The problem with the American Judicial System is not that a case is decided by 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty, but rather that the smart, qualified jurors often TRY to get out of jury duty. Next time you see or hear of a plea bargain or settlement you don't like, or wonder how someone got a million-dollar verdict or was found not guilty despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, remember that if you are one of the people who tries to get out of jury duty, you are only encouraging such results.
Kudos to the Wizard and the commenters who are willing and eager to serve.
I hope that in my story I didn't leave the impression that I was trying to avoid jury duty. Quite the contrary: actually serving would seem less of an inconvenience than would the uncertainty of whether I would be on jury duty or at work. I was just relating how a lawyer said I could avoid serving if I had wanted that and how his comment compared to the way the jury was actually selected. Now that I am too lazy to work a regular job, serving on a jury wouldn't seem to present any inconvenience at all. Being selected for a greatly extended trial might influence my feeling on this.
I have been summoned three times ever: served on a jury for a civil case back in the '70s, was excused in the '90s, and early in the '00s was told by a computer not to bother coming in. The one time I did serve, there was an elderly gentleman in the pool. He claimed to have a 6th grade education. Apparently his education level didn't meet the basic requirements for juror eligibility, but the judge excused that. The gentleman was selected for the jury, and the judge named him as foreman. When we got to the jury room, it became apparent that he was a bit senile, and he seemed to be functionally illiterate. We had one hell of a time progressing to a verdict in what should have been a slam dunk case with the evidence that was presented.
Comments
Magicians distract. An attractive and scantily clad female assistant already distracts half the audience.
A shill in the audience that claims the first sealed envelope will allow the magician to open succeeding ones and read them.
A shill that provides a notepad that has carbon paper is not all that terrible. Most people realize she is not really just a girl who was walking by.
The David Blaine video is simply an outright cheat with no redeeming qualities. Truly evil!
This Penn and Teller reveal is entertaining because the viewer knows fundamentally how it is done without explanation. The reveal show some of the acrobatic grace in actually getting in position and moving around in the limited amount of time.
Entertainment needs internal integrity. In a similar way, I thought the movie, The Prestige about the rival magicians resorted to an inconsistency for the conclusion. What was a movie about rivalry and obsession finished up with a supernatural twist. I liked The Illusionist much more for keeping the story on track.
Thank you for providing some verification, I have suspected trick photography so long for TV magicians I refuse to watch any such show on TV.
I love magic, but to me this kind of thing is low, and it's why I hate a lot of the newer magicians and those, like Blaine, who do obvious shill work and cheap camera cutting or staged audiences, etc.
To me, magic is all about the fun of being tricked, and a good trickster is essential, but I draw a line between trickery and plain deceit. These new devices, such as using an almost entire planted audience, a shill, or heavy editing, is just false advertisement- it's not an illusion. It's the illusion of an illusion.