o/ lord I was born a ramblin' writer/speaker/thinker o/

BOOBtubeS!

I think it's more than safe to say that of all media, television is the most maligned. Forget Shakespeare's lowbrow roots, forget about the harlequin romance, the incessant repetition of this year's "hits" on 9/10 radio stations, Meet the Spartans...the pollution brought by these wretched works doesn't seem to contaminate their respective art forms the way we have allowed bad television to colour everything we see and hear on the good ol' boob tube (even though most network TV is too tame to show anything remotely resembling the actual female breast...). Videogaming is I think a close second, despite the best efforts of self-appointed moral crusaders. At least games are known to improve co-ordination and problem-solving skills. Television gets pretty much zero good press as a medium.

Which is why it's so awful that I am a sucker for good TV.

If I'm tired enough, I'm a sucker for just about any TV, but that's neither here nor there. No, I'm talking about Farscape, Firefly, Battlestar Galactica (remake), Cowboy BeBop, jPod...intelligent TV. I might as well toss in Mythbusters, Magic School Bus, Robot Chicken, Popular, Buffy, Heroes, and Dead Like Me, while I'm in a listing mood. These shows are all different, but they can be collected into groups, sometimes overlapping. You've straight-up solid writing, acting, and wit; you've got pertinent social commentary; educational value; comedy, romance, psychosis: you have art.

When you think about it, TV is the perfect mirror for society: sure, a lot of it is made with very little thought input, or a great deal of thought is put in to ensure that very little comes out, but either way, a lot of it is the bland homogeneity and routine - filler - required as if by law to stop the masses from discovering existentialism (gotta keep your power sources safely plugged in, after all). But there's always that small, rogue band of people who keep thought alive, with such alien concepts as "plot", "character", and "cinematography". I may be overly melodramatic in casting TV as some kind of socio-political battlefield, but maybe there's something to it. Television has, like Religion, been called "the opiate of the masses", after all. It would certainly explain why intelligent TV tends to get cancelled with alarming regularity: get too subversive, and the Capitalist Oppressor takes you off the airwaves. I think Heroes, Galactica and Farscape managed to hang on (although the latter was cancelled after 4 seasons) by having a strong emphasis on family, which the conservatives must like enough to make up for their boldness elsewhere. Looking deeper, I guess Heroes and Galactica both feature powerful elites making decisions that affect the fate of humanity, and they generally tend to make the right choices. The powerful elites must like that vindication.

So, with new TV comes a new cast of shows to be examined, the ones I've seen at all would be jPod (already in the list of intelligent TV, and duly cancelled), the Sarah Connor Chronicles (which I think survives on overtones of family and religion, as per my theory), and finally Eli Stone, which I'm still evaluating. On the one hand, they did do an episode where a vaccine maker was trying to hide the fact that it's products could cause Autism (dumb, 'cause that myth does not need more support: note how the vast majority of people are non-autistic and immunized? Yeah, I thought you might enjoy your health). This week, though, was much better: they totally took the US government to task for only funding the LIES of Abstinence-only "sex education"! On TV, in front of (hopefully) millions of viewers. I like their style this week, although I wonder if they mean to educate, or just to provoke a different group every week by subverting their usual message somehow? Also, the whole "Eli-as-prophet" storyline has the potential to get really, really annoying and preachy if done wrong.

I guess the bottom line is that Eli Stone has Natasha Henstridge, which should keep at least the male viewers, even in the event of severe shark-jumping.

More on this as my artistic appraisal continues. I think I may just go and watch some more Battlestar Galactica Season 3 (which you should buy or rent or borrow and watch and no they are not paying me, unless you count the part where they're making more for me to watch)

LOUD!

I should get elected just so I can deliver the joke at the end of this post!

No subheading here, because my inclination toward any given topic isn't really enough to justify coming up with a semi-witty remark about it, only to veer off track within the space of a paragraph or so. How 'bout them apples?

Speaking of Apple?

Actually, Steve Jobs seems to have been quiet of late.

Speaking of late, Arthur C Clarke

Unfortunately, neither magic nor sufficiently advanced technology was on hand to save him. Anyone get a tissue sample? I mean it! Overlooking the questions of nurture vs nature, and the fact that there's no way to salvage the original consciousness of the man, SOME part of the man deserves a place on Mars, in space, somewhere. In the meantime, I hope they buried him in a 1x4x9 black stone coffin. That would be EPIC!

Speaking of Epic, a lot of PC gamers were distraught at the notion that the Unreal engine is now being iterated with each new generation of consoles. What else are they supposed to do? Consoles don't get any better over their lifetimes in terms of hardware, and it would be economic suicide to screw over a large demographic by releasing a new engine they can't use for another three years. Also, the cycle is a decent fit for PC, because note that just recently have U-engine-3 capable computers come into the proper midrange price range. What SHOULD be bothering people are gameplay concessions to the consoles. So in a few years we MIGHT be complaining that UE3 is starting to show its age, suppose by then even entry-level PCs are capable of playing games based on said. That's a clear win for PC gaming, even if the elite doesn't see it that way. Besides, just 'cause cryengine 2 is PC-exclusive didn't seem to help Crysis...Bioshock (dumbed down from it's parent though it was) was still the better game!

Speaking of Bioshock, check out this article on a presentation by Ken Levine about the process of creating the story. What always gets me when I read about game development are the outtakes. It isn't the same as watching DVD outtakes, where you can see where the scene failed, and the lack of polish doesn't help either. No, it's a window into the brainstorming process from whence sprang the game you have come to love, and the lack of polish helps these raw ideas shine. You generally don't get to play outtakes, so you don't get the same understanding of why certain elements failed to entertain, so in the end you're left with what still sounds like a really good idea, one that should have been in the game. I think Bioshock might have been improved by the inclusion of some pre-and during-civil war gameplay, although fitting that into the experience of a SPOILER ALERT amnesiac genetically-modified mind-controlled assassin-baby SPOILER OVER who was never likely a member of Rapturian society would have been a monumental challenge. Perhaps as a more intense form of the "genetic memories" which in Bioshock manifest as ghosts? For more examples of this sort of thing, see Half-Life 2: Raising the Bar, and for that matter probably any decently thorough book or PDF or what-have-you chronicling game development.

Speaking of development, I had to do a presentation on a paper I wrote about Edward Abbey (a noted opponent of development in his beloved American Southwest) in my first-year seminar today. A funny thing I noticed, and I can't tell which side this is evidence for, but in the novel I am reading - Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars - the position of those opposed to Terraforming is a very close match to the terrestrial philosophies of Abbey himself, and yet I have not seen any acknowledgment of Abbey in the novel or dedication or anywhere. Given the effects Abbey has had on people, notably EarthFirst!, or any of his biographers, or for that matter probably anyone who met him, it seems likely his influence would be noted. I suppose I should be happy, because I am arguing a position against his having fundamentally changed understandings of the environment (He affected people, no doubt, and he was an environmentalist, but he wasn't bringing anything new to the table, he was a King Ludd for '60's America, is effectively my argument).

Speaking of arguments...actually, I haven't really participated in any good ones lately, for that matter, I haven't overheard any either. Used to be that I'd overhear neat conversations on almost any given OC transpo bus

Speaking of buses, would the suburbs and rural communities PLEASE stop their bloody pissing and moaning about the transit service (or lack thereof)? We should not be giving incentives for people to splay bits of our city all about the countryside and pollute, pollute, pollute their way to work every damn morning of every day! With the stain of our childish and often tedious federal politics upon us, perhaps Ottawa will never actually be considered a "fun" city, but the least we can do is make it less unpleasant for ourselves. We need architects who understand aesthetics, for one, and we need city planners who make plans with nary a mention of the words "growth", "suburbia", and "strip mall"! Also, we need pride that isn't wounded by the likes of Winnipeg cockwagging at us about how theirs is longer. Unfortunately, we bought into the phallic hype of our own lengthy skateway, and cannot hide behind witty retorts such as - and this would have been a good comeback as a newspaper headline, I think - "Everyone Knows Girth Matters More!". At the very least we should take some proper revenge on whatever bitch MP decided it was worth bragging about the Winnipeg skateway in the Fucking House of Commons. Seriously, what the hell?

Ottawans, you know what to do, but seriously stay away from physical violence, and other similarly overt tactics. Write your MP, and see if he or she would be interested in dissing Winnipeg in question period, or something. Be creative in your suggestions. Better still, see if they'd be interested in dissing HER for it. Off the top of my head, I think you could go somewhere with some inverse-Freudian humour about "Canal envy". Ours gave birth to a town, theirs is rough and frigid. ZING!

LOUD!

Is this what we're fighting to save?

I Suppose We Already Knew This...

There are a few of those Microsoft applications that we all tolerate, but secretly despise. Windows is the most obvious, Internet Explorer was until Firefox liberated us all, and then there is Windows Live Messenger, the third. There are good alternatives, like GAIM, but the interface differences effectively present the same sort of barrier that stops me from moving straight to Linux. One of the things I really wouldn't miss would be the deluge of movie trailers, idiot stunts, and celebrity news that they decide to pipe into the bottom row of the main window, as if you'd ever click one of those links not by accident. Well, given the installed base of MSN, I suspect that even accidental clicks would be enough traffic that the advertisers would pay for the spots... Anyhow, today's story made me click on purpose, because the blurb was cut off, but if it was going where I thought it was (and indeed my initial assumption was correct), it was time to be upset about something.

The headline in question said that Paris Hilton had lost a significant portion of her potential inheritance, after her Grandfather declared he would donate a large portion of his wealth to Charity. I have to ask, since when did it become OK to frame this as misfortune for Paris fucking Hilton (hehe, how appropriate a turn of phrase to be applied there), and not a boon for whatever charities that her dear ol' Grandpa decides to become a (presumably) posthumous patron to? Bill and Melinda don't get any of this shit about their charity, nor even their decision to give their kids only a cool million or so (which I think might just save their children from being to silicon valley what Paris Hilton is to the internet and rich mens' penises). What I want to know is where this bajillion dollars or so will be headed, especially if the dude will be sponsoring some mad religious anti-choice pregnancy counseling services (I'm looking at you, puck bunnies), in which case it's high time to get protesting. What I want to know is what made this man decide to go the route of altruism, and what I want to know is if this will make Paris Hilton go away and stop being rich and annoying and generally the avatar of everything that is wrong with Western culture. I suspect the answer to the latter is "no", because she'll still be pretty fucking rich, and if not, she'll be dating someone who is and living off her celebrity and blowjobs (wow, I'm bitter today). If my theory is right, though, it goes farther than just "Paris sucks and I wish this would make her go away rather than be in the news". News is about things that change, and while being even much less filthy stinking rich is a change, see the part where I doubt this will affect in any way the notoriety or purchasing power of that little skank. What I'm getting at is that Paris Hilton losing this "potential inheritance" isn't actually news, because it doesn't really change who or what she is, unless this guy is really, really throwing ALL of his money into charity. The news aspect here is that money is going to charity, and that might actually change something, because it sounds like an awful lot will be spent here. If it is spent well, it could mean more medication to fight TB, or mosquito nets to fight Malaria. It's only a question of money in these cases, and it's not money that appears out of nowhere. Maybe I'm being unfair, maybe this money was expected to go to Paris, just like that, but am I wrong to suggest that a greater and more interesting change is likely to occur due to the charities gaining money, than from Paris not getting that same money to spend on more clothing and cellphones to have her contacts list stolen from (I think that happened not too long ago)?

I really, really hope that I'm not judged to be out-of-line here

And the winner is...[Game Name Here]!

I haven't seen a lot of lists (actually, there's just one video, but I have to say it's pretty lame. Toms' Hardware really needs to get its act together with their video content. Using beer to water-cool is awesome, but seriously, a lot of those "second take" videos are kind of pointless. Take lessons from Yahtzee if you want to entertain), but let's face it. CoD4? Bioshock? I've played the latter, and while it would likely take the "best writing" award, it's just not GotY material*. Usually, I would accept that there will always be legitimate dissent on this matter, but here there is not.

Portal is game of the year. That's the alpha, and the omega.

Why?

Because it wasn't over-hyped

Because it didn't trade graphics for gameplay or vice-versa

Because it made non-violent gameplay fun again

Because it had logical, intuitive puzzles; Guess-and-check, not Guess-and-check-a-walkthrough

Because it was brilliantly written, not overwritten

Because it was three hours of gameplay, and you wanted more without feeling cheated

Because you can watch someone play it in one sitting, and see them feel the same sense of satisfaction and wonder that you felt the whole way through

Because it's the one game that EVERYONE wants to play when they come here. It's the game my non-gamer PARENTS want to play. When we get a dog, I bet it too will want to play Portal!

Now, one could say that the broader appeal of Portal would make it more akin to non-Manhunt Wii games, or Peggle, that it really doesn't represent "hardcore gaming". I think you'd be full of shit! Portal has its appeal for similar reasons, namely the lack of hardcore violence, and the aforementioned intuitive nature of the puzzles, but when is it not hardcore? If the campaign doesn't float your boat, they have PUNISHING advanced maps and challenges to push things to the max. Portal will challenge you, unless you come from the future where portals exist, and were born in zero-gravity, developing a perfect 3-D kinesthetic sense from birth. Just because you can't murder legions of identical thugs/mercs/aliens/mutants over and over again does NOT mean that Portal is some kind of casual time-waster!

If you can justify another game taking this spot, I can't wait to hear the rationale!

* I'm really sorry, Bioshock fans. The thing is, I adore the atmosphere of Bioshock, the characters, the writing, the little details, but I just don't think the gameplay lives up to the coolness of the world-building. There is a good third of the game in which the combat is fun (at the start you have too few plasmids and weapons, at the end the enemies have too much health, and you can't really appreciate the power of your upgraded plasmids, no matter how cool they look), but for the rest you end up hearing splicers and dreading the annoying combat to follow. You think I'm just bad at the game? I will have you know that late-game splicers survive being set on fire with at least half of their health left, and being on fire doesn't stop them from shooting you. It would be ok if the fire didn't kill them, but it should at least take them out of commission long enough for you to deal with their buddy before returning to finish them off! Perhaps this is a function of lag (I disliked the original Halo on PC more than I should have, and having now run it at buttery-smooth framerate on a much better computer realize that it's still just mediocre, but it's at least playable) so I could just need to turn down the settings, and I will suddenly be able to move and react fast enough to enjoy the combat, but I expect the splicers will be just as annoying, as will the instant-kill rivet-gun that the "Rosies" carry around (speaking of which, why can't it be a weapon for the player, considering that they can already carry the grenade launcher and chem thrower, neither of which are small)

It's 2:30 now, which is later than I wanted to be on the computer. Also, I have an email to write.

- LOUD!

Buy Now, and Receive a Lifetime Supply of Whipped Topping!

Keep Product Placement at Bay

Some hours ago, I read the Citizen review of the new Transformers movie, and I have since read the Wired magazine feature on the very same. Both waste no time in discussing the role of product placement in the movie and the Transformers canon as a whole, and rightly so. The franchise began as a series of toys with a promotional cartoon show, rather than as a tie-in to an existing fiction. In securing the merchandising rights to Star Wars for himself, George Lucas instigated the age of the tie-in, where Transformers and its ilk introduced it’s mirror-universe counterpart. In a feat of what I can only describe as meta-marketing, the new movie not only contains product placement (ie. The Camaro), but it will have its own tie-ins (the franchise has come full-circle in this regard, notes Wired). Finally, the portrayal of the United States military in the film lead not only the Citizen reviewer, but director Michael Bay himself to believe that the film also serves as something of a recruitment ad (well, technically Bay was referring to the entire set of US Army policies towards films for which they have supplied equipment. Transformers just happens to be one such film, so I don’t think my assertion is that much of a leap).

Having not seen the movie myself – it’s on my to do list, but not at the very top – I will reserve my judgment on the prominence of product placement and pro-militarism in Transformers itself until after I have attended a screening. I will, however, address the issue of product placement/commercialization and “art” (quotation marks necessitated due to the use of Transformers as an example), as well as broader themes of capitalism, greed, and happiness. Terribly tired, terminally tepid topics? To tell the truth, ‘tis a trail well-treaded to talk of them. Still, the inspiration for what will form the body of this post has been bouncing off the inside walls of my skull for some time now, and I feel that whether or not it is novel, I should commit it to the blog. Here follow my mercantile musings:


Are We Using the Wrong Bait?

Everyone knows the old saying, in which it is postulated that Happiness is an ichthyoid which eludes capture. In the context of capitalism and consumerism, I find this saying to be entirely false, but more on that later.

If given the chance to comment on the aforementioned saying, there are those who would assert that we are indeed simply using the wrong bait to catch this fish we call “Happiness”. The Beatles boasted that they “didn’t care too much for money, money [couldn’t buy them] love”; Prince screeched that you “don’t have to be rich, to be my Girl”, and so on. Of course, that’s easy to say when one is rolling in it, so to speak. Still, there are those less ‘loaded’ who still maintain that the road to true happiness is not paved with toaster ovens and Gucci handbags. The argument, such as I understand it, is that the pressure created by markets has an adverse effect upon our mental health. This makes a lot of sense to me, by way of the following rationale: In order for a market economy such as our own to exist for any sustained period, money must flow. Money flows when it is exchanged for a good or service. If people are happy with a product or service that they have, then they will be less likely to buy another. If people are dissatisfied, the opposite is true. Therefore, it is in the interests of those who profit from the existence of the market to ensure that consumers are dissatisfied with those products and services which they have as much as is possible. Dissatisfaction is a form of unhappiness, which is indeed harmful to an individual’s overall mental health. An offshoot of this viewpoint is the adbusters position, namely that the advertising used to create dissatisfaction (aka. Manufactured desires) is harmful and invasive. If you believe I have misunderstood in any way, please correct me, but this is my perception of this line of arguments.

Whenever I reflect upon this argument, I become more than a little unnerved; I am - after all - a consumer, raised by society to be a cog in the great economic machine. On account of being relatively poor, there are a great many desires which I have (which would be considered manufactured) which go unfulfilled. Still, I devote time to comparing prices, looking for sales, browsing Ebay, etc. I read reviews in magazines and on the internet, I take great care in envisioning the purchases which I would make if my financial situation provided. These activities, sadly enough, DO make me happy. The actual act of making the odd purchase also makes me happy, and having that which was desired also adds to my happiness…but only for so long. After a time, the novelty wears thin, and I revert to the “desire” stage, only to repeat the cycle. Reflecting upon the argument which tells me that such behaviour should not make me happy is disturbing in two aspects: 1) that consumerism DOES make me happy, and 2) Without consumerism, what on Earth would I do with the time I currently devote to the pursuit thereof?

I can understand that the need to spend time with friends and family should be held higher than the need to brag about your new gadget to them, but even removing that factor, consider what friends and families do: Play games (ones purchased as often as those invented), discuss various products from the Average to the Zany, and consume in groups, whether it be television, music, movies, video games…there is simply no escaping commercialism, unless one is willing to live in a world where “red rover” and “capture the flag” are as sophisticated as games get. Come to think of it, that sounds far more pleasant than I would have imagined….yet it would be an unlikely result of a drastic shift in our way of life. To eliminate the rat race and all the trappings thereof, one would have to shun civilization as we know it. If food production remained such as it is, currency would linger as a means for non-producers to acquire food. To earn this money, they would have to work or create, and in order to earn more money they would have to promote their works, and before you know it, you have a functioning market economy. To truly escape, one would have to embrace either self-sufficiency farming for every family, or a hunter-gatherer society. While it’s true that most urban land is, in fact, prime agricultural land, I question the ability of a total maximum of 6 Billion people to live in such a fashion while leaving room enough for the countless other inhabitants of this blue speck we call home.

Speaking of the wrong bait, our present system may or may not be guilty of using it, depending upon one’s point of view. The way I see it, there is no better way to motivate than direct personal reward, and I doubt that there are many who will challenge this. The real question is whether the quality of life benefits which have been brought to us due to this system are worth the moral injustices committed by those who have taken the search for the benefits thereof too far. Given the immensity of each, I can’t say that anyone is, nor should be entitled to make that decision. This does not prevent me from having an opinion, but for the moment, I cannot arrive at one. On the one hand, so many of us owe our lives to progress, and indeed I owe my ability to share these very ideas with you to it. But the closer I lean to a “yes” verdict, the more I realize what horrors I would be condoning by making that choice.

It's over NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAND! Ok, actually, this is just post 94. Give me a few decades, will ya?

Inescapable Distraction

To those perplexed by the title of the previous post, I offer an explanation: It encompasses a great deal of what I hope will eventually comprise the body of that post (I don’t think I’ve finished even the one that’s up there). I will alert you, fair readers, when it has been updated; at present, I have a separate thought to pursue, hence the above title. If this was already obvious to you, I apologize for anything here which you find condescending.

I wrote the board-wide 4U English Exam today, and I did not finish writing the essay. This came as no surprise to me, as this marks at least the fourth consecutive timed assignment involving analysis and writing that I have failed to complete this year. One was an SAT written response, the next was an in-class writing assignment, and after that was the in-class Hamlet essay. I know not precisely how many marks this worrying habit has cost me, but I have the requisite cognitive faculties to be aware that it hasn’t helped. If I didn’t think myself a competent writer, I could be secure in the certainty of inadequacy. Just as it is with electricity, no work is done without potential. Well, I suppose this is also true of kinetic systems, or...well, any system involving energy under (or including) the sun, but I digress, as is my custom, but I...nevermind.

The board-wide exam, ladies, gentlemen, and anyone who escapes classification under the first two terms, is a joke. A cruel joke (which, incidentally, rhymes with "cruel yoke", as in "cruel yoke of oppression). There is no guarantee that every student will read the same books, and yet the very same exam is given to each and every one of them. Instead of giving each potential book (which, given the amount of creative control given to English teachers, could be impossible) one essay question, students taking the exam are given four simple, generic questions, to be answered "with regards to a book studied in this course". This is a workable solution - it should not give an advantage to a reader of any specific work(s) - but it's only just shy of the OCDSB attempting to possess and ingest their celebratory baked goods simultaneously. If both books AND the exam were mandated board-wide, the latter would undoubtedly contain questions of a deeper, and more challenging nature. If neither were mandated, the result would be identical. Instead, the board has chosen the single WORST combination. The essay prompt I selected (I literally assigned each prompt "Noun, Verb, Adjective, or Adverb", and then flipped my dictionary to a random page and pointed to a word with my eyes closed to decide) was, as I recall:

"Conflict in a story arises when a character attempts to avoid or address the central problem in his or her life. Discuss to what extent this is true with regards to a work studied in this course"

Or, to my eyes, "Spend a suggested 90 minutes proving that a given is, in fact, true". Smart people they have at the board, penning these useless and vague questions. Even the sight passage questions were vapour; asking the student to provide "TWO examples of diction", and the like. WHAT IN THE FUCKING HELL IS THAT, "Diction"? They offer you a 1000+ word (est.) passage, and they want you, the student, to find only TWO particular uses of language to examine? Why not ask for an overall evaluation of the language used, at least? It's gorramn hard to single out single words with meaning, when one reads and understands the composition at the sentence level, or even the paragraph/thought level, or at least it is for me. This is the same sight passage they are giving to every student, but the board CANNOT BE BOTHERED to have specific questions written every year? I have the sinking feeling that the exam questions do not change, with only the quotes offered for the personal response questions being changed. It must take one of the School Board automatons four or five seconds to do this (perhaps there is a lengthy selection process behind this, but that's no excuse). This is supposed to be an exam which offers a level playing field for the student, it's supposed to be an exam which the board has concocted out of concern for students. From my experience, it is neither

Yet another thing the exam isn't is fair. Performance-wise, it is far, FAR better to be uncaring, and of average intelligence as a student taking the exam. The questions are generic, and the essay prompts are bland, offering no polarizing statements to galvanize the mind to respond. In short, it helps NOT TO CARE when writing the board-wide English exam. Yes, dear readers, apathy reigns supreme at the OCDSB offices (although this was already proved in the first paragraph). The only counter-argument that I could possibly supply is that the lack of detail is a test, forcing the student to fill out the prompts (by devising a polarizing question on the issue at hand, in the case of the bland essay prompts)... which may be the intention, and would indeed imply that those students of exceptional imagination and resourcefulness would receive an advantage. I can't accept this argument, because it posits that a lack of intellectual stimulation in a question is supposed to have precisely the opposite effect than would be expected. Yep, 'cause we all know THAT happens.

I wish I had a switch in my...let's say my right temple, which would have an "on" setting, and then a sliding dimmer, which would progressively reduce my cognitive abilities, inverse-flowers-for-algernon-(FUCK, I knew that in REACH in the seeding tournament, but I wasn't playing! KHAAAAAAAAAAN!)-style. Actually, I also wish it had increased settings as well, but they're not pertinent here. I could then proceed to dim my intelligence by whatever percentage by which I exceed the average population, and remove all ambiguity and difficulty from my English exam. Anyone else wish they could do that?

I'm off for now, but there WILL be more (as always, I just need to find the time to write it all down)

-LOUD

Sorry about the Road-Raging Pirate Trivia Team Attack...I Blame it on Chernobyl!

Apologies to My Readership

...If you still exist, somewhere out there...

It has been roughly a month since my last post, and although this is not the first time I have gone so long without posting here, this time stands out for one simple reason: things happened. A LOT of things happened, and I haven't been able to eke out enough time to do any of them justice, at least not until now. I should be able to have nigh-on-daily posts, depending upon how I divide up the information to be presented. I apologize if these narratives end up a little disjointed: the passage of time, and the desire to type at the speed of thought can have such an effect upon my writing. I think that's all, so HERE WE GO!

Civic Pride

Heh, that's actually a clever title, because it has a dual-meaning for me right now. First, I did indeed promise to write up a little something about the flak directed at Ottawa (now VERY old news, sadly), and Second, I am indeed very proud of the Civic which I presently drive. I'll write about 'em in that order...

I should hope that by now most of the Ottawans reading this are aware that our city was not so long ago lambasted for sqandering its greatest assets, and other conduct not fitting of a “world-class capital”. Readers of the Citizen will have noticed the great number of pundits both attacking and defending decisions, people, and organizations which have shaped our home for better and for worse. It has just occured to me that the whole fiasco has provided a number of people with a soapbox from which they can push their own “city improvement” plan, from light rail redux to community gardens. The bottom line is that this city is, on average, average. It sounds inane, but if you look at the best of anything in Ottawa (ie. Comfy seats on the O-train), and then pit it against the downside (ie. Nowhere to go on the O-train), the result is decidedly average. The issue shouldn't be “is merely average OK?”, but instead “do we care if we remain so?”. Personally, I've been known to accept mediocrity, however I'm not one who enjoys it greatly. Ottawans, I ask you: is the effort of changing a greater burden than the tolerance of averageness? If not, then we do indeed have our work cut out for us.

One of the first things that ought to be done – in my opinion – if we are to raise ourseves steadily and triumphantly from the mire of the mundane is to undo the bone-headed decisions of Ottawa past. There is a former railway station in THE MIDDLE OF DOWNTOWN, and yet it is now a conference centre. Thankfully, a recent proposal did indeed include the re-instatement of that building as a transit hub. Sadly, the proposal is alleged (by a Citizen columnist, if I recall correctly) to be a shoddy affair indeed; a vaguely-budgeted mish-mash of self-service by the committee members. I'm not even sure how to address this, because it does not stand to reason that the capital city of such a proud country would allow itself to be abused by its own government. It might not be so bad if the complainers were fully competent, but the columnist who so savaged the poor proposal defended instead the North-South rail line. Points for “we could be building one now”, but remind me again why we ought to do such a thing if the urban spread in Ottawa is predominantly EAST-WEST!?! It can be called “rapid” if it is fast, but to affix the name “transit” to an end product, someone has to ride it!

I've read snippets here and there about transit in Ottawa: stories about our high downtown parking fees, opinion pieces about how great or terrible it was that the rail line got cancelled, letters arguing either side... I think it's safe to say that this city can't and won't make up its mind about what will best serve our needs. This would be fine, if we were an ordinary city of ~1 million. It wouldn't matter in the slightest that we couldn't get around: it would be our own fault, and that would be that. One problem is that we aren't just any city. Another is that we cannot swallow our pride and admit that we are wanting as a city. We defend tooth-and-nail our “good”, our “solid”, our “quite decent”, for no other reason than it belongs to us (see: the “Montreal Food Snob Incident”). I doubt I'll stay to find out if that pride can be swallowed; even if public opinion could be changed, I imagine the entrenched bureaucracy would not be unseated by anything short of a full-scale revolution. Hmmm, maybe I'm on to something with that...?

Commentors, I'd like to know what you think would be effective as a solution to Ottawa's transit issues. Personally, I think that the top 3 steps would be (least important is 3, most is 1):

3) PLAN AHEAD, and PLAN SMART. The trains(?) SHOULD NOT be waking people up at unholy hours, etc.

2) Don't use track because it is there, use it if and when it makes sense. Duh.

1) Build the city UP or DOWN, instead of OUT!

Ok, this is just one little bit, more is on the way!

-LOUD!

Ok, time for the first (of many, with any luck) updates to this post. It's rather unfortunate that it has taken me so long to get around to this, because much of what I will end up writing would have been current and topical if it had been posted when the words were fresh in my head. Instead, I'm left typing up thoughts which have long passed their "best before" dates. Eh, those things are just for planned obsolescence, anyhow.

I saw Pirates of The Carribean 3: At World's End at Silvercity's advance screening, the Thursday night before I left for the Reach for the Top national championships (which get a write-up later, fear not). Somewhere, I have the beginnings of a review, which I started writing on the flight to Calgary, but since it isn't getting later any slower, I'll have to rely on memory.

I'm going to assume that anyone who would care enough to read a review of PotC 3 has already seen it by now, and I shouldn't have to tell you just how epic it is. To be on the safe side, however, I will give those readers who have not seen the movie yet something of an idea:

PoTC 3 is PRETTY DAMNED EPIC

Are we good? OK!

Most everything which is good about the film is more or less related to the above: PotC 3 starts by pulling out a few stops here and there, and then proceeds to pull just about every single one you can imagine (and some you can't) before it ends. And Cap'n Jack wonders why the Rum is all gone? Come to think of it, PotC has come full-circle: the first was a movie inspired by a theme park ride, and now the (hopefully) final installment is a film rather evocative of a thrill-ride experience.

You might be wondering why I hope that PotC 3 is the final movie in the series, when it is so good? The most compelling reason is that the ending of this particular volume needs no extension; the stories that we, the audience, need to see...we have seen. Leave the remainder of their lives' exploits to imagination, and resist the temptation to ruin the franchise by allowing it to become more of a cash cow than it already is. Of course, this is Disney I am talking about, the same people who brought you Cinderella 3: A twist in HOLY FUCK WHO GAVE THESE DIPSHITS THE IDEA THAT TIME TRAVEL AND A WATERED DOWN VERSION OF A BROTHERS GRIMM STORY WOULD MIX WELL?!?! I may not have seen Cinderella 3 - as this would validate its existence, and I cannot bring myself to do that - but it has all the hallmarks of a cash cow.

I should attempt to remain on-topic, for fear of this post devolving into the sort of stream-of-consciousness ranting which so characterizes my "conversational" speech (some would argue and substitute "monologue" for conversation). Back to what is good about Pirates 3. I enjoy how plot threads are tied up, and yet the ending is left open. While it does leave room for the sequel I so dread, it is such a good ending, because the characters you've grown to love don't end: they continue on forever through good and evil, with the imagination left to decide in what proportions. This being said, I think that the mark was sorely missed on a few counts in the movie. Nothing which detracts from the viewing experience, but as I reflected upon the movie in writing my initial (lost) review, careful thought brought these minor flaws to light.

The first of these is that for a movie about Pirates, there is very little piracy. There IS plenty of betrayal - the likes of which would make Judas cringe - which allows the filmmakers to continually raise the stakes by having alliances shift on the fly. With a running length such as it has, the movie desperately needs these shifts to keep the audience from settling in too much. It remains a mark of shame upon the series, still, that there has been only one scene in which a pirate crew loots, pillages, and burns (all the way back in Pirates 1) for the acquisition of booty. Even then, their true cause was to retrieve Elizabeth's piece of cursed Aztec Gold, with the Piracy thrown in for good measure. It would be excusable if Pirates 3 focused solely on the established characters, who are generally preoccupied with supernatural matters more than financial gain...but Pirates 3 goes so far as to introduce NINE Pirate LORDS, a keeper of the code (Keith Richards FTW!), AND a Pirate KING! Their bickering and general narcissism goes a long way towards creating a piratey atmosphere, but it's something of a letdown that they are never seen pillaging. I suppose I shouldn't complain, given that such scenes are unnecessary in such a long movie, but [HIGHLIGHT FOR SPOILER] the fact that they're not even heavily involved in the final epic battle [/SPOILER] is just TRAGIC!

The second minor flaw in the movie was that it required perhaps one too many suspensions of disbelief, and yes, I mean past the obvious ones, such as the existence of supernatural creatures, etc. I mean Jack Sparrow's impeccable use of the laws of physics to move, fight, and do Important Heroic Things in the movie. The writers redeem themselves a bit by poking fun at his apparent ability to escape any conundrum in spectacular fashion ("Do you think he has it all planned out, or does he just make it up as he goes along?", I think the line goes), but it's placed just a little too early, long before some of the good Cap'n's most outlandish moves are seen. All these stunts work when you're watching the movie, but they don't really hold up afterwards.

My overall recommendation is that you see Pirates 3, because it's far better than 2, and because you will just be blown out of the water (Harr Harr) by it.

And now, if I may be partisan, it would be nice if Science Fiction could get a few epic film treatments, now that the fantasy genre has seen more than its fair share of the action (LOTR, Pirates, Narnia, Golden Compass). And no, I don't think the new 'Transformers' movie is going to herald anything big on this front. A proper (read: NON Sci-Fi channel) treatment of Philip Jose Farmer's 'Riverworld' series would be a good place to start, for many reasons. The basic premise is that in the far future, unknown Aliens have sculpted a planet into one single flowing river (it coils from one pole to the other, I believe)...and proceeded to re-create every single human being who ever lived to over the age of 5 (with their memories at their time of death) in a permanently 25-year-old body. It's a FANTASTIC concept, and the books (I have read 1 and 2. I should eventually read the third and fourth, but the former hasn't "caught" yet) do it more than justice. While I don't suppose the books are too well-known, I think the premise could be mass-market-friendly; as Farmer wrote in an aside, everyone reading the books is SOMEWHERE in the cannon, just waiting to discover their own story. While it would be impossible to deliver on that promise in film, the potential for cameos is impressive, to say the least.

Speaking of novels with titles starting with "Ri" and ending in "world", Larry Niven's 'Ringworld' would also make a pretty kickass movie. Kzin for the Win!

I'd like to be excited about Star Trek XI, which will eventually "beam down" to theatres, but..ehhh. Nemesis was hyped up, and most people found it generally disappointing. To be honest, I didn't hate it; I was young enough to enjoy it when I saw it. I may...ok, who am I kidding, I will go see it when it comes out, but it's just not weighing heavily on my mind at the moment.

Children of Men was a spectacular movie (I'll post a review in an upcoming post, or tack it on to this one in an edit), which I urge people to see. If you want me to decide which is better between CoM and PotC 3, I'd give you the "apples to oranges" speech, and then tell you that either will give you goosebumps-a-plenty. In the end, I have to recommend CoM, though. The after-pirates experience is by no means bereft of conversational topics, but the intellectual landscape of the discussion is a salt flat to CoM's Himalayas. I'll save detailed praise for the review, so suffice it to say that CoM is a masterwork.

PS. Points to CoM for featuring the impeccable Chiwetel Ejiofor

Looking ahead at the next few weeks, there is also "Sunshine", which could have been good...but a while back I read a New Scientist opinion piece on how poorly the science in that movie had been treated. I think I'm turned off of this one, although I might end up seeing it anyways.

Who in the hell thinks that even a nuke the size of Manhattan would have the slightest hope of re-igniting the fucking SUN!?!? I think that film schools should start mandating that students take some basic science courses!

Betrayal From Within

A Not Inconsequential Co-Incidence

This is my 88^th post, and I'm going to be talking about some of the racist scum that litters our planet. It wouldn't strike many of you as eerie, but that's because you may not be aware of what 88 can mean. The 8^th letter of the alphabet is 'H', and 2 of them together (88) is some Neo-Nazi code for “Heil Hitler”. In case you are wondering how I know this, I believe it was in a Citizen article about a worrying rise in Neo-Nazi activities. Anyhow, it is rather appropriate that my 88^th post be dedicated to denouncing this blight upon our societies.

It all began when I wanted to listen to one of my favourite political songs of all time; “George Bush Don't Like Black People”, I believe it is called. Well, I decided to look for it on Youtube, because...umm...I'm a bit of a sellout that way, I suppose. It is common knowledge that Youtube commenters are perhaps the least intelligent people on the web this side of Myspace or LJ. Well, in with the n00bz, and the genuinely deficient, there are also the mentally challenged AND racist folk, too. I will not quote any of the filth that was posted below, but if you follow the link you WILL be appalled by some of what you read. Now, I have no idea what comments will be on page 1 by the time you read this, but chances are there will be a good enough example. No need to dig down, your imagination can surely conjure the utter vitriol that some have thrown.

Well, some mention of the BNP – British National Party – in one comment or other on a video jogged a vague memory of a video seen in World Issues class last semester. It was NOT a good memory. Ah, yes, I thought, the genuinely frightening skinhead party in Britain. I was not amused by suggestions that this party sounded like “Reasonable People who want their country back”, even though it's par for the course given the average intelligence of a Youtube commenter (as discussed in the previous paragraph). This was a victim of PR, clearly. A little reading later, and I was in full-on panic mode. This morning brought further bad news, which is that France's mainstream political parties are adopting forms of the extreme-right's immigration control, no, reversal. I'm not talking “ooh, spooky” afraid here, I felt the kind of dread I feel when contemplating a mass extinction by asteroid impact!

As a society, the West has a well-documented history of violence and oppression. If it wasn't being done to outsiders, we were visiting both upon our brothers and sisters! Apologizing for what was done by our ancestors is meaningless, on so many levels. We should not shoulder the blame for actions which are not our own. What we should do is ensure that nothing of their like should ever occur again. It's so easy to apologize to the Acadians for deporting them, when no one is alive to stare you in the face, and tell you just how they suffered. It's easy to be removed. It would be another thing if George Bush looked an ordinary Iraqi man or woman in the eyes, and tried to explain to them why their son/daughter/father/brother is dead. It may sound, it may even BE cliché, but we can only change the future! Groups like the BNP threaten to drag us back into near-barbarism.

We cannot look at the problems in our society, and point to a single cause. The world doesn't work like that. Everyone running the BNP surely knows this, but they understand that people can be made to accept such a declaration as truth. The shepherd leads the sheep, and this shepherd wants the white sheep to fight the black ones. Why? Perhaps because some people get their rocks off creating conflict, and watching the gory aftermath...the greatest snuff film of all, in a way. Determining the real reason can wait until we have these white-trash warlords thrown into one of those convenient Guantanamo-style prison camps (where they can be subjected to the very humiliations they would visit upon the Other). What is important is that they be stopped NOW.

We can start by making immigrants feel welcome in our societies, by following the one rule we all have in common. Welcome others as you would be welcomed, extend them the courtesies you would wish extended. It may be presumptuous to assume they will enjoy or make use of either, but a misinterpreted overture of goodwill is better than no overture at all, in my mind. When people are uneasy, they will look for the familiar, and we end up with ghettos. Add a little poverty to the mix, and you have a recipe for crime. If you knew that a handshake, or a friendly word to a newcomer might save their child from a life of violence, you would give that man or woman the warmest handshake you'd ever given! It may not be so simple, but again, the best course is to act. Handshakes may not cure poverty, but they go a long way towards solving the problem of alienation.

To say that “poverty is a tougher nut to crack” would be rather akin to saying “Robbing Fort Knox will be more than your average stickup”. I sure as hell know what the solution ISN'T, however: deport 'em all, and enforce 'cultural purity'. Even if immigrant groups are statistically more likely to commit crimes, it makes no sense to halt immigration, deport them, or anything of the like. The Fact is that males are FAR more likely to be serial killers than women. Should we ban all men from society for this reason? I hope not...I'm rather fond of my social contract, thankyouverymuch. If groups like the BNP were actually intent upon preserving Western society, they would use REAL logic and reason. There are number of cause-and-effect relationships between poverty, and things Unpleasant. Remove the cause, and we remove the effect. It could conceivably be argued that Immigrants are the cause, and that they should be removed. Sure, if you like forcing people from their homes, dividing families, and otherwise destroying millions of lives, in order to improve others. Even if we decide that the “Greatest Good” is morally right, no matter what evil is done to obtain it, I imagine that the negative consequences of a mass deportation VASTLY outweigh any positive impact upon the “indigenous” Caucasian population. Why is it that arrogant, self-centered right-wing bastards would spend tax money to evict immigrants, when that very same money could go towards enhancing EVERYONE'S quality of life? Perhaps the same reason that the US has publicly-funded killing, and privatized life-saving...whatever that reason is.

I firmly believe that if ANY Western country elects a government in the vein of the BNP - for that matter, any state or province – it is the solemn duty of every other country in the West to declare all-out War against that country (or state, or province), until every single party member or supporter, every single soldier sympathetic to the cause, lies broken, bleeding or dead at our feet (ok, ok...Imprisoned works too, if we must). Why should we indulge in such bloodshed, you ask? Because we fought Hitler in World War II, and these...calling them “people” elevates them above their due...are no better. We could hold our noses, hold our tongues, and say to ourselves “peace in our time”, no matter how repulsive we would find a xenophobic government...or we could learn from history, and waste no time in ERASING THAT GOVERNMENT FROM THE FACE OF THIS EARTH!

Fortunately, there is an alternative. Westerners possessed of the franchise in their country can fight intolerance, injustice, and inequity with the most fearsome weapons of all: their votes. What if you support hatred and intolerance? See above paragraph.

Rapper +sleeping pills = Jay-Zzzzzzzzz?

I'm almost certain I know who you are. I hope you have better luck at keeping your blog updated than I have had of late.

You know, it's funny that they find it necessary to have a literacy test in Grade 10, but no kind of sexuality test. I'm not saying it should be the school board's job, but wouldn't it be helpful to a great many people to learn something about THEMSELVES for once? All I learned from the EQAO was that the lowest common denominator is pretty fucking LOW (actually, I may have learned that from Ed the sock first). I think this may evolve into a full-blown topic later on, as school boards everywhere have a lot to answer for these days.

Hybrid Theory

Recently, my mother and father completed their quest to find a replacement for their now 8-year-old '99 Mazda Protégé (thus earning a reward of 30 Gold and 1200 EXP :p ). They had agreed to look for something more environmentally friendly – a hybrid car...

After some research on the EnerCan website, my father decided that there were only 2 real options: The Toyota Prius, or the Honda Civic Hybrid (1^st and 2^nd on the emissions list, arranged lowest – to – highest). I'm a little distressed that there isn't more competition for the top spot, but on the bright side it greatly simplified the decision-making process. The Prius was his first choice, and so off to the dealership my parents went. On one occasion, I accompanied my dad to test-drive the car (my lowly G1 allows me to do this, which is pretty cool). The car was loaded with tech, and the all-electric drive at low speeds was a neat (also quiet) feature. There was the minor issue of a sound input jack being part of a $4000 upgrade package, but all 3 current drivers in the family were sold on the car itself. The price? Not so much; although my parents tried their best to negotiate.

This left the Civic Hybrid as the remaining option. Although unable to power itself solely on electric power, it features all the other energy-saving features of a hybrid, the most important of which is that the electric motor is powerful enough to spin up the motor, which can be turned off when the car is stopped. I found the steering far more satisfying on the Honda, and an audio input jack came standard. The price was right, and so my parents hashed out a deal and committed to buy one. As I write this, we are still waiting for one to arrive. Depending on which colour we decide to take, we could have one as soon as next month. I'm rather excited...although my left foot mourns the loss of a cutch pedal. I'm a manual kinda guy, but I gotta hand it to the CVT (Continuously Variable Transmission): it's the more efficient system.

I'm happy to say that I've begun to see more and more Priuses, Smart cars, and the like on our streets here, but I wonder if there isn't more automakers could be doing to push energy-efficient vehicles. The current attitude seems to be that these cars are a niche interest (which indeed they are), as evidenced by the Civic Hybrid, which is available in only 4 “colours” (silver, blue-silver, white, metallic gray. Exciting!). The solution - in my opinion - is to make hybrids good for everyone: make every car a hybrid by a certain year. It sounds like a difficult undertaking, but the reality is that Honda could make any car it sells a hybrid with ease. The electric motor is jammed in between the engine and the drive shaft, which – according to the salesman we talked to – could be employed without any redesign. This being done, the next step is to NOT MARKET most of the new hybrids as such. Sure, you can have “IMA” (Integrated Motor Assist, what Honda calls its hybrid motor setup) on the features list, but all you have to say is “it improves acceleration, and also braking”. People would probably figure it out in time, but the point is not to draw attention to the feature, so the dumbasses who think that hybrids are “for pussies” will one day find themselves driving one. Anyone interested in the planet will either not own a car, or own a hybrid, or an electric car of some sort if driving is unavoidable. The rest won't care, one way or the other, unless they are the aforementioned haters, in which case what they don't know can be the cause for much laughter among more educated populations.

The biggest challenge that I can see in the above strategy is creating an entry-level hybrid car. The batteries, alternators, and control hardware for the electric motor are costly, and there isn't any real way around it...or is there? I have heard of a near-hybrid design, which uses an overpowered starter motor, rather than a separate entity. The real fuel-saving in a hybrid probably comes from the motor being turned off when the car is immobile or coasting. An overpowered starter could have the power to spin up the main engine fast enough to permit this. I wonder if either the starter or the alternator could be used for regenerative braking in a pinch? One can dream, I suppose. Add a CVT, and in a small car, you'll probably save more than enough fuel to make it worth buying. It won't be a proper hybrid, but it's the fuel savings which are important, not the precise methods by which they are achieved.

And then there's this. Granted, the base price tag of $92 000 USD isn't going to attract mainstream buyers, I imagine that you could build a small, efficient exclusively in-city electric car which would be quite affordable. It might not “glorify driving” to the extent that the electric roadster does, but it could easily do more than glorify a golf cart. In a similar category, I'd love to see a hybrid smart car. Sure, the batteries would add weight, but if a “watermelon sized” engine weighing less than 35 Kg can accelerate the roadster 0-100Km/h in ~4 seconds, I doubt it would be a problem finding a suitable electric motor for the job. The Smart's turbo-diesel is something like 799cc. Either the electric motor could be used to increase performance and mileage on the existing car, or an even smaller gas or diesel motor could be employed.

So instead of pissing and moaning, GM and the rest of you bastards complaining about the Government's new tax on polluting vehicles / credit for low-emissions vehicles can shut the FUCK up and go make some cleaner cars. If you're not going to play ball, then we should find someone to set up auto plants here who will...

I'd like to know if you, dear readers, would buy a hybrid car, electric car, or other alternative-energy vehicle (besides the obvious bicycle, which everyone should own) were you in the market for one.

More tomorrow, I'm signing off for now

Shout-Outs be to all my Gloucester peeps in Japan!

Volcanic

I’ve Had Enough Of:

UNENLIGHTENED ATTITUDES TOWARDS SEX.

This one speaks for itself, but I have a recent example. In the latest New Scientist, there is a comment upon plans in Texas to blanket-vaccinate pre-pubescent girls against several types of HPV. The argument was that increased testing services would be more cost-effective in terms of saving lives, but that’s not what I want to dispute. I want to talk about the “heat from religious groups and concerned parents” stemming from the proposed immunization policy. Before you scroll to the bottom of this post, and make the obligatory comments (ie. “Parents/Religious groups will NEVER learn”) let it be known that I am aware of this situation. I don’t expect those two sorts of people to condone the proper course of action. I DO expect that someone will eventually find a way to muzzle them, and get on with what must be done.

I doubt that most parents are ecstatic at the prospect of their child(ren) exploring their sexuality. I’m not the only one who sees the only real answer: remove the ‘experimentation’, by giving children detailed, complete information. I’m sure it can be proven that young adults who have had extensive sexual education will not only be more responsible in their choices (which is what parents SHOULD want, because I sincerely doubt you can stop teens from following their, uhhh....noses, yeah.), but those individuals will also enjoy their first experiences more. Anyhow, I’m sure I’ve said this before, but every time I hear something about know-nothing jackasses trying to raise children in ignorance, it makes me furious!

Encouraging young people not to have sex is one thing. Leaving them unprotected because they “shouldn’t be having sex” is criminal neglegence, to my mind. Vaccinations, tests, access to contraception, it doesn’t matter to me how the protection angle is handled. I just wish grown-ups would stop acting like children.

APPLE “PC vs. MAC adds”

Ok, I’m not going to waste time on this one:

5. PC is not synonomous with Windows

4. 3^rd party software can do most things OSX can do, oftentimes for free

3. Macs don't get malware because they don't have enough market share

2. If Macs are for fun, where are the fucking Mac games?

1. You can't really upgrade a Mac.

DRAMA (the sort which is liable to strike within social circles)

I'm not sure if I mean this one. For all the strife it brings, it can certainly be amusing...but then very often it isn't. All in all, it's at least something to talk about, something to work through. As if we didn't have enough puzzles to solve anyhow. Right now I am leaning towards the side of “not a good thing”, mostly because of certain events on the way home today. Being less of an active participant, I'm not going to speculate, but suffice it to say I have a bad feeling about this. More later, if anything comes of “this thing”.

That's it for tonight. I'll be on the lookout for more to rage about tomorrow. I think it's a David Warren day in the paper on Saturdays, so the outlook on that front is pretty good.

Around the World in 80 Posts! -UPDATED x3

-This post has been heavily added to -

The Squeaky Wheel...

What did I tell you?

Attempt to hold the world hostage, and your punishment is? One million or more barrels of fuel oil! Take heart, terrorists: this could be your lucky day. If a promise to halt Nuclear weapons development netted North Korea such a l3w7 h4ul, imagine how much a one-year moratorium on jihad would be worth! All silliness aside, the North Korean settlement is a puzzling development. What happened to "we don't negotiate with terrorists"? Where is the drive to rid the world of "communist evil"? Why do we make no mention of "liberation" for the destitute and brainwashed civilians of North Korea? It seems that if anyone is backing down, it is the US itself. Confrontation and conflict have served as the vanguard of "free markets" and "democracy" since the right to keep and bear arms was entrenched in the US constitution. Why now does the Hegemon repent? I can only surmise that – as seems to be the case with the Iraq war – Republican senators' desire for re-election has supplanted their thirst for blood and/or oil as priority #1. The entire state of affairs distresses me, for a number of reasons.

The first is that this “deal” - or any “deal” - is a loss for us, and it is a loss for humanity. Kim Jong-Il wins, for what profit could he find in maintaining a Nuclear Weapons program save that which he has now achieved? The world has been blackmailed into rewarding the supposed end of that which should not have happened in the first place. Does the West profit? Mr. Jong-Il would face no better an outcome had he made use of a nuclear weapon than (Iranian President) Ahmadinejad (sp?) in a similar situation. It may be that we have averted death and bloodshed, but we have also allowed ourselves to be blackmailed. Had we ignored the threat, had we called North Korea's bluff, the situation would be no better. There seems to be enough desire for combat on both sides, certainly enough to send us once again on the path to war with no hope of an end. The only positive solution I can see is one that should have happened years ago. In order to lead by example, the West should have abandoned both the development and maintenance of nuclear weaponry. Every last warhead should have been dismantled, and the contents useful to science or industry used for said purposes. The critical elements for initiating fission should have been pulverized into fine dust. What of leaving ourselves “defenseless”? There is no defense from total obliteration, There is only the potential for retribution before the end.

It isn't too late, though. Disarmament means that Iran (another one of those "rogue states") can no longer justify a nuclear program with “we have just as much a right as you do”. Perhaps they would continue to seek nuclear warheads, regardless. Would a nuclear reprisal be necessary? Does there not exist within the US alone the ordinance to devastate a thousand Irans? Speaking of problems of our own making, it was the West meddling in Iran which led to it's present state as a shining example of why theocracy is NOT a pleasant form of government. As glad as I am to see that we are not following the same path with North Korea (to my knowledge), there is one concern which overshadows all others. I have yet to tell you who the real losers are in this deal. The North Korean citizens who will spend their lives in ignorance because of their government. The North Koreans whose children will be raised to worship Kim Jong-Il and his successors. The North Koreans who in all likelihood who will go on starving, no matter how much fuel oil we send to keep their funny-haired Great Leader at bay.

The bottom line is that any time we buy now is time to formulate a better plan to deal with the situation. The only downside is that 'solutions', in the Western political lexicon, seems to mean “resolution of an unsavoury situation in a manner characterized by a maximization of both short-term gain, and long-term backlash”. Perhaps the US did not start a war this time because they had already lost.

Did you Know That...?

Canadian Conservatives, unlike their US counterparts DON'T seem to want to be re-elected. In response to a bill passed in the House of Commons which would hold the Cons to abide by Canada's Kyoto commitment, John Baird said that if it clears the Senate, he would ask his department how to meet Kyoto “without spending any money” (the Bill does not mandate any expenditures). The Conservatives come into office without a clue that the Environment would become an important issue. They re-instate Liberal programs in response to demand for climate-change legislation. They spend all this time chastising the Liberals for inaction on the Environment. I now consider the failure cake to be fully iced and decorated. First, now the Conservatives can be accused of lacking even the DESIRE to attain Kyoto goals. Second, the Liberals can cook up some BS about them “taking action” to ensure that Canada's government met its targets. Third, John Baird, instead of graciously accepting the fact that he had been PWN'D, he decides to go on record sounding like a complete asshole. I humbly suggest a slogan for the eventual Conservative election campaign: Canada's New Government: hey, we sucked in new and different ways!

That's all for now. Coming soon are my thoughts on Intel's 80-core processor demo, Supreme Commander, and Rise of Legends. Also, HDTV/computer frustrations!

Explore Expand Exploit Exterminate

Well, it's mostly the first two which you are likely to find within my blog. The latter two generally decline to make appearances, due to some bad publicity of late. “Exploit” in particular has fought against negative connotations among the public for several years now. At the time of writing, “Exterminate” could not be reached for comment, instead issuing a pre-recorded statement vowing to fight all slanderous accusations brought against him by “unscrupulous parties desperate for a soap box”

The “Four Xs” can be found together mainly in galactic-scale strategy, with other strategy games offering various (often, sadly, lacking) mixtures. From my experience with the Supreme Commander demo, I can say that the final 3 will be taking up most of your time, which is quite condusive to intense combat. The campaign missions are solid, but ever since Warcraft 3 set the bar for story-character-mission interplay somewhere around the orbit of Pluto's moon, almost no strategy game has managed to satisfy on the campaign front. Ground Control 2 is an exception, as it lacks base building. Supreme Commander's base-building is fun (although having different levels of engineer unit which LOOK THE SAME is kinda daft), but combined with sparse narrative and lack of hero units, campaign missions never feel as cinematic as those in Warcraft 3 or GC2 did. The game shines almost entirely on technical merits, namely that the controls are useful (although the lack of an in-game tutorial in the demo annoys me, I sincerely hope the full game has one for at least the unique features), the graphics are stellar, and the battles are positively epic.

SupCom is alleged to have incredible graphics, but since I cannot run the game with the settings any higher than 'low', I suspect I do not know the half of it . Explosions (pretty and satisfying when its their ship or giant robot what gets deep-sixed) are plentiful, and unit caps are very high. I suppose I should also mention that I can run the game across two screens, which is every bit as cool as any previews you have seen or read make it out to be. My one complaint is that by the end game, both (independant) cameras, and therefore monitors will be very close in zoom level, until your giant army enters combat (at which point you use one for the sheer pleasure of watching shit explode). I think that with more practice, I could be using both monitors to their fullest effect at all times, but until then it is at least worth the marvelling at. Two screens of game. Fucking AWESOME!

Obviously having only played the demo thus far, I cannot produce a final verdict on the game. From what I have played, though, it seems to be a very solid RTS. It has a few unique features, but in the end it's C&C or Warcraft, but with robots, more eye candy, and a little sophistication. Maybe I need to play the original Total Annihilation before I understand how great this game must be for Chris Taylor fans. That, or maybe someone besides Blizzard or Massive or Relic (the middle developed GC2, the latter Homeworld) needs to learn how to tell a story in an RTS!

I gate in 30, Dostya out (SupCom reference)

Double Kill!

It's Sunday, which means that it has come time to score the above with respect to my Blog here and my homework...somewhere here. I have a pretty ridiculous amount for being scant few weeks into the new semester. Not one, not two, but THREE group projects due at various times, two book reports, and I have the ISU for one of my classes. This does not bode well for me if I enjoy having leasure time.

So I looked up the serial number on a then-unidentified 3dfx-based board that I scored for $5 at a used computer parts shop in Langley, BC. Turns out that it's a Creative Labs Voodoo 2 board of some description. I'm not yet sure if it has 8 or 12 MB of vRAM, but what I do know is that he day I bought that card was one of my luckiest ever. That was the day I acquired my Abit BP-6, a piece of Geek history, and possibly legend. The 3dfx card was a throwaway buy, because I thought it might be an also-legendary Voodoo 2. Well, so it is. Now all I need is another one. I wonder if a pair of these suckers in SLI could run a 3^rd display in WinXP. Unlikely, but hey, I have enough PCI slots to do it.

If you are wondering why I keep editing post 80 as opposed to creating new posts, it is because I fully intend to talk about Intel's recent demonstration of an 80-core processor. And doing that in the 81^st or 82^nd post would just be really lame. So there you have it.

It Takes a Child to Raze a Village

I can't believe I hadn't previously thought of such a perverse twist on the old saying. I ought to Google it, see if anyone else thought of it first. I wonder if it's as true as the original. Something about it rings false, to me at least. I suspect as many – if not more - vilages have been burned by the calculated malice of an adult conqueror than have fallen to angry children. In a metaphorical sense, suppose a 'village' represents all of the worst aspects of said: A village is small, it can feel restrictive, it may have an entrenched order. Who but a child would dare to upset the fragile balance of pastoral life? Clearly this statement requires further investigation...

Moving on...

Poetic Injustice

You may have noticed two new links over to this side ---->. Try to look past the fact that they are Livejournals, and see the often-fantastic work of two very good friends of mine. I just finished reading poems written by each, and I have to say that by comparison, I am a total poetry hack. Most of my work in that area rhymes, which immediately lends an air of silliness to the work that oftentimes it would be better off without. In the case of satirical/angry poetry it can be very satisfying to have such a quality, but if I were to attempt writing something prettier, it would cause complete and utter failure.

Perhaps my problem is that I am too quick to compare my achievements with others'. I'm not what you would describe as a competitive person, but I do have an intense desire for validation. The problem is that I invariably come across as a pale imitator, a cheap taiwanese knock-off, if you will, of whatever greatness to which I aspire. Case in point: Some weeks ago I recorded a podcast with some friends (if it ever gets edited properly, it may end up here), and one friend in particular is a very funny guy. Listening to the recording again, it becomes painfully obvious that I would die to possess his comic genius, because I try endlessly to be funny, to riff off his jokes...but I fail, rather miserably. Applied to the current situation, it means that now I should not be writing poetry, because whatever I created, no matter how good on its own merits, would be nothing more than the dull shadow of a vibrant original. The problem is that I have the greatest urge to do something when I have seen how successfully someone else has done it. I want to make that greatness my own, I want to prove that I can be just as good as they are. The only problem is, I can't, and I'm not.

Perhaps the worst, the least healthy place in which this damnable trait has reared its head is in my relationship with Star. Whether or not it is the truth, I see my friends in far more stable-looking, far happier relationships than my own...and I want that for myself. I want to be part of a couple that looks great to the world around, that jokes, laughs, plays around...but then if I had that it would all be a show. It would be there TO be there, not to make me any happier by what it would be. Being with Star is one thing I actually decided to do for myself, I had the desire to make her happy and to be happy with her. Now two years on and I'm threatened with the prospect of it being turned into a status symbol by my desire to be seen as being worth something. I hate the prospect, I hate the desire, and I hate having so little power to change either.

To round off this lovely deconstruction of my self-confidence, I am presented with an identity crisis. After all, if I am characterized by a desire to emulate the successes of others, what does that say about me? I don't think I can get away with saying that I have no identy period (such a statement would be rightly and harshly contested), but I can certainly wonder if I am not void of true personal aspirations. Am I the aspirational equivalent of the guy who says nothing but “I'll have what he's having” when out to eat? Am I one of those pathetic people who will swear allegiance to whoever looks poised to win, and who hopes every day to be recognized by that person? Or worst of all, am I simply cursed with a creative void, which I seek to fill by distilling the best of others' work and integrating that into my own, a plagiarist on the basest of levels?

That's enough introspection for now, what is there already encroaches upon the realm of fishing for sympathy – yet another form in which my desire for personal validation manifests itself.

And Getting to the Point

I suppose I had better get around to doing the thing for which I have been consitently postponing post #81: Speak my mind about Intel's demonstration of an 80-core processor (which must have been last week by now, but that's ok):

Intel's demonstration of an 80-core processor is an audacious and auspicious achievement, yet I find myself as much apprehensive as I am astounded. Intel now seems hell-bent to push the limits on the number of processor cores which can be loaded onto a die, just as it was with clock speed during the Pentium 4 era – an infatuation which did not end until it became impractical to pursue further. Initially, some may recall, the P4 was supposed to scale to 10GHz. What I am getting at here is that no matter how many cores Intel can cram into a processor today, there will be a ceiling past which the thermals become too great, or he circuits too small. Multi-core processing was one unexpected contributor to the downfall of high-clocked single-core processors, it would be foolish to believe that some comparable design change will come out of the blue to strike down multi-core as we know it. AMD seems to have an idea of what this will be, and should their product come to fruition, it could very well play the more efficient Athlon to the P4-like brute force approach of “as many cores as possible” (If such a comparison makes any sense).

There are a few variables yet unresolved in the equation. Number one is Intel's supposed plan to release a new microarchitecture every 2 years (beginning with Core 2). This could either prolong the lifetime of a many-cores approach, or allow Intel the flexibility to jump ship should it's current approach show any signs of slowing down in terms of performance increase. AMD's potential integration of ATI graphics hardware into a CPU core might begin life in the lower-end integrated-graphics type market, but as we are seeing with the current x1900 and Nvidia 8800 lineups, an ultra-powerful set of floating-point processors can be harnessed to achieve supercomputer-like number-crunching power with a vastly smaller number of computers. Should AMD take the lead in this respect, its processors may gain the upper hand in terms of raw FPU power. I'll reserve judgement on that until I see the performance nubers on their Quad-core parts later in the year. If AMD cannot regain at least parity in the enthusiast market, it may not be the end, but it will certainly put AMD out of the game for yet another generation of processors, which is something that company cannot afford.

Until such a time as AMD releases new procs, the field is Intel's to play. With their 80-core proc putting out a maximum of 62W of heat (3W less than a current core 2 Duo), Imagine the potential for overclocking newer Intel parts from 4 to 80 cores in future! If power consumption and heat output scale in a linear fashion, imagine how little power a dual-or quad-core processor might require inside of a year. It may become possible to build a computerized toaster with more power in it than an entire Xbox 360 (ok, hyperbole)!

I want the A.I. Toaster from Red Dwarf. I actually enjoy toast, so he'd whine less.

I believe this is the 80^th post's last hurrah, look out for #81, coming your way soon!