Right, then. I'm no big HP fan, and I don't think I'd start that soon. But anyway, my friends do call me out to watch those things, so I guess that means I'm gona have to write a review on it.
Frankly, I don't think this was a particularly good HP installment. I mean, I generally expect magic duels and special effects in the show, and well...whatever they had in there just wasn't quite satisfying. Yes, Dumbledore dies. Everyone knows that. It does feel odd watching a show that every other mother's kid knows the ending to. Sorta like everyone's already spoiled. I just didn't like the idea of Dumbledore tipping over quite that easily after he managed to do a Gandalf and wipe out a whole swarm of undeads.
Ultimately, the thing I liked the most about the HP series is that it's gotten darker over time. Undoubtedly, it's not just an effect of growing up for the characters, but also an influence of our contemporary world situation leaking into the story. Bag searches, anyone?
I'd have to give this one a 6.5/10. It's not particularly memorable, and as one reviewer put it...pretty much here only to set the stage for the story ahead.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Saturday, July 25, 2009
The barber who shaved
I encountered this paradox online: “There is a village where the barber shaves all those and only those who do not shave themselves. Who shaves the barber?”
Now, at face value, the paradox does indeed appear to be paradoxical. That is, we’d assume that the barber is a part of the village, and is therefore referenced as part of the villagers who either shave themselves, or the villagers who don’t. Obviously, if the barber is a villager, is himself, hasn’t shaved himself, and has no one to shave him, he will be unable to shave himself without violating the statement.
Yet there are a number of assumptions already in place. Moreover, it is not mentioned whether the statement is true across all time frames. The simplest solution would be that the barber simply shaves himself. Why? Because at the point of time at which the statement was made, the statement was true: he only shaves those who don’t shave themselves. However, since he’s a part of the group of non-self shavers, he’s obliged to shave himself, therefore violating the statement. Thereafter, the statement ceases to be true. QED.
Then we can consider that, perhaps, the barber wasn’t in the group of people who either shave or do not shave themselves. This can be true if:
1) The barber isn’t himself. He’s a RED spy.
2) We consider the barber to be outside the village (and therefore beyond those groups
3) We consider the barber (vocation) to be separate from barber (the person)
4) We consider that someone else is shaving the barber.
If 1 is true, we’d have to spycheck him, just in case.
If 2 is true, we’re assuming that both groups are from the village. Hence, he may not be a part of either group, enabling him to shave himself without violating the statement.
If 3 is true, he can also shave himself without violating the statement, since the vocation of barber is separate from the person of the barber.
If 4 is true, well, that greatly simplifies things, doesn’t it?
Now, at face value, the paradox does indeed appear to be paradoxical. That is, we’d assume that the barber is a part of the village, and is therefore referenced as part of the villagers who either shave themselves, or the villagers who don’t. Obviously, if the barber is a villager, is himself, hasn’t shaved himself, and has no one to shave him, he will be unable to shave himself without violating the statement.
Yet there are a number of assumptions already in place. Moreover, it is not mentioned whether the statement is true across all time frames. The simplest solution would be that the barber simply shaves himself. Why? Because at the point of time at which the statement was made, the statement was true: he only shaves those who don’t shave themselves. However, since he’s a part of the group of non-self shavers, he’s obliged to shave himself, therefore violating the statement. Thereafter, the statement ceases to be true. QED.
Then we can consider that, perhaps, the barber wasn’t in the group of people who either shave or do not shave themselves. This can be true if:
1) The barber isn’t himself. He’s a RED spy.
2) We consider the barber to be outside the village (and therefore beyond those groups
3) We consider the barber (vocation) to be separate from barber (the person)
4) We consider that someone else is shaving the barber.
If 1 is true, we’d have to spycheck him, just in case.
If 2 is true, we’re assuming that both groups are from the village. Hence, he may not be a part of either group, enabling him to shave himself without violating the statement.
If 3 is true, he can also shave himself without violating the statement, since the vocation of barber is separate from the person of the barber.
If 4 is true, well, that greatly simplifies things, doesn’t it?
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Why Can't You?
It's funny how egoistic people can be. Whatever they wish to present as their social front, it seems that at their heart of hearts, just about everyone (with the usual bell curve exceptions) is self-centered. Now let's consider a common expression: If I can do (insert activity), why can't you? If that doesn't sound self-centered, I don't know what does.
Basically, saying something like that assumes that everyone should be essentially the same as the speaker, since the speaker's perfectly capable of doing something and thus everyone else ought to. Not...necessarily true. For example, I can't reasonably ask a blind person to just see...simply because I can, right? And just 'coz I can and want to, I can't rightly ask others to do the same because they might not share my sentiments.
What does that leave us, though? The admission of hypocrisy in projecting the public face? Or is it the self-centered nature of people blinding them to the possibility of alternatives...
Basically, saying something like that assumes that everyone should be essentially the same as the speaker, since the speaker's perfectly capable of doing something and thus everyone else ought to. Not...necessarily true. For example, I can't reasonably ask a blind person to just see...simply because I can, right? And just 'coz I can and want to, I can't rightly ask others to do the same because they might not share my sentiments.
What does that leave us, though? The admission of hypocrisy in projecting the public face? Or is it the self-centered nature of people blinding them to the possibility of alternatives...
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Printer Calibration
I finally got down to calibrating my new Epson T50 printer. It's a typically tedious business, getting the output to match precisely (or as close as is practical for precision adjusted by Eyeball Mk. 1) what my monitor displays. After 5 max quality prints, I finally managed to squeeze out something that looked pretty much how the picture was displayed on my monitor. *Happy happy*
That might sound a bit anal, but frankly I'm never happy seeing something come out of my printer that doesn't look almost exactly like how I've seen it. I mean, it's bad enough that my jpgs will invariably look different on someone else's monitors. Since the print is the true litmus test of a properly exposed image, that's something I really can't live with.
Anyway, now that my printer's finally doing precisely what I want it to, it's time to get down to doing my actual photowall project. Yep. A wall...covered in photos. That oughtta keep me occupied for awhile.
That might sound a bit anal, but frankly I'm never happy seeing something come out of my printer that doesn't look almost exactly like how I've seen it. I mean, it's bad enough that my jpgs will invariably look different on someone else's monitors. Since the print is the true litmus test of a properly exposed image, that's something I really can't live with.
Anyway, now that my printer's finally doing precisely what I want it to, it's time to get down to doing my actual photowall project. Yep. A wall...covered in photos. That oughtta keep me occupied for awhile.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Hell Is Symptomatic Of Mental Illness
I am greatly disturbed by the prospect of an eternal hell. Indeed, I have no wish to visit such a place, if it did in fact exist. Such a proposition does not sound terribly welcoming, what with all the fire and brimstone and sodomic demons with pitchforks.
However, I think it is a suspicious notion, especially one used in the context of God. Let's recap the assumptions: God is good and merciful, judgmental, perfect and all-knowing. Also bears rank of supreme creator. Sounds good so far. So that means, by creating humans, there was full knowledge of what'd become of them. Ergo, it's probably a given that some of God's creations will wind up in an eternal hell. Nasty.
But wait...there is a contradiction somewhere. If God were indeed good and merciful, nobody would end up in hell for eternity, because even those who fall short of acceptable standards of goodness would be forgiven eventually. But if it were eternal, it's very much akin to creating something knowing that the creation will not be very good at all, then repeatedly damaging the creation in sheer angst. That...does not sound very much like a perfect God. In fact, it implies that God is grossly inefficient, sadistic, insane, or a combination of the three. Why...that's blasphemy!
Being quite unwilling to be a blasphemer, I would have to choose between disbelieving in God, and disbelieving in an eternal hell. Now, both can be quite incredible, but I think the latter is by far more incredible. If I had to choose between the two, I'd say that an eternal hell simply does not exist, given the assumptions people make about God.
However, I think it is a suspicious notion, especially one used in the context of God. Let's recap the assumptions: God is good and merciful, judgmental, perfect and all-knowing. Also bears rank of supreme creator. Sounds good so far. So that means, by creating humans, there was full knowledge of what'd become of them. Ergo, it's probably a given that some of God's creations will wind up in an eternal hell. Nasty.
But wait...there is a contradiction somewhere. If God were indeed good and merciful, nobody would end up in hell for eternity, because even those who fall short of acceptable standards of goodness would be forgiven eventually. But if it were eternal, it's very much akin to creating something knowing that the creation will not be very good at all, then repeatedly damaging the creation in sheer angst. That...does not sound very much like a perfect God. In fact, it implies that God is grossly inefficient, sadistic, insane, or a combination of the three. Why...that's blasphemy!
Being quite unwilling to be a blasphemer, I would have to choose between disbelieving in God, and disbelieving in an eternal hell. Now, both can be quite incredible, but I think the latter is by far more incredible. If I had to choose between the two, I'd say that an eternal hell simply does not exist, given the assumptions people make about God.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
The Soul...?
There are times when I wonder if there's a sort of explanation for what, exactly, a soul is. The soul in the sense that spiritual people believe in, the thing that supposedly animates the conscious and sets them apart from the unconscious. In fact, I think the soul is separate from life in that the soul is effectively a form of consciousness rather than life itself, which seems to be little more than a set of ongoing chemical processes. Not quite the cultural perception of a place that has a vibrant, appealing way of life, though perhaps it is related.
If I were to consider what a soul is, I'd think that since the belief is that they're unique things that live on after the living creature's untimely demise, I'd think that it was a sort of energetic equilibrium that is established by the peculiar and unique material makeup of the physical form. While this is probably impossible, that'd mean that a soul living on after the body has died has somehow managed to hold those energies in equilibrium even after separation from the physical form.
The loss of equilibrium (leading to the "death" of the soul) or a detachment from the point of anchorage will result in the physical form losing its soul, and thus might be to all appearances alive but not quite "whole".
If I were to consider what a soul is, I'd think that since the belief is that they're unique things that live on after the living creature's untimely demise, I'd think that it was a sort of energetic equilibrium that is established by the peculiar and unique material makeup of the physical form. While this is probably impossible, that'd mean that a soul living on after the body has died has somehow managed to hold those energies in equilibrium even after separation from the physical form.
The loss of equilibrium (leading to the "death" of the soul) or a detachment from the point of anchorage will result in the physical form losing its soul, and thus might be to all appearances alive but not quite "whole".
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Burkas Are Freedom
It is an apt day to talk about freedom. Yet freedom can come in strange forms. In fact, freedom can even be found where others see only oppression. What better symbol of female oppression than the burka. A form-hiding outfit that covers just about everything (even the eyes), the burka seems to be about as oppressive as they come.
Yet the burka itself represents only an overt form of oppression. It is far easier to see the overt than the subtle. Take for example the oppression of capitalism. The standards of beauty. The burka, ironically, can represent a sort of emancipation from these. The burka is anonymous. Nobody really cares (or can actually tell) if you're wearing nothing inside. Now that's freedom from fashion, from people judging just how skimpy (or prudish) your outfit happens to be. It's freedom from the chains of capitalism that urge people to buy more outfits they don't really need. It's freedom from the judgment of the form one has that never ever seems to match the unrealistic standards set by the fashion world. It frees one from the oppressive need to pick, match and coordinate outfits from a wardrobe full of clothes that one might never wear. (I'm sure we all know this one =p) The irony of choice is that sometimes it means we're denied the choice not to make a choice. Surely nobody would wish to see me decked out in some truly awful colors on poorly fitted outfits. Yet if I genuinely wanted to do that, I find the choice is less than desirable, considering that I don't like to be ridiculed overly much...
It is even the freedom from the prying eyes of men who would gladly oogle women who may be less than happy about being oogled. Imagine the time and brain power savings for men, when they spend less time thinking about sex and more towards productive thoughts or even other non-sexual forms of entertainment. Certainly, no bicycles will crash when a burka-wearing geisha looks at a man. Hell, it even serves as an umbrella, in keeping one exotically pale skinned under the harsh light of day. Brollies are just so victorian.
Then comes the harmony. No, not the enforced harmony of highly regulated societies, but the peace of anonymity. Yup, even men would benefit from wearing burkas. Not only is gender masked by these fine outfits, one's unique appearance is masked as well. That means poor sods getting trounced by street toughs by mistake will no longer face those problems: The toughs would have a hard time spotting the fella from a distance. Besides, men can finally be excused for being utterly unfashionable.
With all these benefits, the burka seems like the perfect universal outfit for everyone. Making women wear these might be oppressive, but everyone wearing it would be...consensus. Yes, freedom can come in strange forms. Oh, and happy Independence Day, one and all =p
Yet the burka itself represents only an overt form of oppression. It is far easier to see the overt than the subtle. Take for example the oppression of capitalism. The standards of beauty. The burka, ironically, can represent a sort of emancipation from these. The burka is anonymous. Nobody really cares (or can actually tell) if you're wearing nothing inside. Now that's freedom from fashion, from people judging just how skimpy (or prudish) your outfit happens to be. It's freedom from the chains of capitalism that urge people to buy more outfits they don't really need. It's freedom from the judgment of the form one has that never ever seems to match the unrealistic standards set by the fashion world. It frees one from the oppressive need to pick, match and coordinate outfits from a wardrobe full of clothes that one might never wear. (I'm sure we all know this one =p) The irony of choice is that sometimes it means we're denied the choice not to make a choice. Surely nobody would wish to see me decked out in some truly awful colors on poorly fitted outfits. Yet if I genuinely wanted to do that, I find the choice is less than desirable, considering that I don't like to be ridiculed overly much...
It is even the freedom from the prying eyes of men who would gladly oogle women who may be less than happy about being oogled. Imagine the time and brain power savings for men, when they spend less time thinking about sex and more towards productive thoughts or even other non-sexual forms of entertainment. Certainly, no bicycles will crash when a burka-wearing geisha looks at a man. Hell, it even serves as an umbrella, in keeping one exotically pale skinned under the harsh light of day. Brollies are just so victorian.
Then comes the harmony. No, not the enforced harmony of highly regulated societies, but the peace of anonymity. Yup, even men would benefit from wearing burkas. Not only is gender masked by these fine outfits, one's unique appearance is masked as well. That means poor sods getting trounced by street toughs by mistake will no longer face those problems: The toughs would have a hard time spotting the fella from a distance. Besides, men can finally be excused for being utterly unfashionable.
With all these benefits, the burka seems like the perfect universal outfit for everyone. Making women wear these might be oppressive, but everyone wearing it would be...consensus. Yes, freedom can come in strange forms. Oh, and happy Independence Day, one and all =p
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)