I've been thinking about movies and TV shows, and sometimes I think the writers really do not think through the mechanics behind the distinctive features that characters have. Take for example Tron, where the "disc" is one's most important possession, but it's effectively used as a melee/thrown weapon and really is voluntarily cast away from the user pretty often. And well...it's a virtual universe, right? Where are my machineguns or other equivalent ranged weaponry? It does seem like that would make combat a whole lot easier.
Then there's the matter of the Vampire Diaries, where the daywalker vampires (seemingly the entire bunch of them, really) have to wear some sort of trinket to allow them to walk in the sun. Well...yeah you guys are vampires, right, with super healing powers and such? Why don't you just surgically implant them, so the trinket doesn't just get lost or something. It'd be a good precaution, against having it fall off in the middle of a football game and then suddenly someone becomes a pile of dust. Or ashes. Or whatever. 'sides...these creatures are also all super strength and super speed. You'd think they'd be quite resistant to the average human trying to stake them, or even from ranged weaponry like guns. Why...if a vampire could move that fast, surely they could pluck bullets out of the air...
Well, these are really just two examples of the bunch of stuff out there that just doesn't really make sense. While I am perfectly capable of suspending my disbelief to some extent just to enjoy a narrative, I really do think writers need to think the distinguishing characteristics through a little more carefully so that such blatant contradictions do not trip up an otherwise unique character profile.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Law And Order
Presumption of innocence, taken to an extreme, can be every bit as bad as presumption of guilt. I was talking to a friend about how the law works where he is, and I was told that the police basically brought the presumption of innocence to the extreme. For them, a crime only occurrs if it succeeds. As such, someone who attempts to hold up the gas station but fails to do so is deemed innocent of the crime, and will have no penalties resulting from the attempt.
I think it's pretty obvious how such a system is totally broken. If someone tries to break into your home, but fails because you beat the crap out of them, you may well be in for an assault charge even as the would-be burglar walks free. That seems to be major suckage to me. Of course, the converse is just as bad, when one can be charged for a crime purely on circumstantial evidence that leaves quite some doubt.
It seems that while presumption of innocence is something that will keep innocents from being wrongfully convicted, it may also result in innocents being made victims of crimes from being too easy on the would-be criminals. Ultimately, there has to be a balance between the two. Unfortunately, as it tends to be with human systems, it is rather difficult to find that delicate balance point
I think it's pretty obvious how such a system is totally broken. If someone tries to break into your home, but fails because you beat the crap out of them, you may well be in for an assault charge even as the would-be burglar walks free. That seems to be major suckage to me. Of course, the converse is just as bad, when one can be charged for a crime purely on circumstantial evidence that leaves quite some doubt.
It seems that while presumption of innocence is something that will keep innocents from being wrongfully convicted, it may also result in innocents being made victims of crimes from being too easy on the would-be criminals. Ultimately, there has to be a balance between the two. Unfortunately, as it tends to be with human systems, it is rather difficult to find that delicate balance point
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows...part one
Way to go, producer dudes! If a cash cow franchise is coming to an end, make the ending extra long. Like two episodes long. Gota love capitalism.
Gripe aside, I do think the movie was reasonably well done this time round. I was quite disappointed with the previous one, and really I'm not a Harry Potter fan though a friend or three would tend to want to watch it with me anyway so I just tag along. That said, I do so like it when stories take dark twists and become permeated with a general sense of desperation. It mirrors life of so well, and I dare say I can relate.
Mmm there's not a lot I can say that won't be a spoiler, and well most people probably already know the story so it hardly will be anyway. My conclusion is that the movie's worth maybe a 7/10. Pretty good, but then I've got my biases.
Gripe aside, I do think the movie was reasonably well done this time round. I was quite disappointed with the previous one, and really I'm not a Harry Potter fan though a friend or three would tend to want to watch it with me anyway so I just tag along. That said, I do so like it when stories take dark twists and become permeated with a general sense of desperation. It mirrors life of so well, and I dare say I can relate.
Mmm there's not a lot I can say that won't be a spoiler, and well most people probably already know the story so it hardly will be anyway. My conclusion is that the movie's worth maybe a 7/10. Pretty good, but then I've got my biases.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Personal Power
To me, a feeling of empowerment is extremely important. Integrity is equally important. As such, when I encounter people who operate contrary to my philosophy of life, I get pretty peeved at them. This is not a rational evaluation of them as people, but rather as a measure of their own life's philosophies.
One example is personal relationships. Take friendships, for example. To me, a friend is a person who is friendly to me, and whom I can trust to guard my back to some extent. As such, there are few people I would actually call friend, and a whole lot of friendly people who are just friendly in relational terms. I wouldn't trust friendly people with my back. Now, I've learned that some people view friendships in terms of debts of gratitude, which disgusts me to no end. One does not take on a friend primarily or perhaps to a large extent due to the fact that friendships allow one to ask favors of another. That would be improper, in my opinion. To me, a friendship is primarily about trust, in that if the shit hits the fan, at the very least you can be sure the friend isn't going to backstab you. For those who know me, they'll certainly notice that I rarely if ever ask them for favors, because to do such a thing is an imposition upon the friendship and it sullies the relationship.
Integrity aside, personal empowerment is something that I feel is essential to everyone. Of course, I do not expect people to agree with me, but that is my opinion regardless. I was quite displeased when some people told me about something they did not like, but that they were unwilling to speak up (or complain) about it because they feared possible repercussions. In my opinion, a valid complaint is valid regardless. It should be presented to the relevant authority in a polite, logical manner. Any reasonable authority should be expected to receive this criticism in good spirit, and act accordingly. To fear to speak out is to accept personal disempowerment. That is unacceptable. I do not claim that discretion is unimportant, and indeed sometimes there are better times to speak out. However, there is no excuse for keeping mum out of a what-if fear. Worse yet, if someone uninvolved in the problem is told that others are afraid of speaking out because of their fears, the person is forced into an unhealthy situation: She can become involved by becoming the voice (and therefore a patsy) of the oppressed, or she can become a hypocrite by leaving them to pluck up their courage to speak up for themselves. True, it may not be actual hypocrisy by not speaking up for others if the only thing keeping them quiet is their own fears and not some actual risk of personal harm, but it certainly does not leave the affected one with a good feeling about herself anyway.
The other thing related to disempowerment is self-deprecation. This is even worse, because one is now voluntarily underpricing oneself. Again, there may be tactical choices made to hide one's prowess in special situations (like to avoid a fight, for example), but overall I believe one needs to be truthful about one's abilities. When someone is clearly self deprecating, my respect for them takes an instant nose dive. On the flip side, I can tolerate boasting but overboard boasting also ticks me off.
On a related note, deprecating others is something that will guarantee a perception nose dive. For example, showing a lack of confidence in another's abilities is plain offensive. If someone claims that they can do something that's plausibly within their abilities, saying something to the contary like "We'll see if you can REALLY do that" or its variants is just nasty and mean. Even if it's in jest, there's a pretty good chance that I'd be offended. It's bad enough to be out in a world where everyone's challenging one another to prove themselves with stupid acts. It's even worse when someone's challenging someone else to do something that they can plausibly do and will probably do anyway. To issue such a challenge robs the challenged of honor: There is no glory in achieving the goal because doing so can effectively be considered doing someone else's bidding. There is shame in failing to achieve the goal, because the challenger is proven right.
Overall, my rant boils down to the core idea that one should first live for oneself, and not for others. Only through being comfortable with oneself, can one truly come to terms with the concept of helping others. There is no life in living for the sake of approval by others, or from believing oneself in some way inherently inferior to others. We are all Great Ones, if we would only be willing to embrace our potentials.
One example is personal relationships. Take friendships, for example. To me, a friend is a person who is friendly to me, and whom I can trust to guard my back to some extent. As such, there are few people I would actually call friend, and a whole lot of friendly people who are just friendly in relational terms. I wouldn't trust friendly people with my back. Now, I've learned that some people view friendships in terms of debts of gratitude, which disgusts me to no end. One does not take on a friend primarily or perhaps to a large extent due to the fact that friendships allow one to ask favors of another. That would be improper, in my opinion. To me, a friendship is primarily about trust, in that if the shit hits the fan, at the very least you can be sure the friend isn't going to backstab you. For those who know me, they'll certainly notice that I rarely if ever ask them for favors, because to do such a thing is an imposition upon the friendship and it sullies the relationship.
Integrity aside, personal empowerment is something that I feel is essential to everyone. Of course, I do not expect people to agree with me, but that is my opinion regardless. I was quite displeased when some people told me about something they did not like, but that they were unwilling to speak up (or complain) about it because they feared possible repercussions. In my opinion, a valid complaint is valid regardless. It should be presented to the relevant authority in a polite, logical manner. Any reasonable authority should be expected to receive this criticism in good spirit, and act accordingly. To fear to speak out is to accept personal disempowerment. That is unacceptable. I do not claim that discretion is unimportant, and indeed sometimes there are better times to speak out. However, there is no excuse for keeping mum out of a what-if fear. Worse yet, if someone uninvolved in the problem is told that others are afraid of speaking out because of their fears, the person is forced into an unhealthy situation: She can become involved by becoming the voice (and therefore a patsy) of the oppressed, or she can become a hypocrite by leaving them to pluck up their courage to speak up for themselves. True, it may not be actual hypocrisy by not speaking up for others if the only thing keeping them quiet is their own fears and not some actual risk of personal harm, but it certainly does not leave the affected one with a good feeling about herself anyway.
The other thing related to disempowerment is self-deprecation. This is even worse, because one is now voluntarily underpricing oneself. Again, there may be tactical choices made to hide one's prowess in special situations (like to avoid a fight, for example), but overall I believe one needs to be truthful about one's abilities. When someone is clearly self deprecating, my respect for them takes an instant nose dive. On the flip side, I can tolerate boasting but overboard boasting also ticks me off.
On a related note, deprecating others is something that will guarantee a perception nose dive. For example, showing a lack of confidence in another's abilities is plain offensive. If someone claims that they can do something that's plausibly within their abilities, saying something to the contary like "We'll see if you can REALLY do that" or its variants is just nasty and mean. Even if it's in jest, there's a pretty good chance that I'd be offended. It's bad enough to be out in a world where everyone's challenging one another to prove themselves with stupid acts. It's even worse when someone's challenging someone else to do something that they can plausibly do and will probably do anyway. To issue such a challenge robs the challenged of honor: There is no glory in achieving the goal because doing so can effectively be considered doing someone else's bidding. There is shame in failing to achieve the goal, because the challenger is proven right.
Overall, my rant boils down to the core idea that one should first live for oneself, and not for others. Only through being comfortable with oneself, can one truly come to terms with the concept of helping others. There is no life in living for the sake of approval by others, or from believing oneself in some way inherently inferior to others. We are all Great Ones, if we would only be willing to embrace our potentials.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Let Me In
Well I'm just back from watching Let Me In with a coupla friends. Long time friends whom I've not met for over half a decade now. It's amazing that they still remember me. Anyway, 'nuff on me and more on the movie. I dare say that I really did appreciate it, and it's a rather decent remake.
Now, the narrative is largely the same as Let The Right One In, and it does stay reasonably faithful to the book's narrative even though a few key areas were significantly changed. In fact, I am struck by how the director managed to reproduce choice phrases from the translated book practically verbatim. I dare say that the camera work was stellar, and while the film was made with almost exclusively close shots, the intimacy of the scenes were striking to the extent that one did not miss the establishing shots. I would call it a masterpiece in terms of camera work.
As is expected, the remake is significantly bloodier than the original, and a whole lot less subtle. In fact, the very act of making the blood and some key action bits obvious has resulted in fairly comical moments. I would not help but see Eli/Abby as Gollum in certain scenes. Some drawn out struggles wound up laughable instead of brutal. That aside, I certainly felt for the acting, and it really was close enough to the original to be worth seeing as a comparison. I also do wish the directors would refrain from turning every damn story into a romance.
I find that the original suffers for the lack of awesome camera technique, and this remake suffers from a lack of subtlety. If the two could've been put together, with the camera from this and the subtlety and narrative from the oldie, I'd have the perfect rendition of the rather fine book. I'd still give this movie an 8/10, however.
Now, the narrative is largely the same as Let The Right One In, and it does stay reasonably faithful to the book's narrative even though a few key areas were significantly changed. In fact, I am struck by how the director managed to reproduce choice phrases from the translated book practically verbatim. I dare say that the camera work was stellar, and while the film was made with almost exclusively close shots, the intimacy of the scenes were striking to the extent that one did not miss the establishing shots. I would call it a masterpiece in terms of camera work.
As is expected, the remake is significantly bloodier than the original, and a whole lot less subtle. In fact, the very act of making the blood and some key action bits obvious has resulted in fairly comical moments. I would not help but see Eli/Abby as Gollum in certain scenes. Some drawn out struggles wound up laughable instead of brutal. That aside, I certainly felt for the acting, and it really was close enough to the original to be worth seeing as a comparison. I also do wish the directors would refrain from turning every damn story into a romance.
I find that the original suffers for the lack of awesome camera technique, and this remake suffers from a lack of subtlety. If the two could've been put together, with the camera from this and the subtlety and narrative from the oldie, I'd have the perfect rendition of the rather fine book. I'd still give this movie an 8/10, however.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Defining Dinner
Sometimes I wonder if I just had dinner, or if it was lunch. Seeing as how I wake somewhat late on weekends, I would define it as lunch, by my standard. Who cares about what society says about when dinner really is. If it's the second meal of the day, I'd call it lunch. By my definition, there are generally 3 proper meals in a day, even if the meals are voluntarily skipped (in which case it's simply a skipped proper meal). Therefore, the first meal is breakfast (regardless when you wake), the second is lunch, and the third is dinner.
Then, out of curiosity, I tried to find out just when the three meals were, in other cultures and other eras. I was fairly surprised to find that the meal timings were hardly as ordered as they are today, and in fact three was really quite an arbitrary number anyway. It just so happens that the current culture simply favors having three meals at these rather specific times. I expect that the timings would shift yet again in the next 50 to 100 years or so. Perhaps the trend would be towards 5 mini meals instead. Or 7. Who knows. Maybe they like prime numbers. Anyway, that said, I now find nothing wrong with defining my mealtimes as I like to. After all, if humanity in general can't really make up their minds over just when a proper meal is taken, I see no reason why I can't concoct my own definitions. And I'm standing by my definitions till I change my mind. So there.
Then, out of curiosity, I tried to find out just when the three meals were, in other cultures and other eras. I was fairly surprised to find that the meal timings were hardly as ordered as they are today, and in fact three was really quite an arbitrary number anyway. It just so happens that the current culture simply favors having three meals at these rather specific times. I expect that the timings would shift yet again in the next 50 to 100 years or so. Perhaps the trend would be towards 5 mini meals instead. Or 7. Who knows. Maybe they like prime numbers. Anyway, that said, I now find nothing wrong with defining my mealtimes as I like to. After all, if humanity in general can't really make up their minds over just when a proper meal is taken, I see no reason why I can't concoct my own definitions. And I'm standing by my definitions till I change my mind. So there.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Reunions
Yesterday, I met a friend I did not personally meet for just about 6 years. I guess my friends and I have a rather unusual perspective of time, seeing as how we can jump right back into a rather familiar conversation as if we last met the day before. Perhaps it has something to do with how little we change over the years. I know for one that I am still readily recognizable by people from my earlier years. I guess overall we don't really change as much as we think we do.
Anyway it's been really great to finally meet up again, at a comics convention no less. In fact I did bump into a number of people who knew me, and it's really so nice to see the fellas I'm reasonably close with. I think the key differentiator between those I regard as acquaintances and those I regard as friends is not just the trial by fire thing (which would define my inner circle), but that they have not forgotten the important bits of our time together even despite having not met for like ages.
In fact, I did not exactly recognize my friend when she first glomped me. It's something I do feel somewhat bad about, but then again I'm bad with faces and it doesn't help if people change even slightly. Hell I often can't recognize the same face if a picture with a different expression was presented to me. That aside, I had little trouble getting into the swing of things, and I guess that's a mutual memory and that's what counts. Much as I don't necessarily value relationships with humans, I do say that some are worth keeping. Some.
Anyway it's been really great to finally meet up again, at a comics convention no less. In fact I did bump into a number of people who knew me, and it's really so nice to see the fellas I'm reasonably close with. I think the key differentiator between those I regard as acquaintances and those I regard as friends is not just the trial by fire thing (which would define my inner circle), but that they have not forgotten the important bits of our time together even despite having not met for like ages.
In fact, I did not exactly recognize my friend when she first glomped me. It's something I do feel somewhat bad about, but then again I'm bad with faces and it doesn't help if people change even slightly. Hell I often can't recognize the same face if a picture with a different expression was presented to me. That aside, I had little trouble getting into the swing of things, and I guess that's a mutual memory and that's what counts. Much as I don't necessarily value relationships with humans, I do say that some are worth keeping. Some.
Monday, December 06, 2010
Avoiding Silver
There's a reason I avoid silver: I get weird reactions with the metal. Or something alloyed into it. Whatever. Which is, of course, why I'd favor alloys like stainless steel and lead-free pewter. And then I realized that lead-free pewter could have silver in it as well. Lovely.
Well the background of the situation is that I got this really nifty ankh I've been meaning to use for a charm on my bracelet. It was sold as "silver pewter", which silly old me figured was...well...silver-colored pewter, since most pewter's silvery anyway. Guess I was wrong. I wore my ankh a couple days, and noticed a strange black residue that showed up on the back of my hand where the pewter was. At first I thought it was leavings from the blackening treatment on the stainless steel, but then I realized that the coloring was not under the steel at all.
Then I recalled that I tended to get weird reactions from silver, and the metal would leave black residues on my skin as well. It clicked, and so I had a check online about pewter...and behold. It seems that some pewter does indeed come with silver mixed in. Lovely. Well, I've had similar situations before, and the solution's always the same: Give that sucker a coat of nail polish. QED. Still, it is an item with the exact right shape, size and appearance, so I guess I won't be hunting for a replacement.
Well the background of the situation is that I got this really nifty ankh I've been meaning to use for a charm on my bracelet. It was sold as "silver pewter", which silly old me figured was...well...silver-colored pewter, since most pewter's silvery anyway. Guess I was wrong. I wore my ankh a couple days, and noticed a strange black residue that showed up on the back of my hand where the pewter was. At first I thought it was leavings from the blackening treatment on the stainless steel, but then I realized that the coloring was not under the steel at all.
Then I recalled that I tended to get weird reactions from silver, and the metal would leave black residues on my skin as well. It clicked, and so I had a check online about pewter...and behold. It seems that some pewter does indeed come with silver mixed in. Lovely. Well, I've had similar situations before, and the solution's always the same: Give that sucker a coat of nail polish. QED. Still, it is an item with the exact right shape, size and appearance, so I guess I won't be hunting for a replacement.
Saturday, December 04, 2010
Let The Right One In
I just finished watching the 2008 version of this story, and I must admit that I am quite enchanted by it. I've seen my fair share of fangporn, and frankly it does get old after awhile. This one, though, it manages to convey the savagery of a vampire's feeding without making fangs and blood the star of the show. More importantly, it deals with a rather touchy issue of a quasi-platonic romance/friendship between a pair of young boys (albeit one being quite a bit older than your average human).
The narrative is quite faithful to the original book, choosing to showcase key moments from the novel and toning down its sexual aspects. The depiction of bullying is as poignant as the novel's, and truly one can sense the menace of the bullies here. On a side note on the casting, I find it amusing that Eli was actually played by a real female.
On the whole, I'd say the movie's totally worth watching if you can find a DVD of it somewhere. It's a refreshing take on the vampire genre, and rather touching in parts. I'd call it a clean 9/10.
The narrative is quite faithful to the original book, choosing to showcase key moments from the novel and toning down its sexual aspects. The depiction of bullying is as poignant as the novel's, and truly one can sense the menace of the bullies here. On a side note on the casting, I find it amusing that Eli was actually played by a real female.
On the whole, I'd say the movie's totally worth watching if you can find a DVD of it somewhere. It's a refreshing take on the vampire genre, and rather touching in parts. I'd call it a clean 9/10.
Thursday, December 02, 2010
On Immortality
One of my friends was talking at dinner about how he desired immortality. I found it rather amusing, and tried to get him to define exactly the sort of immortality he desired. It proved to be quite a challenging enterprise.
We started off with the typical understanding of physical immortality, that the immortal is incapable of dying. It was all well and good, except that the immortal may not be invincible. What may potentially result is perhaps the chance to become an eternally living pile of ash after incineration, because one is just incapable of dying. Hmm...not so desirable. Perhaps we should throw in preternatural regeneration, vampire style.
The next thing one would wonder at, is whether one could potentially regenerate oneself from a single shed skin cell. In effect, one could perhaps eventually grow an infinite number of clones of oneself, making individuality a rather hairy prospect. Very well, then. A single coherent individual must be maintained even though one is perfectly capable of miraculously regenerating oneself.
Yet, even with a perfectly functional regenerative system, there's no guarantee that one will mentally remain identical to how one was before becoming immortal. For example, the popular idea of becoming a vampire tends to take away one's humanity, so that one's out. So another condition would be that one must maintain one's psychological faculties and essential personality. By implication, one should remain in control of the immortalized body.
After considering the basic personality, another problem came up, since the personal experience of living eternally is quite different from a mortal existence. At some point, one's mental state will begin to diverge from that of an average mortal, because time becomes considered in terms of eternity and boredom with life in general may sink in eventually. In short, one can become a rather depressed immortal that is incapable of killing himself (by virtue of his immortality). It really is quite an undesirable state to be in.
In short, a desirable true immortality turned out to be a rather hairy thing to define, full of if's and but's. It also seems that, without an exit option, one may wind up stuck in a rather unpleasant situation. Ultimately, while one may wish to stay forever healthy, death remains a desirable option at some point...just in case.
We started off with the typical understanding of physical immortality, that the immortal is incapable of dying. It was all well and good, except that the immortal may not be invincible. What may potentially result is perhaps the chance to become an eternally living pile of ash after incineration, because one is just incapable of dying. Hmm...not so desirable. Perhaps we should throw in preternatural regeneration, vampire style.
The next thing one would wonder at, is whether one could potentially regenerate oneself from a single shed skin cell. In effect, one could perhaps eventually grow an infinite number of clones of oneself, making individuality a rather hairy prospect. Very well, then. A single coherent individual must be maintained even though one is perfectly capable of miraculously regenerating oneself.
Yet, even with a perfectly functional regenerative system, there's no guarantee that one will mentally remain identical to how one was before becoming immortal. For example, the popular idea of becoming a vampire tends to take away one's humanity, so that one's out. So another condition would be that one must maintain one's psychological faculties and essential personality. By implication, one should remain in control of the immortalized body.
After considering the basic personality, another problem came up, since the personal experience of living eternally is quite different from a mortal existence. At some point, one's mental state will begin to diverge from that of an average mortal, because time becomes considered in terms of eternity and boredom with life in general may sink in eventually. In short, one can become a rather depressed immortal that is incapable of killing himself (by virtue of his immortality). It really is quite an undesirable state to be in.
In short, a desirable true immortality turned out to be a rather hairy thing to define, full of if's and but's. It also seems that, without an exit option, one may wind up stuck in a rather unpleasant situation. Ultimately, while one may wish to stay forever healthy, death remains a desirable option at some point...just in case.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Sick Of Christmas?
This may sound strange, but I am frankly getting sick of Christmas carols. By extension, I'm losing my patience with commercialized Christmas in general. I find it singularly absurd to see Christmas decor being put up sometime in the last week of October, only to have it dragged on all throughout November. Hell, it's not even December and I'm real tired of seeing all the Christmassy decorations for a festive season that's over a month away. In fact, instead of making me feel like "It's the season!", I'm feeling more like "Man that thing's never coming, you assholes."
What irks me even more is that when I pointed this out to one of my friends, she said that well...December IS Christmas. Which really...that...well I have nothing to say to that, honestly. People, wake the hell up. December is NOT Christmas. December 25th is. Everything else is commentary. It would be nice if the decorations could come up within a decent window like perhaps at the start of December (or at least after Thanksgiving) so that people can get into a festive mood, without having to see the same color scheme and hear the "cheery" music over and over again. Really. Auld Lang Syne is a (bad bad bad bad bad bad bad)^infinity song to hear sometime in November, let alone late October. To you capitalist pigs out there: Fuck you. I hope you're happy that I'm not.
What irks me even more is that when I pointed this out to one of my friends, she said that well...December IS Christmas. Which really...that...well I have nothing to say to that, honestly. People, wake the hell up. December is NOT Christmas. December 25th is. Everything else is commentary. It would be nice if the decorations could come up within a decent window like perhaps at the start of December (or at least after Thanksgiving) so that people can get into a festive mood, without having to see the same color scheme and hear the "cheery" music over and over again. Really. Auld Lang Syne is a (bad bad bad bad bad bad bad)^infinity song to hear sometime in November, let alone late October. To you capitalist pigs out there: Fuck you. I hope you're happy that I'm not.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Megamind
Megamind. Yep it's animation. Since it's animation, we all know how it'll really end: Happy ending. After having watched How To Train Your Dragon, I've come to realize that the creatives aren't afraid of making the endings bittersweet, and I think that's really cool. Well this one isn't. It's got a sweet ending. There. Spoiled it for ya.
Now let's get on to the meat. (Which I happen to like. Bloody, if at all possible.) Megamind's about a misfit alien who just had everything go horribly wrong with his life. This is the classic case of a misfit being forced into being bad. Then of course, he's got a rival alien who's got everything going right for him. Jealousy and rivalry. As is predicted, good will prevail...somehow. What I like is that good doesn't prevail in the most painfully obvious way. No, Metroman doesn't beat the snot out of Megamind, letting Metropolis become a hero-ruled place living happily ever after. On the flip side, I do wish they'd let the villains win once in a while. Or at least remain mostly evil in the end. Seriously.
Overall I'd say that I liked the twists in the plot, even though the constraints of happy ending animations kinda made the twists somewhat easy to anticipate. I'd still say kudos to the team, who managed to make the animation really funny, touching in parts and overall much more satisfying than it would've been as the obvious narrative. I'd say that while the graphics and special effects aren't exactly the most realistic I've seen (and perhaps that is intentional as an art style), the story itself gets a neat 7.5/10 from me. I sorta liked it, but then I shan't knock it for not being my kinda show.
Now let's get on to the meat. (Which I happen to like. Bloody, if at all possible.) Megamind's about a misfit alien who just had everything go horribly wrong with his life. This is the classic case of a misfit being forced into being bad. Then of course, he's got a rival alien who's got everything going right for him. Jealousy and rivalry. As is predicted, good will prevail...somehow. What I like is that good doesn't prevail in the most painfully obvious way. No, Metroman doesn't beat the snot out of Megamind, letting Metropolis become a hero-ruled place living happily ever after. On the flip side, I do wish they'd let the villains win once in a while. Or at least remain mostly evil in the end. Seriously.
Overall I'd say that I liked the twists in the plot, even though the constraints of happy ending animations kinda made the twists somewhat easy to anticipate. I'd still say kudos to the team, who managed to make the animation really funny, touching in parts and overall much more satisfying than it would've been as the obvious narrative. I'd say that while the graphics and special effects aren't exactly the most realistic I've seen (and perhaps that is intentional as an art style), the story itself gets a neat 7.5/10 from me. I sorta liked it, but then I shan't knock it for not being my kinda show.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Gracie
Well I've finally had the opportunity to attend an introductory Brazillian jiujitsu seminar with Royce Gracie himself. It's really something to have a hands on session with someone you've heard of, and is effectively a legend in the industry. It's a lot like me having a game design workshop with Will Wright, or Ian Livingstone. Awesome!
There really is something to the techniques in BJJ, even though I probably will not be likely to commit to mastering this exceptionally sophisticated art. I am constantly amazed at how easily a BJJ expert can manipulate someone on the ground, even if they resist, to the point of establishing a perfect submission hold. The expert can just as easily maim the person using just a little more force.
However, I find that such groundfighting does not mesh with my general self defense objectives because indeed getting out of a ground situation and ready to escape or take on another opponent would be the sort of situation I am more likely to be in, rather than a one on one duel exclusively on the ground with a single assailant. Which, of course, seems quite in line with what Krav Maga teaches. Anyway, I am very much honored to have had a basic class under Gracie and having learned a few little techniques. This will be one of the more memorable moments, and a fine entry in the blog.
There really is something to the techniques in BJJ, even though I probably will not be likely to commit to mastering this exceptionally sophisticated art. I am constantly amazed at how easily a BJJ expert can manipulate someone on the ground, even if they resist, to the point of establishing a perfect submission hold. The expert can just as easily maim the person using just a little more force.
However, I find that such groundfighting does not mesh with my general self defense objectives because indeed getting out of a ground situation and ready to escape or take on another opponent would be the sort of situation I am more likely to be in, rather than a one on one duel exclusively on the ground with a single assailant. Which, of course, seems quite in line with what Krav Maga teaches. Anyway, I am very much honored to have had a basic class under Gracie and having learned a few little techniques. This will be one of the more memorable moments, and a fine entry in the blog.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Generic Systems
There is value in designing generic systems that are basically highly flexible. The merits of such systems is that their attributes are sufficiently generic so that they may be reused in different forms without requiring a complete redevelopment of the system every time something is changed. In short, it saves a lot of unnecessary busywork.
An example of a generic system is seen in how someone would make...say...a fireball spell and magic missile spell. A generic system can generate both the fireball and magic missile's effects without requiring excessive external development. In short, one will not be coding the two spells independently.
To achieve the development of a truly generic system, commonalities must be distilled from the forseeable requirements. A magic missile spell deals direct damage from homing projectiles while a fireball deals AOE damage from dumb projectiles. A possible generic system would have variables like damage, speed of projectile, area of effect and a boolean value for homing. Therefore, a fireball may have attributes like AOE: 50, damage: 20, speed: 40, homing = true while a magic missile may have AOE:0, damage: 30, speed: 50, homing = false.
The balancing factor here, however, is whether creating the generic system will indeed save more effort than it takes to do everything in a one-off manner. Yet, it is generally a good idea to go generic even if the obvious gains are marginal, simply because one can never forsee whether the easily created variants are going to come in handy just beyond the forseeable future.
An example of a generic system is seen in how someone would make...say...a fireball spell and magic missile spell. A generic system can generate both the fireball and magic missile's effects without requiring excessive external development. In short, one will not be coding the two spells independently.
To achieve the development of a truly generic system, commonalities must be distilled from the forseeable requirements. A magic missile spell deals direct damage from homing projectiles while a fireball deals AOE damage from dumb projectiles. A possible generic system would have variables like damage, speed of projectile, area of effect and a boolean value for homing. Therefore, a fireball may have attributes like AOE: 50, damage: 20, speed: 40, homing = true while a magic missile may have AOE:0, damage: 30, speed: 50, homing = false.
The balancing factor here, however, is whether creating the generic system will indeed save more effort than it takes to do everything in a one-off manner. Yet, it is generally a good idea to go generic even if the obvious gains are marginal, simply because one can never forsee whether the easily created variants are going to come in handy just beyond the forseeable future.
Friday, November 12, 2010
The Human Factor
I've been puzzling over creating an optimized system that would run well with the presence of humans, and I realize that it really is awfully hard to get humans to stick with the system. Firstly, it is expected that humans will have differing opinions of just how optimal the system is, and invariably seek to "improve" it by various actions ranging from suggestions to outright disobedience.
In fact, humans themselves cannot be trusted to administer the system in the way originally intended, because they are likely to form different interpretations and opinions about the rules. These aspects of free will invariably serve to color and vary the implementation of the system. This is not to say that the variance cannot possibly be an improvement on the system. Unfortunately, if the system was carefully planned to achieve optimized results, it is very likely that any tweaks attempted would simply result in a less than optimal outcome.
Realistically, one may choose to approximate such a hypothetical system by factoring in the probable suboptimal human responses to each of the rules, such that the net effect of following the rules will be in line with the optimized plan. Unfortunately, this may involve implementing certain extreme penalties to strongly nudge probable behaviors away from suboptimal directions...
In fact, humans themselves cannot be trusted to administer the system in the way originally intended, because they are likely to form different interpretations and opinions about the rules. These aspects of free will invariably serve to color and vary the implementation of the system. This is not to say that the variance cannot possibly be an improvement on the system. Unfortunately, if the system was carefully planned to achieve optimized results, it is very likely that any tweaks attempted would simply result in a less than optimal outcome.
Realistically, one may choose to approximate such a hypothetical system by factoring in the probable suboptimal human responses to each of the rules, such that the net effect of following the rules will be in line with the optimized plan. Unfortunately, this may involve implementing certain extreme penalties to strongly nudge probable behaviors away from suboptimal directions...
Thursday, November 04, 2010
Apple Cider
I was having a drink with my colleagues this evening, and I managed to sample Green Goblin apple cider. For a drink that's 6% alcohol, it tastes remarkably like Jolly Shandy. In fact, it is a lot like a beer that manages not to taste like pee and still has a respectable oomph.
Cider aside, there really is something invigorating to having a drink with friends at night. Especially a bunch that's capable of taking my jokes without spewing their dinners shortly afterward. It is a good crowd. It also helps that they're not particularly inclined to spend the entire night drinking, which rapidly becomes a bore after the first few drinks.
Overall, it's been a good week. Big meetings, things going well overall. It is nice to feel like one's actually achieved something, aside from the usual daily grind. It is also comforting to know that I am still growing. The day I stop growing is the day I should change my career path.
Cider aside, there really is something invigorating to having a drink with friends at night. Especially a bunch that's capable of taking my jokes without spewing their dinners shortly afterward. It is a good crowd. It also helps that they're not particularly inclined to spend the entire night drinking, which rapidly becomes a bore after the first few drinks.
Overall, it's been a good week. Big meetings, things going well overall. It is nice to feel like one's actually achieved something, aside from the usual daily grind. It is also comforting to know that I am still growing. The day I stop growing is the day I should change my career path.
Were-Hamsters
When I was considering the spoof of the Twilight saga, it does make me wonder why every were-creature seems to be some sort of highly aggressive carnivore. Were-lions, wolves, panthers, sometimes birds of prey. You rarely hear of were-hamsters or gerbils or guinea pigs, or even gazelles.
A friend proposed that a were-creature has to be aggressive, and carnivorous because they're more likely to bite. However, were that to be true, then we should be having a lot of were-hamsters and perhaps were-mosquitoes, since they are biting creatures and may well transmit the were-syndrome.
I think the general rule is that a were-creature has to be conceptually cool. If the creature in question is not cool, it is unable to transmit the were-syndrome. Alternatively, an uncool animal may be sufficiently unnoticeable that a were-uncool animal would pass unnoticed and never be noted in popular folklore. Of course, I have little doubt that the ancient lorekeepers have records of these creatures hidden somewhere in their archives.
A friend proposed that a were-creature has to be aggressive, and carnivorous because they're more likely to bite. However, were that to be true, then we should be having a lot of were-hamsters and perhaps were-mosquitoes, since they are biting creatures and may well transmit the were-syndrome.
I think the general rule is that a were-creature has to be conceptually cool. If the creature in question is not cool, it is unable to transmit the were-syndrome. Alternatively, an uncool animal may be sufficiently unnoticeable that a were-uncool animal would pass unnoticed and never be noted in popular folklore. Of course, I have little doubt that the ancient lorekeepers have records of these creatures hidden somewhere in their archives.
Monday, November 01, 2010
Living The System
The people are a reflection of the system they are in. I was thinking about crime. Take for example the chance that a gang of hooligans decides to assault a lone person. Intuitively, one should be justified in using any means necessary in order to stop the attack and thereby defend oneself. An extension of this self defense is the possibility of justifiable homicide.
I was discussing the matter with some friends, regarding how they would defend themselves in a life threatening situation. Indeed, the ideal solutions would be to avoid the conflict in the first place or perhaps to flee. Yet, sometimes I do wonder whether flight is always the best possible option to aid one's survival. If flight is not an option in a situation, the logical thing to do next is to stand and make a last stand.
Realistically, one cannot possibly expect to defend oneself against a large group of assailants. However, it may be possible to take one down in a sufficiently intimidating way such that it discourages the rest from continuing the assault. One such method is a messy kill. It was pointed out that if I did exercise that option, I would be slapped with a lawsuit even in the unlikely event that I should succeed.
That got me thinking. If the use of deadly force is never justified in self defense, the system weighs fairly soundly in favor of criminals (or assailants). They have already committed a crime by acting as aggressors, yet one cannot respond with deadly force to avoid becoming a victim of aggression. Such a mindset may also explain the reluctance of bystanders to intervene in an assault, not just from the prospect of being harmed, but also from fear of legal repercussions from trying to aid another person. Whether the legal system does indeed rule in this manner seems to be less relevant than the public perception of how such rulings go, with respect to how a responsible citizen would or could respond in these situations. Indeed, the perception of the system is sufficient to shape the behaviors of those living within it.
I was discussing the matter with some friends, regarding how they would defend themselves in a life threatening situation. Indeed, the ideal solutions would be to avoid the conflict in the first place or perhaps to flee. Yet, sometimes I do wonder whether flight is always the best possible option to aid one's survival. If flight is not an option in a situation, the logical thing to do next is to stand and make a last stand.
Realistically, one cannot possibly expect to defend oneself against a large group of assailants. However, it may be possible to take one down in a sufficiently intimidating way such that it discourages the rest from continuing the assault. One such method is a messy kill. It was pointed out that if I did exercise that option, I would be slapped with a lawsuit even in the unlikely event that I should succeed.
That got me thinking. If the use of deadly force is never justified in self defense, the system weighs fairly soundly in favor of criminals (or assailants). They have already committed a crime by acting as aggressors, yet one cannot respond with deadly force to avoid becoming a victim of aggression. Such a mindset may also explain the reluctance of bystanders to intervene in an assault, not just from the prospect of being harmed, but also from fear of legal repercussions from trying to aid another person. Whether the legal system does indeed rule in this manner seems to be less relevant than the public perception of how such rulings go, with respect to how a responsible citizen would or could respond in these situations. Indeed, the perception of the system is sufficient to shape the behaviors of those living within it.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Love Thyself
I believe one's first priority in life should be to learn to love oneself. I find it curious that loving oneself is often associated with narcissism and is thus generally frowned upon. To me, loving oneself and being narcissistic are two different things. One's about having a healthy self-love so that one does not develop self esteem issues, and the other is about loving oneself to excess such that one becomes incapable of considering others' needs.
In my opinion, one is incapable of truly loving others if one cannot actually love oneself. In fact, those who do not love themselves seem to be the sorts of people who act in a mean manner towards others, or seem to mechanically perform beneficial acts without self-motivated intention. For example, I know of people who have a very other-driven aspirations. When they do things, it's exclusively for the sake of other people. I do not believe it to be a bad thing to wish others well, regardless of the origin of those motivations. However, I find their situation to be precarious, because the actions are done in an effort to seek approval from others so they feel validated in loving themselves. Basically, should that approval disappear for any reason, their self esteem crashes. It is not unlike a junkie seeking a fix.
Then again, self-love is not necessarily something that is easy for everyone. There are various reasons for it, ranging from real personal problems to trouble overcoming social conditioning. I suppose it helps some that I am something of a narcissist and would generally do things primarily for myself, but then again I also have little trouble doing beneficial things for largely altruistic reasons. Regardless, my view of life is to first love oneself, and the other loves will follow. Mostly.
In my opinion, one is incapable of truly loving others if one cannot actually love oneself. In fact, those who do not love themselves seem to be the sorts of people who act in a mean manner towards others, or seem to mechanically perform beneficial acts without self-motivated intention. For example, I know of people who have a very other-driven aspirations. When they do things, it's exclusively for the sake of other people. I do not believe it to be a bad thing to wish others well, regardless of the origin of those motivations. However, I find their situation to be precarious, because the actions are done in an effort to seek approval from others so they feel validated in loving themselves. Basically, should that approval disappear for any reason, their self esteem crashes. It is not unlike a junkie seeking a fix.
Then again, self-love is not necessarily something that is easy for everyone. There are various reasons for it, ranging from real personal problems to trouble overcoming social conditioning. I suppose it helps some that I am something of a narcissist and would generally do things primarily for myself, but then again I also have little trouble doing beneficial things for largely altruistic reasons. Regardless, my view of life is to first love oneself, and the other loves will follow. Mostly.
Friday, October 15, 2010
The Writer's Gaze
I was reading the work of a local writer, and basically found the writing style to be clumsy. I tried to identify exactly what was clumsy about the style, which seemed quite common to new local writers.
The style, as I would describe it, is akin to having a fixed writer's gaze. A novel, like a movie, has a gaze. This gaze essentially is the camera in a movie or a perspective in the novel. When the gaze is fixed, the narrative starts feeling stilted. An example of such stilting is the constant act of describing what happens in the story from a fixed perspective. The woman enters the bathroom. It has pink tiles. She turns on the water and soaks in the tub once it is full.
Now, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the description. It does indeed let the reader know what is going on in the scene. However, the perspective taken also creates a sense of distance, with a distinct lack of richness. How does the bathroom smell? What are the sounds? Is there something going on in the immediate area? Undoubtedly, there are times when distance is desirable and can even be used to create suspense. However, when an entire story starts being written with such distance and lack of sensory richness, it gets stale in a hurry.
The style, as I would describe it, is akin to having a fixed writer's gaze. A novel, like a movie, has a gaze. This gaze essentially is the camera in a movie or a perspective in the novel. When the gaze is fixed, the narrative starts feeling stilted. An example of such stilting is the constant act of describing what happens in the story from a fixed perspective. The woman enters the bathroom. It has pink tiles. She turns on the water and soaks in the tub once it is full.
Now, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the description. It does indeed let the reader know what is going on in the scene. However, the perspective taken also creates a sense of distance, with a distinct lack of richness. How does the bathroom smell? What are the sounds? Is there something going on in the immediate area? Undoubtedly, there are times when distance is desirable and can even be used to create suspense. However, when an entire story starts being written with such distance and lack of sensory richness, it gets stale in a hurry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)