Search for Sanity

I knew I made this blog for a reason...

2010-05-16T03:10:00.004-04:00

Restless during the black of night, I throw back the bedsheets, overheating from the almost suffocating blankets but just as quickly replacing them as the cold crawls over me again. I had forgotten the joys associated with summer in Toronto.

Strange, in a sense, firing up the computer circuits at 3am to find some outlet for the hamster that won't stop running on the wheel (thanks for the phrase Ryan). It turns out that putting finger to key (and again) and actually staring at my own incoherent thoughts is as ridiculous as it sounds.

And yet I couldn't help reading over a few past posts and thinking, "hey, with the exception of certain terrible sentences/posts/ideas, this writing is actually passable." At the very least I didn't feel like editing the posts into oblivion, so that must be something.

I find myself torn: unable to dive into my summer science fiction reading because of academic commitments I find myself without my first line of defence against insomnia.

Unwilling to sell my soul to the TTC and impatient customers, I am wary of the financial reserves dwindling and reducing my capabilities for alternative sleep inducing methods even further.

Don't get me wrong, the summer holds promise. G20/G8 meetings always raise public awareness and participation (as well they should), two weeks settling in has seen the release of multiple blockbuster hits - all of which I have yet to see - and more are in store.

Update: Michael Bryant had the charges of reckless driving and negligence causing death dropped, on grounds that there was no reasonable chance of conviction. Bikers took to the street in response, holding up traffic during the regular rush hour out of the city.

On to less dramatic affairs...

A newly discovered local book store has become a wonderful place to spend time, both chatting with the owner and perusing the shelves; in true independent fashion one is required to put on the ol' Indiana fedora and go hunting through shelves of artifacts and treasures. And there thur be gold!

Why then the insomnia? Surely reacquainting with friends missed during the year and a fresh bookshelf and theatre is more than sufficient. Although personally a fan of the cold rather than warm (and willing to bitch regardless of what season it is), even the weather is cooperative. Until this week.

In retrospect this sounds more like the rambling of middle class white kid. Loving girlfriend, finished degree, full belly and warm bed blah blah blah the stereotype goes on. However, akin to my peers and those less endowed, I find myself facing bleak summer job opportunities and uncertain career prospects.

Somewhat ironically, my successful application to graduate school (promptly splattered on the front of my resume to distinguish from those who were on the "5-0 to go program") has actually hindered job search opportunities. Full time positions are everywhere, having been shut out of at least three in my local neighbourhood, but part time seasonal work seems to be MIA.

The green numbers continue to get smaller, almost taking on a slightly reddish hue as they shrink in size.

STS-128 Discovery Shuttle Launch

2009-08-29T11:10:00.002-04:00

Retrieved from NASA TV.

Night launches are sick. Nothing else comes close.

Inglourious Basterds

2009-08-24T16:37:00.006-04:00

My mind is still recovering from the all assault of Tarantino brutality. His latest work leaves divided opinions.

Part of me loves the film. The no-holds-barred approach to a Nazi vengeance film ranks the work on the level of Saw, High Tension and Hostel in terms of violence. Make no mistake: your $12.50 admission is not covering plot. It's going towards the number of props that were destroyed by explosions, blunt force trauma, knives, machine guns and a various array of other weapons. It's probably also going to cover some of the inevitable complaints from Germany and whoever decided this film was 14A. Laced with his well known dialogue and comedic relief, the film had the audience laughing and reclining in horror from second to second.

And yet, despite immensely enjoying the movie, a part of me hates myself for enjoying it. Not because it's a senseless attack on the Third Reich. Not because it had Brad Pitt in it. Simply put, this movie was a sell-out. As game developers have learned, brutalizing Nazis sells. Hardcore. To me, this was nothing but an underhanded attempt to cash in on the latest violence fetish in moviegoers combined with North American society's love for bashing the Reich. I had always held Tarantino above that standard, his films were unique and stood in a league of their own. I'm not deifying him, only pointing out that previous films had a fantastic ability to take a simple story and spice it up in a new fashion. Well, this certainly isn't an original story, but it lacks that unique flair that I so enjoyed about his films.

Comprehensive analysis aside, everything else about the film was fantastic. Brad Pitt and his 'Basterds' were delightful. Negative reviews often say they didn't have enough screen time, but I'd beg to differ. Pitt's few scenes and distance from the story only enhanced his character. After all, that fleeting moment where Dracula crosses the scene is far more spectacular then following his every step. The acting was top notch across the cast. Christopher Waltz played Col. Hans Landa and stole the show. Even with Pitt failing miserably (and hilariously) at an Italian accent, Waltz kept the spotlight on himself. Definitely the star of the film.

The music and cinematography was standard Tarantino. Read: excellent. In his style of filmmaking there is no competition. The scene where the German Sergeant is about to be interrogated is a fine example of this.

Despite having so much fun, my reservations still hold. I think this movie is going on the list of guilty pleasures I so loathe and love simultaneously. I hate myself for loving it. After all, despite all the ingenuity and creativity, this movie wasn't made to tell a story. It seemed tailor made to appeal to a wide variety of audiences who would pay to see this movie again and again, and then buy the DVD with deleted scenes full of violent brutality. Damn Tarantino for selling out, and damn him for doing it so well.

Defying Gravity

2009-08-18T00:12:00.004-04:00

I cannot believe a) I watched this and b) I'm going to write about it. Let us be straight from launch time: this is Grey's Anatomy in space. Everyone either has or is sleeping with everyone, and this show is not propelled by science or science fiction: it's a drama. In space. Like the Titanic buffs who claimed they watched the movie six times "for the ship", I'm watching this one in hopes of some light entertainment in a fashion that I don't find horrid. I binged three episodes, and have a few remarks.

This show has potential. There is enough drama in the introduction episodes to keep the show going, as long as the ideas flow. If the storyline is drawn out any more than it is now, Defying Gravity is going to crawl to a halt and flop. At least in my eyes. As much as I prefer something a little more intellectual, it's nice to relax every now and again with something a bit lighter. With a show that still takes place in space, I can deal with the drama. Some of it is mildly entertaining. My only caution: this show thinks it has some monumental messages to share with you about dating, life, sex and work. I pray to dead gods that nobody EVER listens to advice they received on a show like this.

That aside. Ron Livingston earned enough street cred in Office Space for me to watch the rest of his acting career. Having him as the star is a HUGE plus for me. The rest of the actors are popular, but not Hollywood. They can certainly hold their own, and I haven't had any serious problem with the acting thus far.

Onto the science. Of course, this type of show doesn't cater to those who lose their minds in the intricacies of time dilation and interstellar travel. It's for Grey's fans. I should hope that they would be smart enough to question the science, but I'm not that optimistic about our species. People are easily sated. First off, gravity. It made me REALLY happy that they inserted a stupid one liner that answered the question of gravity on the ship. It's actually a cool idea, electromagnetic forces in the astronaut's suits hold them down, but everyday objects float in microgravity. They demonstrated how this worked on a tomato, but dropped the ball on other objects. That's fine with me - I know this show isn't about science.

However, I have one VERY large bone to pick with the producers. Or editors. Or ANYONE I can speak to who is involved with this show. I think it was episode two when they had launched the vessel on its mission and began to broadcast a science lesson back home to children in elementary school. If this isn't ringing any bells, fear not, I won't hit you. Maybe with a book, but not my hand. One of the objectives of Christa McAuliffe's presence on the 1986 Challenger mission was to broadcast a space lesson to elementary school children. For those living under a rock, Challenger exploded tragically 73 seconds after takeoff in January of 1986 due to an O-Ring's exposure to cold temperatures. If this was meant to be a tribute, it missed the mark SLIGHTLY by not making it more obvious. The plot line in the show was tasteless and offensive, and I wasn't even born then. If your going to put such a topic into your show, you must, MUST tell your audiences about it's purpose. After all, Grey's Anatomy fans aren't likely to know anything about that tragedy.

Phew. Got that off my chest. One last one: the opening of the pilot shows Ron Livingston blasting off of Mars and abandoning two astronauts APPARENTLY because of a storm. Of course, his character demands to stay to save them but is overrode by mission control. And he bites the bullet for the decision. Without further development, this is ENTIRELY implausible. I'm willing to buy that communications between the ship and earth isn't subject to time delays, it would make for VERY slow television: I'm sorry, but your message has taken the entire sixty minute time slot just to REACH EARTH, you'll get a response next episode. I can let it slide. But there really needs to be more development on that decision to abandon the astronauts, it just plain looks bad. It seems that this plot line is being investigated, so I'm holding out hope that it may be drawn out a bit more.

Ranting aside, there is one aspect of the show that stands out as extraordinary to me. Defying Gravity is aimed for a mainstream audience. I imagine a scenario where students are discussing the latest developments on some TV show that I have zero interest in and have never watched. This actually requires little imagination. However, in the case of Defying Gravity, I would be able to contribute and participate in this conversation. This should be qualified. I don't care in the least about talking about stupid television shows with brainless slobs, I'd rather listen to music and stay in my own world. The benefit is on the other end: for the first time since Apollo, space could be mainstream and appeal to a wide audience. This show has the potential to bring space exploration and developments to a popular audience who, as much as it pains me to admit, NASA and other agencies need the support of.

Contrast this with Battlestar Galactica. One of the most incredible science fiction shows to take place on television, it remained the realm of the dork. Which I was perfectly content with: dumb commentary is hard to come by when your audience has an IQ over 100. I can't say the same for shows like Canadian Idol or So You Think You Can Dance. More like So You Think You Can Make Me Dumber? In any case, Defying Gravity may be a baby step which reinvigorates public interest in space. Especially in light of NASA's desire to return to the moon by 2020 and Mars thereafter.

Soft science fiction to be sure, but entertaining. This shows greatest potential in my eyes is its chance to bring space to a popular audience. For BSG fans, this is a nice break until Caprica starts up in September. Watch with an open mind.

District 9

2009-08-17T21:52:00.004-04:00

Dee 9. Other than the local hermit, everyone has heard something about this movie. Whether it's "I think it's by the same guy who did LOTR" or "this movie will save Sci-Fi this summer", D9 is on people's minds. The advertisements across the cities help too. Humans only. Non-Humans Banned.

The hype reminded me somewhat of Cloverfield. Everybody knew something about it, but the mystery built it up further. Cloverfield couldn't live up to the hype (at least to the masses, I thought it was enjoyable). D9 delivered with style. Rampant, adrenaline fueled, savage style. Following an alternate universe (presumably) in which an alien species lands over Johannesburg in 1982, D9 explains how humans initially attempted to help them, but failed. Their efforts were in vain, and the medical camps shortly turned into concentration camps. The first act follows these developments, and introduces the protagonist Wikus Van De Merwe. Played by Sharlto Copley, I wasn't initially sure if this character was supposed to be a joke or just an idiot.

Bureaucratic incompetence has not been lost on filmmakers. 'Beginning' the story - the film acts as a documentary - the aliens are forced into a camp outside the city with Van De Merwe asking for signatures on eviction notices. The social commentary was not lost in translation, there are many similar situations around the world today (minus the aliens) and hopefully District 9 will shine a flashlight into those darkened corners of the earth. Must be an optimistic day.

Regardless, D9 follows the action as the evictions go awry and Van De Merwe discovers that D9 holds a lot of interesting secrets. For his film debut, I must say I was thorough impressed. Requiring a wide range of emotion, the acting was spot on. My midnight screening had the audience laughing and gasping with each twist and turn. Starting a little slowly, the movie develops the storyline during the second act. Give D9 some patience, and the third act will blow you away. THIS is the movie that SF fans have waited for all summer.

This New Ocean

2009-08-11T15:44:00.010-04:00

William E. Burrows, This New Ocean. 1998.

Perusing this book at BMV, I was initially intimidated. At 650 pages and what appears to be no larger than size 10 font, I knew I was in for the long haul. I didn't expect to have it finished before the summer, commuter reading proves difficult on certain days. Balancing a coffee, a hefty book and a full subway (see this post for my thoughts on subways) makes for interesting travel. Nevertheless, after cracking open this behemoth I was hooked. To be sure, this book could be the subject of a master's thesis. At the very least, it deserves full academic review. However, as I realize that that turns away some readership (and I enjoy receiving academic credit for academic work), I'll just leave you with the reader's digest. It would be best to start at the earliest points in the work, antiquity.

Classical Misfortunes

Beginning with the natural sciences in antiquity, Burrows provides excellent insight into man's understanding of the cosmos. He investigates Aristotle's geocentric universe as well as those who disagreed, examining the evolution of the geocentric ideals. Burrows covers the expanse of astronomy from the ancients, through the Middle Ages and into modern Europe. His work differs from most historians in one very critical respect: Burrows captures the work of scientists across the globe. Rudimentary rocket science in China, Korea and Europe is carefully balanced, and connections between them are made evident. This strength would be evident throughout his work. After summarizing human knowledge of rocket science and the cosmos, he dives into humanity's reach for the stars.

The First Space Age

Burrows' writing is spectacular. With few exceptions, the work is fluid and easy for the layman to read. However, there is one difficulty that is present throughout the work. Keeping track of the following can be a daunting task:

mission names,
rocket types,
astronomers,
astronauts,
cosmonauts,
politicians,
administrators,
companies,
contracts,
laws,
military branches,
oh, and you'll be doing this for both the US and Soviet Union.

However, the wealth of information also points to another strength of this work. Burrows was granted access by the Russian government to all of the de-classified Soviet Union documentation that was kept during the space race. He follows the development of rocket science in Russia, and illustrates how it developed on different tangents from the American space program. The notion that the Soviets merely stole American or German secrets is a misnomer. As laid out by Burrows, the evidence indicates that the Soviet Union in fact had a rich and flourishing rocket industry led by intellectual Sergey Korolyov.

From Burrows' perspective, it was the Cold War and the Soviet methodology which led to the ultimate failure of the Russian space program (at least until the launch of Mir). Citing poor manufacturing, inter-agency bickering, politics and most of all an overarching emphasis on security ensured that the Soviet space program would come crashing down around them. Superiors taking credit for accomplishments, employee's sabotaging other projects and political misdirection only worsened the problems.

This New Ocean also exposed many of the problems which plagued NASA during these very same years. Before the agency's creation, all three branches of the military (army, navy, air force) vied for control of the space program. With NASA's inception in 1958, each branch of the armed forces entirely resented a civilian agency having any responsibility whatsoever in affairs deemed crucial to national defense.

In relation to the Soviet program, there was one line which stood out to me. Quoting President Kennedy, (of course) Burrows noted that with a single speech, Kennedy was able to turn any potential for disaster into a national tragedy, and any success a triumph of liberty. More adequately put, Kennedy simultaneously turned the world against the Soviet secrecy and placated NASA for any errors which resulted in the loss of human life. At a time when the space 'race' (Burrows debunks any notions that there in fact WAS a race) was at its height, being first landed national prestige. Not only on the individuals who took credit - rarely the same people who were actually responsible - but on the economic system as a whole.

Yuri Gugarin's first flight in space thus marked a triumph of communism over capitalism, and was seen as a great blow to the West. Of course, everyone knows the story of the tortoise and the hare, and Burrows uses this analogy to point out that although the Soviets were first to put a man-made object (Sputnik) and a man into space, the United States was able to overcome this with the Apollo program. During the space race, it was all about extravagance and flair, most of the time science took a back seat to the latest spectacle NASA could push into the media.

This rush to space would have drastic consequences. Of course, the first losses in space would not be the Americans. Despite the push for the moon, NASA did not have this dubious honour. In fact, the Soviet Union lost three cosmonauts on a rendezvous mission with their Solyuz program years before the Challenger tragedy. A faulty pressure valve blew during re-entry into the atmosphere, and the depressurization resulted in the cosmonaut's blood boiling instantly. Not a pretty end. And assuredly, it was covered up by the USSR. It was kept secret even after the 1986 Challenger explosion; as Burrows notes, why give the enemy any slack?

If these small examples are of any interest, and you have the time to dive into this work, it is highly recommended. I found the writing fluid, arguments convincing (with only a few minor exceptions) and the ideas easy to retain, if not the details. While not the staple work for covering the space race (Tom Wolfe's The Right Stuff maintains that honour), it was thoroughly enjoyable. If I had only one problem, it would be his lack of vision into future endeavours. Burrows covers the privatization of the space industry after the fall of the Berlin Wall, but hesitates to offer any indication of our next step.

Leaving that to thinking's of Werner von Braun seems to be good enough for both of us though. Von Braun (and many others) undoubtedly dreamt about the development of interplanetary, intergalactic and eventually interstellar space travel. While these things are only dreams to us, remember that it was only twelve generations between the time Galileo discovered the moons of Jupiter and when JPL launched Voyager 2 on the Grand Tour across our solar system. In the end, Burrows' maintains an optimistic viewpoint of human development. Although the right goals were achieved for the wrong reasons, he is hopeful that we are able to put differences aside and work together for the common good.

A fantastic read for anyone interested in space, history or rocket science.

Latest Lunar Experiences

2009-08-07T12:00:00.005-04:00

Moon was certainly an interesting experience. High tension, interesting plot and Kevin Spacey to keep things aloof. I must confess, I did catch myself nodding off during a few of the less enjoyable scenes. There were a slew of "is this really how it is" scenes that the characters used to explain the situation which didn't hold my attention.

Not that this movie can be appreciated without seeing it in full. Moon was thoroughly enjoyable, but just not fantastic. It may have taken a few notes from 2001, notably GERTY, but this was no space odyssey.

For a film that needed an atmosphere of isolation and desolation, it lacked the cinematography to pull it off. The laboratories felt cramped and confined, but it was almost as if going outside was freedom. The film lacked those wide range panoramas that show just how alone the protagonist was. You would expect the film to be full of shots covering the moon and the earth in the background, but they were rare treats. Somehow the "this movie takes place off the earth" did not translate into epic.

Moon's redemption was in Sam Rockwell. For a character that essentially interacted with a computer (who displayed emotion through an AMAZING happy/sad/confused face emoticon) and himself, Rockwell kept the movie moving forward.

Also. A small gripe. The producers had a FANTASTIC opportunity to have fun with the gravity difference, but with the exception of ONE scene this fact appears to have been COMPLETELY ignored. Moreover, for someone who's supposed to be alone on the moon, I'd wonder why there were TWO rovers. It seemed out of place.

7/10. Worth seeing, but probably not in a theater.

$25.00 an hour to do Jack. And Jack just left town.

2009-08-06T23:19:00.006-04:00

Nobody can really tell you. They didn't make that during the last five weeks, but they did the same they do on their job: nothing. Toronto's City Workers are our best and brightest. They must make life and death decisions instantly, like the Toronto Police Service. They have to have a knowledge of medicine, saving lives while flying through the streets with lights blaring. Hell, they even carry guns. If you're scratching your head wondering what type of alternate reality I'm describing, take a seat.

The job requirements are of another dimension, the pay is not. After nearly 40 days of striking, the unions got what they asked for. Let's get this in the open before it gets brushed under the carpet. At a time when 10% of Toronto's population is unemployed, CUPE (some useless acronym) demanded a 15% raise over three years and the same sick day benefits that the TPS has. Our mayor David Miller proclaims the city won the negotiations. So does the union. Too bad only one of them is right.

And with negotiations concluded, it would seem that the mayor is grossly misinformed: he caved like a pussy in the face of intense union pressures and ultimatums. "Deal or we walk away from the table," the union rep said. Miller cowered and said "Here's your sick days, your 6% over 3 years and oh, yes, $1,200 in overtime pay to clean up the mess YOU started.

It's something wonderful that I can openly criticize the farce this city government has become. And Torontonians aren't pleased about it. Whatever political scheming Miller comes up with, he's done. Anyone who runs against him will have the easiest election campaign of his/her life.

Bitching aside. I was lucky to have avoided most of the trash, I live nowhere near any of the famed trash dumps. Unfortunately I was recruited to tag along on a ride to one of the so called "transfer stations" in and around the Keele area. What proceeded was the most comical, obscene and offensive experience dealing with the city I've ever had. If you will, a re-creation!

The night is dark, and the energy is high. After a long work week, we were scheduled to have some well earned R&R. That is, as soon as we unloaded the entire flatbed of over 200kg of garbage. Pulling into the station, we sat at a red light for what was only a few minutes. One person on shift, lots of vehicles. Totally acceptable. The light turned green, and the truck roared ahead, ready to be rid of the filth contaminating its back. Pull up to the window. Wait. Wait. Wait more.

"Okay, maybe we're supposed to push through?" I said.

"Who knows, lets move up," comrade the first replied. The awful sound of a rusted window opening pierces the air. Followed by an even worse sound.

"HEY! YOU THERE, GET BACK HERE." Apparently the city needs a sign that says "While waiting at the window, please sit in your truck for five minutes before cuntzilla figures out that there is actual work to be done".

After forking over a credit card and having a 'minimum fee' levelled against us, we proceeded into the station. The overwhelming stench of garbage was like walking into a wall. Thankfully, cigarettes prove an excellent refresher. Pulling in, I abandoned my friends - who after all were being paid and had proper gear - to chat up the local guard. I wanted to know how the place worked, what the job entailed and what not. I even offered a cigarette. Perhaps related to the two pints I had had over TWO HOURS PREVIOUS, I had a burning desire to urinate. Asking politely, the worker directed me to the washroom inside the building.

And here is where the fun began. Door, Right, Right hand side, left door, turn right. Sounds easy. Not always. Instead I found a cafeteria/lounge area with two workers. Inquiring into the location of the washroom, I was immediately reminded why I hate dumb people.

"Sorry guys, where's the washroom at?" I asked.

"Do you work here?" was one of the two apes' response.

"No," I replied, "Buddy out front said I could use the washroom, I just need a bit of direction."

"You can't use that washroom." The voice was curt and to the point, little room to negotiate.

"I don't see the problem, buddy outside was pretty chill about it man."

"Look smartass, you can't use it, that's the way it is." At this point, the novelty of arguing with a garbage worker is wearing off and I realize belatedly that logic may not be the best way to get access to the pisser.

"Your partner said it wasn't like that buds." - A favourite condescending army term.

"He's new, he doesn't know shit," was the well articulated response.

"That's irrelevant to me, all I know is he said I could piss, and you're being a dick about it. Seriously, what's the problem?" I don't enjoy taking shit from someone who probably can't count past six.

"People steal shit." Okay, at this point I burst out laughing. I'm standing in some rundown lounge with the stench of stale cigarettes BARELY replacing the putrid smell of poison outside. What could I POSSIBLY steal from a gorram GARBAGE SITE? After stifling a laugh, I thought that "Alright, fine, you can hold my hand if you want to," would be the proper reply.

"Are you high punk? Have too many drinks?" Apparently I was wrong. The sarcasm would have to be tempered.

At this point, buddy is getting agitated and his partner is giving me "my friend is being a douche, but I'm also a douche and going to stay out of it because I'm a douche" look. I wasn't scoring any points with that one.

After dealing with these asshats sitting on their couch for 40 days for benefits they don't deserve, it was time to be a little more assertive.

"Look, this is a public institution. It's tax dollars like mine that pay your ludicrous wages and build places for you to work. I'm completely entitled to use this." Apparently, City Worker Gorilla #1 didn't like this comment.

"You don't want to go down that road. I suggest you get the fuck out of here right now." Hilarious, about time his brawn came to play the lead in this awful scene. He started to rise out of his chair with a less than friendly look. At this point, I assessed the likelihood of my scrawny ass taking on two guys who were clearly far larger (225-250lb range and 180-200lb range) and probably a lot more pissed off than myself.

I responded with: "Fuck you, I'm going to piss all over that trash pit outside. Enjoy your shit job." And then fucking ran. They were too lazy to follow. Gauging your opponent correctly? Priceless.

After explaining to my friends how badly I wanted to pound these guys into meat, I proceeded to do exactly what I said and more: I went and pissed all over buddy's fence and shack over the hill.

This only led to more hilarity. While I was earning my rightful vengeance, my friends pulled the truck through. At which point, the vehicle was minus my wonderfully slim 75kg worth of body mass. Which cuntzilla charged us for.

Unacceptable. After being told we would have to wait over 30 minutes for a supervisor (a hollow threat, you can't bluff that if he's CLEARLY in the back room), cuntzilla told us off and retreated from sight. Five minutes later, supervisor comes out gives some speech about the system that clearly didn't need explaining to anyone over 6 years old. We got our refunded and bailed quick time.

The bottom line? Taxpayers shell out enormous amounts of cash to apes who don't do any work whatsoever and are completely resentful of every living person. It's not my fault you're on strike, it's your union's fault. You're out 5 grand, but you just made 1,200 in 3 days.

If you work at the Keele Transfer Station, you should have attended the high school class where they told you what you could have done with your life.

Curtis Jackson needs a taste of The Hurt Locker

2009-07-27T02:47:00.005-04:00

Whatever bad movie that terrible human with the moniker Fifty Cent was in, forget it forever. Not unlike the Vietnam War, the contemporary War in Iraq has spawned many bad television shows and even worse movies. I found it interesting that with the war wrapping up (read: media outlets not running stories every morning) that a film could pull someone back into its clutches so successfully.

The Hurt Locker does that from the opening scene until the credits roll. The war isn't over for these soldiers. Following the type of men who are not often recognized (except in bad t-shirts) for their efforts in wartime, this film shines the spotlight on the those who walk up to the explosives that everybody else flees from.

EOD: Explosive Ordinance Disposal.

And rightfully so. It takes special people to do a job like that, and that's something Mark Boal and Kathryn Bigelow - writer and director respectively - have not overlooked. Following the harrowing story of the final days of their year long tour in Iraq, the action is tense and acting even more so.

The first person shots only made the film more immersive. Sitting in the audience, it was no stretch to find yourself lost in the show and follow the fear, anxiety and uncertainty each character felt. With a familiar but not starstruck cast, Hollywood couldn't dangle a Tom Cruise and hope to distract less... attentive audiences.

*Cough Valkyrie*

Jeremy Renner's (28 Weeks Later) cavalier character carried the movie, showing that he can indeed hold a lead role. Supported by rising stars Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty (Jarhead),the trio were a pleasure to watch.

Shuffling through the back alleys of Iraq under the cover of darkness, quickly flicking flashlights on and off to clear the darkness, the tension is almost unbearable.

In terms of marking its territory, Boal was generally subtle. There was almost zero political spin, and while the film's tagline 'war is a drug' is a motif through every character, it doesn't define the movie.

WARNING: MINOR SPOILER AHEAD

Boal also maintains the ability to be blunt about different messages. Eldridge's character is confronted with varying moral issues, and is assisted by an army doctor, presumably a psychiatrist (played by Christian Camargo, Rudy from Dexter!). Col. Cambridge (Camargo) chides Eldrige, suggesting that war is a terrific experience that few men enjoy and that the young specialist should relish. When questioned on his experience, his somewhat shocking comment is artfully retorted.

"I've done my share of time in the battlefield, specialist". No stranger to military hierarchy, the return, "How was the battlefield at Yale, Sir?" was fantastic. Camargo's subsequent tour outside the gate, laughable attempt at conversation and actually accomplishing anything was finely met by an older Iraqi woman dropping an IED at his feet. Which promptly exploded, allowing the Colonel to experience the wonderful "adventure" of warfare firsthand.

David Morse's character also stirred a few laughs on a similar subject matter. The old adage of war being old men sending the youth to die was not forgotten.

END SPOILERS

The film is perhaps comparable to the television series Over There, which debuted in 2005. Another no-nonsense approach to the Iraq War, the film has roughly the same feel. Action, but not as filler, plot driven by character development and urban and rural Iraq to round things out.

Definitely worth seeing on the big screen. A movie about bombs begs surround sound and large speakers. See it while it's still in theaters. Mainstream moviegoers won't catch this fine craft, and sadly films that don't top the box office just don't kick around too long these days.

After all, Hollywood would rather shell out the crap that is Bruno/Hangover (enter rant about degeneration of society and film art)than back a movie that requires an IQ in the double digits.

Rats in a Maze, better known as: Life in Toronto

2009-07-23T16:42:00.005-04:00

It is so interesting how the passage of time can alter one's perspective and understanding of various situations. Moving to the small town of Kingston in 2006(approx. population of 120,000)to start my undergraduate journey seemed a forlorn experience. I missed the big city. Lights, ease of transportation, options in all kinds of shopping experiences (groceries, electronics, malls) as well as the endless entertainment. Junk food for the brain, to quote a good line from a bad movie. The story of first year was being stuck in a town of people I didn't know - or particularly like - with absolutely nothing to do.

And let's set the record straight from the start: the native population doesn't like you either.

I couldn't have been more wrong about my beliefs. Three years later, I can't wait to get out of this dreary metropole back to life in a small town. Granted, it's a busy life, with an active student body and a healthy nightlife. There may not be a hundred pubs to choose from in a variety of unique and eclectic neighbourhoods, but if this fiscal year has taught us anything it's that the people you share a drink with matter far more than a flashy venue and 'status' at some pricey nightclub. Credit once again to the Presidential writers who came up with that one.

With a nightlife - and other features - in the city that compete internationally with cities such as New York, Los Angeles and Paris, there's nothing in Toronto you can't find. A friendly Canadian spin on things certainly provides a positive experience for summer travellers. Shopping malls that span entire city blocks and rise into the sky, public transportation that can have you anywhere in the city in under an hour (until something goes wrong)and more than enough entertainment to fill a lifetime, the city should be where it's at. Enough distractions to feed societies seemingly permanent A.D.D.

And yet, living out the summers in this cement hellhole I'm left with an interminable emptiness. Flashy lights and tall towers quickly lose their appeal. Such things can only be a distraction for so long. The thought of going to a nightclub and 'dancing' with hundreds of sweaty, repulsive, intoxicated party goers makes my stomach churn. The tensions of testosterone jacked men who simultaneously believe they're gladiators in some bloodsport and that they are on the top of the world are a joke for anyone with a shred of intelligence. Protip: spending 4,000 a night on bottle service because the waitress challenged your status in front of your friends is PROBABLY a bad decision. Just one example in a sea of others like it. It's not much different in the small town though, thanks to alcohol fueled confidence. But paying off the authorities is an easy way to keep the business going. Or so the rumours say.

Back to the issue. The 'Red Rocket' as it was once called feels more like a way of shuttling rats through a cage. Walk into the nearest subway station and you're immediately assaulted with air that hasn't seen the sun in ages. During the day, it takes no more than five minutes for the next train to come by and assault your every sense. Not even an iPod fully jacked can 'protect' you from the obscenity. Entering onto a train that reeks of piss (thanks to poor ventilation and Toronto's homeless problem), you can enjoy the diversity of Toronto and experience varying cultures' hygenic practices.

Whining about public transit is hardly productive, but when your life revolves around the bus times, perhaps it's time to question the line of work and method of transportation involved. An eight hour work day is transformed into ten - or more - with transit delays and long commutes. And the omnipresent threat of fare hikes to boot.

Bawwwwwwwww.

It's strange actually. Working civilian jobs has proven to be more of a nuisance than military work. Stranger hours, lower pay and bumbling departments make for competition rather than cooperation. The feeling of working together to accomplish a goal is replaced by a feeling of "Okay, I've done my job as far as my wages suggest I should, it wasn't MY fault the ball was dropped". Good old CYA.

Aside from watching the blades fly across the different departments, I find myself asking the age old question: is basing life around a job all that's left? For something that only takes up 1/3 of the 24 hours in a day, it seems odd that life revolves around those hours. I can already hear it: BUT SLEEP? Frak you, sleep. Now, I love it. But I like life too. Maybe things would be different if the work required an ounce of intellect, some form of mental - or even physical - challenge. Unfortunately, that's just not the case.

What's left behind after the glamour is stripped away is starkingly depressing. Sleep, commute, work, commute, sleep. Reduce reuse and recycle for four months of sheer boredom. Unlike everyone else's bitching, I'm now going to offer an actual SOLUTION to these problems.

Solution 1:

Develop a time travelling device and speed forward until the school year begins. Being able to walk everywhere within thirty minutes is far preferable to hour-long commutes on a rat tube. Grappling with interesting problems - and more importantly, interesting solutions - to problems that actually mean something is far more enjoyable then directing the less gifted of the human race towards somewhere that hey, if they only read a sign would know how to find. Of course, because I would have in my power the ability to travel in time, I'd likely explore the entire timeline of human existence before continuing my own studies. If I ever decided to come back.

Solution 2:

Drink and smoke. A lot.

It would seem solution 2 is more practical. And PROBABLY just as much fun. All that's left to do is count down the days until it's possible to leave the city. Garbage, crime, pollution, dumb people and boredom are only the start. An article in a local paper suggested that the closing of Sexual Health Centers in Toronto would lead to an increase in STI's throughout the Greater Toronto Area. Apparently the population of Canada's largest city is too dumb to understand that condoms are good and drunk sex with randoms leads to burning sensations.

Maybe the combination of swine flu, garbage strike and STI's running rampant will evolve into some supervirus. We'll call it AIDS 2.0, and it will provoke a zombie apolcalypse. At least then the retards who can't read street signs will die off. It seems like all civilization does is stave off Darwin's awesome factor and let the weak survive in some perverted society that cultivates idiocy.

Maybe then you could see some stars in the sky.

Until then, we have to be content with a grey haze.

Left 4 Dead Downloadable Content

2009-07-22T19:03:00.003-04:00

With Valve's eventual release of the L4D Source Developer Kit (SDK), the modding community has had free reign for nearly a month. After logging in and downloading the most popular maps, things are looking VERY positive for the game.

Available for download at the following websites:

http://l4dmaps.com/

http://www.l4dmods.com/

Having played Death Aboard, Deadcity, Dam it and Dawn Awake, it seems the SDK release has reinvigorated the game.

Death Aboard is a five stage map, taking place in a prison, boat, and lighthouse finale. The attention to detail is pristine; this could have been one of the original campaigns for the game. The events are exciting and - a shock - actually creative. The boat scene is quite epic, though exercise caution if you've been drinking or get dizzy easily. Crashed onto a dock, you're navigating the vessel as it lays on its sidemin its death throes. With a finale that actually puts some use to the hunting rifle, teams have to work together to finish this one.

Dawn Awake shows some promise, but needs much more work. Weak design and poor scripting makes this worth a once through, but there's nothing new here.

Deadcity. One word: HUGE. These maps are massive. Working through Riverside City is an enormous task. I wonder who would design a city with fences in front of EVERY BUILDING but perhaps the oddness is explained by precautions taken during an infection.

If you wanted to trap everyone in a building that is...

After giving this one a go for nearly two hours, my team of three and a bot were unable to finish. Playing on advanced wasn't a challenge, but playing with weaker players and a bot made the experience excruciating at times. Those players need to see my previous L4D post.

I solo'd a tank while gimping. Kiting for the win.

Deadcity reminded me of the original Unreal Tournament map which is shown in the opening scenes. A sweeping view through a futuristic city, players would spend much of their time simply looking for something to shoot at.

This wasn't the case in Deadcity. In rare cases, we drew hordes before even OPENING the safe house. Suffice to say, moving through a warehouse invoked nearly four hordes. Also, being used to one tank and one witch MAXIMUM per level, our team was in for some surprises. We fought three tanks before dying in an elevator scene, likely the VERY last horde scene before a safehouse.

Both Death Aboard and Deadcity are available on versus, and I can't wait to learn the maps a bit better. Open city streets combined with cramped close quarters office fighting makes for some daring games.

Lastly, Dam It was interesting. It's a single stage, meaning you spawn and evacuate without a safehouse. Ammo is rare, and first aid kits ever more sparse. It did not prove incredibly difficult, but a refreshing change from slugging out five stages with people who might not even know which end is the business end of a rifle.

All in all, I'm stoked to get back online and kill more zombies. One thing these maps have over their launch brethren? MASSIVE numbers of zombies, special infected as well as common. They are trickier, non-linear (for the most part) and allow some innovative thinking. Can't wait to get them going on a lan party.

Next up: Escape From Toronto. Preliminary play through wasn't impressive, but being a native Torontonian, it may get a second chance.

STS-127 Endeavour Shuttle Launch

2009-07-16T00:52:00.004-04:00

Fear not, this will not become a video based blog.

This launch is just too frakking cool to NOT upload. This is a copy direct from Nasa TV and uploaded onto YouTube.

Some day riding the back of a rocket will be mainstream. Until then, we can only stare in awe at the marvels of 'modern' science.

Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot

2009-07-15T11:39:00.012-04:00

This first video is of Carl speaking to school children about the wonders of the cosmos. Breath-taking and inspiring.

This is an excerpt from the introduction to the novel. Carl's voice with the score in the background turns my blood cold every time!

Before leaping into this book, take a look at the above videos!

Carl Sagan passed away in 1996, only two years after this book was published. For reference, the information in the book is over thirteen years old. Some of it remains on the leading edge, and some of it, notably in developments in robotics and planetary science, is somewhat outdated. Un-phased by the mere passage of time, I dove into the book head first anyway and enjoyed it immensely. It's always easy to catch up on the latest, and it's better to have a foundation of understanding anyway.

Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot challenges everything we accepted about our history, from pre-history to antiquity and Galileo. Opening with a sweeping view of the battle between knowledge and ignorance, Sagan demonstrates clearly that science has finally pushed religion and its darkness aside. Himself an agnostic, Sagan was nevertheless a man of evidence.

He spoke at length about the downsizing of our universe. Long ago mankind was the center of the cosmos. Science forced a shakedown though, showing us that far from being the very reason the universe was created (see the Bible for references) humans are indeed more of a rarity, a chance or spark in the randomness that is life. Far from being the reason the universe was created, it appears that we are just a blip in its existence.

It raises the unanswered question of life elsewhere, which Sagan is certainly able to address. Maybe those who swear to some all mighty Lord laugh and giggle about science dorks imagining life elsewhere. But, again, it's theoretically possible, and from the infinite size* of the universe, it's more than likely.

*Theories regarding the shape and size of the universe are incomplete. Some theorize a boundless expanse beyond our light horizon - we cannot see BEYOND 14 billion light years, it's as if living in a sphere that we cannot physically see outside of because the light has not travelled that far yet. The suggestion is that the universe in fact is infinite. Others suggest a multiverse, where universes exist in an almost layered formation, on top of each other. No conclusive evidence yet!

As you may remember from Contact (also by Carl Sagan), it would be an awful waste of space if there was nothing out there.

Pale Blue Dot did not dwindle on SETI, although Sagan had a large role in its development and its popularity following the hit film Contact. Carl - it's hard not to refer to this man by his first name - examined the findings of NASA's space program, covering the various vessels we have sent throughout our solar system. Specifically, he examines the various features of each of our planets; what makes them unique, similar, and how their study benefits our knowledge on earth.

For example, our current greenhouse effect was discovered by scientists researching similar conditions on Venus. No big deal. Sagan champions Planetary Science in his book, and for good reason. Every small robot or ship we send to other worlds - even if they fail - sends us back data that helps improve our understanding of both our place and the origins of our universe. Carl spends most of these chapters recounting the various journeys of Voyager I and II towards our outer solar system.

Sagan isn't afraid to get his hands dirty with more theoretical concepts either. He examines different methods of colonizing on the planets, from Terraforming to permanent outposts, as well as the possibility of living in asteroids. In fact, the latter option he seems to view as being most likely, using asteroids as vehicles to move entire colonies through space. Looking at the various motivations, precedents and current technologies, Sagan is optimistic in the end.

That is one point which must be elaborated on. Sagan is not science's harbinger of death and destruction (at least not entirely) but shows that scientific exploration and discovery as a beacon of hope, and ultimately the only way to save the human race.

On a cosmic scale, planetary extinction is a certainty. Not perhaps in the history of our species (for comparison, look at climate, every x number of millenia y happens), it only shows how youthful we are, children staring into the black of the cosmos and reaching, hoping to bring it closer. When that frontier is conquered, Carl Sagan will be in the record as a man who brought the stars closer to humanity.

Without a background in the sciences, I found some areas of this book perhaps a little overwhelming, but nothing a second glance or re-read wouldn't address. If you have any interest in space developments - or at this point the history thereof - this book is a blast. Carl Sagan's optimistic outlook is refreshing, his writing is fluid and easy to understand, and more importantly, his humility shines throughout. Too often is the case in scientific writing where knowledge and experience lead only to hubris.

Public Enemies should be called Enemy of Good Crime Movies

2009-07-09T14:47:00.010-04:00

Contains Spoilers. But who cares, it's not worth watching anyway.

Johnny Depp's latest film was a source of much hype and excitement for myself. After first seeing the ads at Star Trek, I counted down the days until this new crime saga would be released. It's not my favourite genre, but I've seen a few of the staples, and enjoyed Heat immensely. The Departed was fantastic, and I even enjoyed A Righteous Kill. For those familiar with my eclectic movie taste, I don't really have a problem with bad movies.

Except when they pretend to be good ones. Public Enemies was an enormous waste of my time and money. What Depp or the producers were thinking was entirely beyond me.

If you think it's impossible to make jailbreaks or bank robberies boring, watch this movie. The highlight of crime sagas was transformed into a two minute scene where someone got punched in the face and then shot some cops. Absolutely nothing like the epic scenes from Heat.

Even the bank robbery in Serenity was more exciting, and that's science fiction, not crime. With that in mind actually, Firefly does a FAR better job of portraying crime. In space. Moving on.

In terms of plot, Hollywood again screwed themselves by pandering to dumb audiences. We get that Dillenger is on the run. His gang is killed and his allies leave him in the cold in the face of increased Federal pressure on national crime. There's no need to put several scenes depicting him working with more extremist criminals simply to show he's desperate.

It's a simple lesson, sometimes all you need to convey a complex idea is a simple look or one line of dialogue. Not an additional 15 minutes of footage. Which was bad. In fact, terribad.

On the topic of Feds. This was the ONLY redeeming aspect of the film. Bale SLIGHTLY made up for his train wreck called Terminator Salvation. His scenes with Baby Face Nelson were more reminescent of crime drama and gangster films. The apartment scene feels right out of Untouchables when Connery's character bites the dust.

In fact, the FBI storyline held the movie back from falling into an abyss of terrible for me. The bumbling portrayal of J. Edgar Hoover was fascinating, as well as his battle with the bureaucracy to get the FBI off the ground. Modern scientific crime fighting methods were tested, and often lead to the FBI's dismay. Bale's character is forced to bring in outside help to adminster more... aggressive tactics.

The theme of torture to extract information has been overdone though, and didn't have a lot of place in this movie. In any case, Bale's rivalry with Nelson and pursuit of Dillinger was more entertaining than Dillinger himself. This movie should have been about Bale pursuing Nelson with Dillinger on the side. Johnny Depp could have been removed from the movie and I would have enjoyed it more.

I said the same thing about Bale in Salvation.

To boot, the trailer was try-hard. They put ALL their good dialogue in the two minute clip, and the movie had nothing more to offer. Boring shootouts, bad character development, a mismanaged emphasis on the romance all contributed to making this movie a dreary experience.
Looking at my phone thirty minutes into the film was not a good sign, although the second half picked up a bit. It seemed like Public Enemies tried to go it alone. Not paying homage to any of the greats in crime drama (as far as I could tell) and in trying to reinvent the wheel, ended up with nothing but a car crash.

This review is short because the acting isn't worth mentioning (with Bale as the exception), the cinematography is mundane, the sets are mediocre and the plot is almost non-existant. The climax? Boring. I wanted to go home already.

Watch the trailer. This isn't even worth downloading.

Thoughts on Robert McNamara

2009-07-06T23:20:00.006-04:00

This picture is perhaps McNamara's most widely recognized. In a class on the Vietnam War, the majority of students (myself included) could not identify more than - on average - five pictures in a twenty slide presentation of Vietnamese officials, locations or landmarks. This one, everybody got.

McNamara died today at 93 years old. A google search of his name revealed a Wikipedia articles, news of his death, various images and other postings.

http://www.google.ca/search?rlz=1C1CHNH_enCA326CA326&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=robert+mcnamara

Just for you skeptics. As of writing time, that's what was available on google. A quick google search of Michael Jackson (and a quick history erase thereafter) revealed numerous videos, dedications and articles about the pop star singer.

I spent most of the day hating humanity. The media has been broadcasting nothing but Michael Jackson - and THEN actual news on the side. I can't leave my house (that is, when I'm dragged out by friends) without seeing MJ on the news, overhearing conversations (social convention is that it's rude to listen to iPods in company, I wish to change this) or being exposed to the trash still remaining at Yonge and Dundas Square from the gathering last week. Yes, the garbage strike is still in effect. But 30,000 people celebrating a guy who was accused of touching little boys?

Forgive the harsh tone, but in what fucking world does a man who dedicates his life to serving his country get less recognition than a pop star who can't stay away from the surgeon or the wee ones?

Perhaps this is a more Conservative view, that state officials should be revered more than pop idols in death. But I ask you, how many of you can name musicians from the previous centuries? If you enjoy music, likely naming classical composers from each period isn't difficult. In most cases though, these people fall into obscurity, sometimes forever, sometimes not. Yet children across the state are taught Canadian history, learning about how our country works and who makes it work as such.

Our history books ARE Conservative in that sense. This shift towards living vicariously through rock stars offends my sensibilities. Of course we should enjoy the fruits of our culture, be it Michael Jackson or Slipknot (which for the record is a much better musical experience).

Maybe it's indicative of the higher levels of personal security we live in today. Communists aren't knocking on the door with nuclear weapons.

Oh, wait, they are. How many missiles did North Korea test this week? Are we still at war for a fascist imperial neighbour? Ah, yes. Shoots down that explanation pretty quickly. Before you suggest that these are not REAL threats, are they any less so than the Soviet Union? The Taliban ACTUALLY attacked the US. In my eyes, that makes the threat far more credible than the USSR that never did attack the US directly.

So then, it's not security. My brain scrambles for a reason why MJ gets the media attention far past his death, and most people don't even know who McNamara is.

Maybe people in a position to enlighten us just didn't like McNamara. History is not particularly kind to the man, responsible in part for the Tokyo fire bombings as well as much of the bombing in South and North Vietnam during the war. Without turning this into a history lesson, Noam Chomsky levelled a scathing attack on the man, claiming he was entirely ignorant of the American values.

Lets check on those:

Invade foreign country? Check in the box.

Prop up government only to abandon them when things get hot? Check mark here too.

Send American boys off to die in an imperialist war?

So far McNamara is three for three.

Make fortunes as dirty capitalist working as President of Ford? (First non-blood President by the way) Check.

Gives away entire fortune to serve as Secretary of Defense under President Kennedy?

ERROR: CANNOT COMPUTE. AMERICAN VALUES NOT DETECTED.

Selfless sacrifice to the state?

Yeah, MJ invented the moonwalk. And got filthy rich. I'm TOTALLY impressed.

At Ford, McNamara revolutioned vehicle safety. If you drove a Ford, crashed it, lived, and then read this post, know that McNamara likely designed the system which saved your life.

During the Second World War, he had distinguished service in the Pacific Theater. Serving under Curtis 'Bombs Away' LeMay, McNamara did what he could to end the war and save American lives. Yes, people are resentful. His decisions were highly criticized.

Enter Vietnam. Misinterpreting revolutionary activity for communist aggression wasn't his crime, it was an AMERICAN crime. There's no reason he alone should foot that bill. Statistical backgrounds may not be the best way to fight a war, but he did his best with the tools and knowledge he had on hand.

The point here is that McNamara served the United States faithfully for much of his life, going on to become the chair of the World Bank - who, lets face it, has propagated more Neo-Liberalist policies which made America richer and the Third World poorer.

If you don't think this is what the World Bank exists for, read Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine. If the six hundred pages of evidence don't convince you, you also probably believe NASA faked the lunar landings. Which, by the way, new footage proves beyond a doubt was real... should you be one of those foolish enough to believe it was a hoax.

Right. Stealing money from underdeveloped countries. That sounds exactly like American values to me. Chomksy was certainly right: McNamara was ignorant of the situation in Vietnam. He admitted as much in his 2003 documentary Fog of War.

Let me make clear my feelings here. I wrote a paper condemning that film as being full of lies and propaganda, a shyster attempt to placate himself and apologize to the public for his mistakes in office. He even made it look like he didn't WANT the apology to be accepted, wasn't looking for forgiveness. Gotta meet that PR rep. Steal his notes.

I don't particularly agree with his decisions, but I stand beside his memory knowing that this man did what he thought was right for his country and had the backbone - and position - to act on it. Most citizens - Canadian or American - have some form of criticism regarding government policies. Democracies can't please everyone all the time. But nobody has the balls to do anything about their complaints, they just ride out their 9-5 job taking in a sweet pay cheque without even considering government processes.

Enter my self-loathing for my kindred race.

Guy sings, gets surgery, touches boys and founds 'Neverland' - aka the root of boy touching. Right, alleged touching. Moving on. Media corporations won't stop blabbering. My beef isn't with the media: they put on what sells. People are still itching for every ounce of information on MJ, they can't get enough.

McNamara might get a biography. Maybe they'll play Fog of War. Maybe the average person will know his name. Certainly not his accomplishments.

For the record, I wrote this post in one sitting, stream of consciousness style. The facts and knowledge regarding McNamara are from memory. Yes, I watched the movie and took a course. You know what that means? I read a frakkin' book. You can too. If I'm mistaken in any information - and I assure you I am not - please let me know. Regardless. He may be criticized in the public eye, but he served his country his entire life.

We owe it to men like Robert McNamara to remember and honour their sacrifices, not piss them away into a history textbook because he was unlucky enough to die just after some pop star. For the record, MJ's final explosion of popularity needs to end before I'm forced to barricade myself away from the world.

Some days society makes me sick.

Renaissance: Bladerunner Shaken, Not Stirred

2009-07-04T10:40:00.004-04:00

[ Warning: Contains minor spoilers]

Paris, 2054. The Avalon Corporation has replaced the government and maintains a monopoly on the authorized use of force. Youth, Beauty, Longevity are its slogans. The overaching company is present throughout the film, sometimes backstage, sometimes firing the bullets. Dystopia, kidnapping, corporate espionage, girls, guns and invisible cops. This movie was a trip.

Filmed using cellular shading similar to Final Fantasy or Beowulf, Renaissance captured the dark underpinnings of a city that outwardly displayed high levels of wealth, culture and technology. The sharp contrasts provided by the black and white colours moved the film forward at each step, and brought a new touch to the SF crime genre. While there was very little actually unique about the film (except the production style), it succeeded in extrapolating the more interesting ideas of its predecessors.

Truly, you could replace the protagonist Karis with Bladerunner's Deckard and not miss a beat. The movie doesn't examine replicants living amongst humans, instead substituting immortality as the risk to society.

The formula is the same: under the table deal -> kidnapping -> investigation -> plot twists -> threat of undermining society -> resolution. But that doesn't mean Renaissance wasn't an interesting journey.

There's nothing new to this plot line, the same story only told a different way. Without revealing the different directions the plot takes, one of the most enjoyable aspects was that each scene (with one exception) feels real.

Karis' investigation leads him down several different path, and he deals with each one in a unique way. Violence, intimidation, coercion, sex, lies, Karis may carry a badge, but he lives his life in the underworld. His silver tongue and cold steel does the talking, not his police authority. He moves in and out of situations like a snake, always ready to strike, and always with an ace up his sleeve.

His female counterpart Bislane is also a pleasure to watch on screen. Playing the role of rebellious older sister with a scarred past, every draw of her cigarette bring the audience deeper into her sorrowful world. Her role is perhaps similar to that of Rosario Dawson's in Sin City, (the two movies have more than a few similarities) a hard exterior with an inside that is perhaps softer but revels in the chaos.

The other characters are just as fascinating. Karis' Muslim contact (who's name eludes me thanks to a few beers) plays an interesting role, both colluding and playing his own hand as the events unfold. The different scientists, researchers and government officials all have an agenda of their own.

The only disappointing moment to me was when Ilona is first shown in captivity (in a fantastic almost Eden-like environment) she starts screaming her name and personal information. For a savante and intellectual (Avalon picked her and her sister up as refugees) she certainly couldn't piece much together. To my mind, she should have been both aware of the reasons for her kidnapping and exactly who was responsible. It would seem her ignorance acted as a plot device for the audience, but I would suggest the dialogue at that moment was rather weak.

The different production style, combined with a plot line that although was not perfect, was exceptionally well executed, and characters that showed remarkable depth made this film worth watching. For Science Fiction and Crime genre fans, the movie is enjoyable, but certainly not required viewing.

If you enjoyed Bladerunner as much as I did, watch this movie.

I, Robot - Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Hate Hollywood

2009-07-03T07:14:00.006-04:00

Warning: Contains Spoilers

Having only recently finished Isaac Asimov's brilliant work, I may be slightly behind the times - around sixty years. Better late then never though. Truly, there is only one way to sum up this book:

Thank God Asimov was not alive to see the abomination created by Alex Proyas.

I wonder if the director of the 2004 film I, Robot has even read this masterpiece. The movie: "The three laws of robotics inevitably lead to robot revolution against humans". Enter a gun totting police detective played by Will Smith and you have yet another summer blockbuster. Like every other summer blockbuster, Asimov's intricate plotlines and profound social commentary had to be cut down or eliminated entirely so the general public (read: dumb people) could understand the film.

For example, explaining to a film audience that one of the goals of Asimov's book (as far as our literary interpretations have determined) was to examine the ideological extensions of Marxism in a futuristic society would have turned the film from a popcorn flick to something more akin to Starship Troopers. Before you leap down my throat, here's the logic.

People generally hated Starship Troopers (those who have even heard of it). It was heralded as a TERRIBLE film. Because nobody understood that a) it was satire and b) it was absolutely brilliant in its perceived awfulness. I'm not saying we needed aliens, satire or excessive violence (though you could argue there was some of that), just a little bit more credit as a movie-goer. Maybe Starship Troopers stands as an example that, actually, movie-goes don't deserve credit. If that is indeed the case, I think there's probably far worse problems than a bad book-to-movie translation. Truly, is there ever a GOOD one? Do share.

Back to I, Robot. If Alex Proyas had left even an intelligible thread of Asimov's ideas, the film could have been an instant classic.

The premise of the novel I, Robot was indeed centered around the three laws of robotics. (Available for your reading pleasure at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics) Asimov posited that if artificial intelligence was created to live amongst humans, they must be bound by certain innate rules. To summarize: they can't hurt humans, they have to follow human orders, and they must act to preserve their own life - let's face it: sentinent robots would be expensive.

The majority of the book examined the different ways in which these laws interacted with each other and thus how the robots functioned in their environment. Asimov suggested that robots would be used to raise children, to mine for ore on other planets (Mercury in this case), to direct space stations which shielded earth from harmful radiation, and even develop interstellar travel. Does this sound like the movie? I didn't think so either.

Asimov even suggested the accidental creation of a robot which could read minds. Its destruction by Robopsychologist Susan Calvin was pure brilliance. The robot was bound by the laws not to harm humans, and thus could not tell humans things about their lives that would cause harm. He (I use this purposely instead of it) was forced in some situations to lie to prevent mental harm. Calvin confronts him with a logical dilemma of such proportion it fries the robot's brain.

One scene WAS reminiscient of the film. A robot is told to "lose himself" and hides amongst the other robots (that's as far as the similarity goes). Even the humans found this rather clever. The scientists devise different experiments to identify the robot based on his modified first rule. For this special robot, the first rule stated only that "a robot may not injure a human being", omitting the second part of the clause "or through inaction, allow a human to come to harm". The psychological underpinning were fascinating to explore.

More importantly, the book spanned the lifetime of a single human, namely, Dr. Susan Calvin. Asimov followed her from youth, studying the first robot that could talk, to her death when robots controlled (only theoretically; Asimov left it slightly ambiguous) the economy of the entire Earth. Each chapter in the book introduced robots more advanced than the last, building to the final climax and revelations in the final pages of the book.

To be somewhat less critical of Proyas' depiction, the idea that sentinent robots resented the domination of an inferior species - humans - was part of the backdrop throughout the majority of the book. He likely thought THAT idea would make a great movie, or mistook it for Asimov's main intentions. However, the shift from resentment to outright rebellion was entirely outrageous. Certainly the Three Laws have come under scrutiny since Asimov published I, Robot in 1950. Many of the criticisms can be found on the link a few paragraphs above.

It's possible Proyas combined elements of the entire series. Having only read the first of four books of Asimov's robot quadrilogy, it's entirely possible the other books cover those topics. However, until I read those works (and likely after), the 2004 film is anathema to me.

Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot is on the slab next. Thirty pages in, it's shaping up to be a journey of cosmic proportions.

World War Z - A Short Review

2009-07-02T07:07:00.001-04:00

In a nutshell: undead plague breaks out worldwide. This book covers how people dealt with it, and how they are coping with the aftermath.

This was my first dive into zombie literature. I thoroughly enjoy watching the zombie genre on film, as well as in video games. Written by Max Brooks in 2006, this book appeared to be an excellent addendum to my zombie database. After finishing, I had mixed feelings. To me, the best part of any zombie experience is the survival factor. What do people have to go through in order to survive. To lift a quote from Josh Whedon's epic Firefly saga:

"Live with a man forty years. Share his house, his meals… speak on every subject… then tie him up, and hold him over the volcano's edge, and on that day, you will finally meet the man."

In a zombie context, the living dead have the potential to bring out the truth about human nature. Or at least people's conflicting views regarding the subject. Serena from 28 Days Later who exists only to live, to survive. Opposite Jim, who looks for meaning in the chaos. Even Will Smith's character in I Am Legend (TECHNICALLY not a zombie film, but the effect is the same) is driven to find a cure for humanity. The examples in film and literature are endless.

Too bad Max Brooks didn't pick up on that.

I borrowed the book from a friend, not shelling out the $21.95 at Chapters for it. Had I paid for it, I would have been sorely disappointed. To be fair, the book is brimming with brilliant ideas. Brooks' ability to capture the unique perspective and mindset of the various characters his narrator interviews is captivating. Soldiers, reporters, government officials, even pharmaceutical executives. Examining how the undead transformed the different areas of the world - as well as how they coped with it - was certainly interesting, and created some jaw-dropping moments.

But for a 350 page book, these moments didn't come frequently enough. After digesting the novel for a week or so, there were several chapters which stood out among the rest. The downed pilot in Louisiana, the astronauts on the ISS, Chinese sailors at the bottom of the ocean engaging in submarine warfare, a Japanese computer whiz scaling his apartment building, as well as the 'Battle of Yonkers' all stand as testaments to Brook's writing ability. The other three hundred pages were mediocre at best. I found myself hastily reading the slower chapters, putting up with somewhat derivative ideas. Explaining the history of the evolution of bladed weapons and their effectiveness in dealing with zombies was dreary, sorry Max.

To give due credit, Brooks' attempts at investigating social and class hierarchies was rather unique, but it didn't really have a place in the book. Far too much time was devoted to - for example - how survivors on a campground traded for goods. The earlier scene where zombies broke into the house and the father attempted to ward them off with a glock was FAR more captivating than their later need for stove oil.

The idea of the social hierarchy shifting from the knowledge and service sector to manual labour was interesting, but for about three lines. Reversing societal values from white collar to blue collar workers in the world may appease the Marxist crowd, but the last time I checked they'd also PREFER humans act like zombies.

A lot of the book dealt with various state's reaction to the zombies: how this or that government was going to save as much of the population as possible. The so called "Redeker Plan" and its derivatives across the globe essentially echoed the same idea: save as many useful people as possible, drop the rest (or even use them as bait - wicked). Other readers may suggest that stepping back from the immediate conflict gave a grander scope which drew the reader in. All I wanted to know was how that Japanese character was going to use that newly found samurai sword to bust his way out of the apartment.

Brooks is also the author of the Zombie Survival Guide. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Zombie_Survival_Guide)

I leave open the possibility that I simply read the wrong book. Or read the books in the wrong order. Perhaps his 2003 novel/manual/satire covered those topics in such depth that he wanted to expand his writing capacity. However, if World War Z is any indicator of Brooks' writing, I certainly won't be shelling out the cash - and likely not the time - to read any more of it.

Supposedly a movie is in production, (still waiting on Without Remorse, we'll have to see) perhaps it will better capture the horrors of the zombie genre.

Truly, the book wasn't dark enough, scary enough or harsh enough to capture the (supposed) realities of a zombie apocalypse.

Bottom line: It is possibly worth reading for fans of the genre, but for anyone else? Stay away.

A wee note on the Global Positioning System

2009-06-26T07:46:00.001-04:00

Before diving into the topic, it is important to outline my relationship with this wonderful but limited technology. I've spent my last two summers working as a concierge at a hotel. Responsibilities include handling baggage, making transportation arrangements, booking tours, and of course, providing directions.

I spent three years in the Canadian Forces Primary Reserve before leaving for a civilian job. During that time, the military taught me basic navigation skills. I never took any advanced reconnaissance courses. The CF teaches all of its recruits - Air Force, Navy, Army - how to use a map and compass. We are taught slightly more advanced techniques, including position triangulation as well as intervisibility. That every soldier, sailor or airman is expected to know this is a testament to modern militaries. These skills have been fostered since the Second World War, when the United States realized that having intelligent, informed soldiers at every level was superior to having an ignorant rank and file. I digress.

The point here is merely to demonstrate that when I have to give directions to guests, I know what I'm talking about. When I have to travel myself, google maps does not plot my route. Mapquest is anathema to me. To qualify these statements, I use google maps to orient myself and explore various routes. For navigating purposes, I use landmarks to indicate how far I am from my destination, if I've passed my route, or if I'm totally lost. My vehicle has a rudimentary compass - enough to indicate which direction I'm heading in. I do not have a GPS system.

My experiences with GPS has been through travelling with friends or dealing with guests who use them (as well as military instructors who carried them around for the LCF - DAFS). In almost every case, GPS users rely SOLELY on that piece of technology. They are fully confident that given a postal code, they can arrive at their destination. Let me be clear on my position: GPS technology is absolutely incredible. The capabilities and capacities of the technology stand as monuments of modern scientific achievement. That the general public can benefit from this is only better.

In the military, GPS systems were used to CONFIRM one's position. Map and compass navigation is always reliable. GPS systems run on batteries, they rely on satellites and can be affected by weather patterns. To be concise, they are not infallible. Only the other day a guest's GPS malfunctioned due to a thunderstorm. The GPS system is one of MANY ways to discern one's location, it is not the be all and end all navigation.

The main problem of course is the trust we place in our own technology. Created by imperfect beings, no technology we produce is flawless. More importantly, the GPS system is limited in one capacity: change. Travelling requires you use roads. They can be congested by traffic, under construction, recently renamed or a hundred other variables that could CHANGE your route from the one the GPS planned for you. To take this to the extreme, if an alien species decided to shoot down our satellites, I'd be able to navigate and you wouldn't. Not that you need military training to get from the airport to the hotel (it helps, trust me), you only need to take a proactive role in this matter.

Know the routes, visualize the map, understand the landmarks and what they mean in relation to your location. Have alternate routes planned. Know that you can head in the proper direction on any road until you reach a certain landmark. If an accident occurs and your heading through a residential neighbourhood, what are the main routes that border it? Which direction are they in? How do you get back on track?

These are all simple questions that come to mind immediately when planning a route. I do these things without thinking, I take an active role instead of passively trusting a GPS system. And you know what? In my five years of driving, I've never been 'lost' in a conventional sense. I define 'lost' as not being able to pinpoint with reasonable accuracy one's position on a roadmap. I've never found myself on a road I didn't know, surrounded by terrain I hadn't seen before. I've driven in L.A., travelled from Boston to Toronto and all over Ontario. Never needed a GPS. It would be nice to have one as a reference, but roadmaps work just as well.

The general lack of ability in navigation skills pales in comparison to the unconditional trust we place in technology. GPS systems are only the tip of the iceberg. We are constantly surrendering rudimentary understanding and abilities in our lives to technology. While I'm not warning against a robot takeover or a Terminator style apolcalypse, I merely wish to point out that blindly placing stock in technology that has limitations that are not fully understood will at some point in life - hopefully not a critical one - lead to unexpected and certainly unwanted consequences.

In a nutshell:
People, learn to read road maps.

Army meets FPS: No I in Left 4 Dead

2009-06-25T08:42:00.000-04:00

With summer in full swing and the LSAT cramming session weeks behind me, it was time to boot up Steam and see if the prediction was true: does military experience improve your first person shooter skills?

After a month of playing this team based survival game, the answer is unequivocally yes. With a footnote.

For the uninitiated, killing hordes of zombies is not an easy task. Even in an artifical setting where the requirements of a healthy living - eating, sleeping, disposing of waste - are not factored in. Without these factors, what's left is seemingly elementary: control your firepower and use your explosives properly. Simple principles, impossible applications. Left 4 Dead poses one fundamental challenge: can your team work as a single unit? The question is rudimentary, but changing the answer from "What's a team?" to "Our firepower is GODLIKE" isn't.

A history lesson sheds some insight into this matter. The evolution of first person shooter games is certainly lacking any serious academic value, but the subtleties are nevertheless important to note. The originals: Quake, Doom, Wolfenstein, overshadowed by later watershed games such as Half-Life, Deus Ex, Max Payne all have one thing in common: One. First person shooters - until Counter-Strike in my experiences - were about killing as many bad guys as possible without getting hit back.

Ironically, it was the people screaming for change who couldn't handle what was thrown at them. The search for a more realistic simulation of blowing things up led to one crucial element: teamwork. The shift was subtle, but clearly definable: the mission was more important than individual glory. Counter-Strike examples again serve to illustrate this paradigm shift. Killing the enemy didn't matter if the bomb went off, the hostages were rescued, or the VIP escaped (this was the best mode in the game IMO). Scenario losses inevitably led to decreased killcounts as funding for weapons disappeared. Fighting an enemy armed with an AK-47 became harder if you could only afford a pistol. In one line: the team failed if the individuals didn't work together.

The zombie genre in particular has always been focused on killing large amounts of zombies in grotesque ways. Whether it was with brute force, small arms, mounted weapons or explosives, watching ligaments fly was - and is - the bread and butter of the genre. Online zombie games have typically been poor: weak modifications to overused gaming engines. 'Zombie Hunters' didn't have their own staple, forced instead to flirt from game to game as the population migrated to newer and 'better' games. These didn't require teamwork.

Until Left 4 Dead. My experiences thus far have led to very simple deductions.

1. 360 Degree Enemies.
Zombies come from all directions, therefore you must cover in all directions. Not so simple when everyone is chasing killcounts and explosives for more kills. Maintaining 360 degree arcs of fire is crucial. The SWAT movies where people walk backwards? Do that.

2. Cover.
There are lots of zombies. The addendum to 360 degree coverage is that covering every direction is tough. You divide your firepower into 4 arcs, reducing your TEAM'S firepower from 100% to 25%. This is the easiest part of team movement, but nobody seems to get it: definding from a diamond formation is hard, so MOVE into a place where you have to cover fewer arcs. Fall BACK to the last chokepoint, push FORWARD to a better one if you're stranded. Shooting enemies streaming through a door frame is easier then being attacked from every direction. You have voice communication built directly into the game: use it to your advantage. Don't stand in the middle of a field if there's a sentry tower 50 meters away.

3. Moving on: explosives.
You get two options: a pipe bomb (grenade that pulls zombies towards it) and molotov cocktails (which burst into flame). Lighting up the 'Tank' (strongest enemy) has become commonplace, although teammates will sometimes give kudos for epic throws. The rest... induces facepalms.

a) Pipebombs:
I've seen pipe bombs thrown in all kinds of useless ways. If you have a defensible position, don't waste a precious pipe bomb. I've found success with the following: when the TEAM is overwhelmed, throw it to buy some time to regroup and rearm. Your kill count won't matter if everyone dies. "I killed 30 zombies with that pipe!" doesn't really mean shit when "And now we have to spend 20 minutes redoing that stage," is what follows. These babies buy time, not kills.

b) Molotovs:
Possibly the most misused grenade in all of the first person shooters I've played. They kill tanks for you, and that's all people have figured out. Good molotov usage requires proper use of COVER (see #2). Molotovs can incinerate an entire horde if used properly. Throw a 'moli' to the oncoming horde, turn around and all four can cover the rear (just watch for smokers). Instead, people inanely throw them into open spaces, perhaps hoping zombies are attracted to the light. These SHOULD be used to plug holes: holes that occur naturally in the terrain, or by your team's negligence in covering a certain direction.

4. Firepower & Loadout.
There are two tiers of weapons, standard shotgun/uzi and automatic shotgun/AR-16/Hunting Rifle. For the MMO fans: Shotguns = DPS/Tank, Rifles = Support, Hunting Rifle = Useless. First, the obvious objections: this game is about the TANK. A bad tank spawn can end your stage quickly, and they provide the biggest obstacle in overcoming the horde. Hunting rifles don't help kill the tank. They don't help your team. They're just hella fun. MMO players get this: WoW groups don't function if you have 20 spellcasters and 5 healers. FPS players don't.

The rule of thumb I've observed: Number of Shotguns > Number of Rifles (Uzi's fulfill the same purpose as the rifle, just not quite as effectively).

Shotgun's deal with the horde point blank, and take down the tank FAST. Colt's don't. Shotguns can fire continuously if you know how to reload. Colt's can't. The rifle has a unique purpose: it deals with medium and long ranged threats very well, and can provide a short range burst that thins the zombie ranks. Primarily: it keeps hunters, smokers and boomers away from your shotgun wielding partners. Two rifles and two shotguns will get you through anything. Balance is key.

On fire control. My experiences in the army taught me that even a group of eight kids can make eight rifles sound like a machine gun. We are trained to have constant fire to suppress the enemy. Having eight people empty their clips as fast as possible then reload means one thing: you die. Why is this so difficult to comprehend? Two shotguns in L4D, if fired with control, can hold back hordes indefinitely. One fires, one reloads. Then you switch. You don't even have to communicate this, just LISTEN to the other person firing!Rifles are damn accurate. If you fire in bursts. I heard a rumour Valve was going to make the rifle fire in bursts only. I rejoiced. For the record: I prefer the Colt. I know how to use it, it's effective, and it keeps the team safe. I played top monk in top 250 GvG, I look after the team - but there ain't no healing role in zombie games.

But I'll take the shotgun if it fulfills my S > R equation. No qualms. Burst fire would mean all the kids who think fifty rounds should be expended as fast as possible would no longer use the weapon. Its effectiveness would be increased, and people would stop using it: pure win.If I could sum up this game in one word it would be CONTROL. Control the enemy using cover, the right grenades at the right time, and control your firepower. I'm sure readers may disagree with some of these ideas, and I have only one response. If this is how you like playing the game, keep your eyes peeled for KyorL. If you don't agree and you see my in-game moniker, save us both the time and just leave. Surely I will.

Maybe it's worth the time to put together a group of army boys (and girls) who like to game, because these simple ideas seem to be rocket science for FPS players. Always on the lookout for team oriented players or new game suggestions.Xbox 360 version: don't get me started.

Summer Woes '09 Edition

2009-06-24T20:25:00.001-04:00

The heat has been turned up in the city, with temperatures reaching year high thirties. City services are limited due to the CUPE strike, and the ever increasing population certainly has no less garbage than previous summers. Let us hope that the city sees this issue resolved before rotting waste turns evil and makes SARS or Swine Flu look like a common cold. Not that we face an uprising of disease from leaving the trash around a little too long, but it certainly sounds like the beginning of a bad zombie movie.

Summer for students like myself is hopefully a time to unwind from the academic year, earning enough cash to eat throughout the other eight months of the year. Usually this isn't a problem, earning decent wages and enjoying the summmer breeze with friends during the weekend is a great way to spend your time. Even with the economic pandemic occuring, friends and colleagues have secured jobs with reasonable wages.

Of course, earning a wage to achieve an end is far different from actually enjoying a job. Students all over haul trash, wash dishes and serve you coffee so they can go to school. Certainly that was a choice they made (and you probably did too). After all, the 'starving student' cliche came from somewhere. Of more importance here is that society at large has deemed these endeavours valuable: a B.A. seems to be the standard for even entry level jobs, one needs an M.A. just to step slightly above other applicants. But for an undergraduate student, the Ph.D. seems distant, hazy and full of uncertainty.

That's the degree for lofty research positions, or tenured academic lifestyles. Which gives us some context to appreciate: positions available fifty years ago required high school, twenty years down the road you might not be sweeping the floor without that Ph.D. in hazardous materials or biological engineering. Or a thousand programs we haven't found a need for yet.

Hardly prescient, it's the matter of the past, not the future that holds interest in this matter. To generations before us, was high school given the same status we give a bachelors degree now? Before education was available to the general public - in the framework of modern, developed states - what did those twenty one year olds apply their not so harmless case of OCD towards?

Maybe it was why their friend was stuck in Vietnam, Dieppe or Ypres. Certainly our own minds don't go a day without thinking of friends in current conflicts. Are the words of our ancestors true? Are our youthful generations pampered and weak? Enjoying the fruits of the highest periods of material wealth in human history? We certainly didn't draft today's youth to die in a far away desert.

The answers to these questions may be eternally debated, but the evidence suggests something different to me. Our lives are no longer scrounging for food and building shelter for survival. We figured that part out. After the West experienced the industrial revolution, we certainly found a way to use that technology to kill each other. But these fears are past: nuclear winter isn't debated policy, it's science fiction. Eliminating conflict is for the idealogues, but our collective steps forward are substantive, albeit painfully slow.

Today, we are experiencing grade inflation, degrees becoming commonplace and economic cycles going up and down. Natural 'ups and downs' of capitalism they tell us. But stop and ask, is the fact that your degree is worth less than your father's a bad thing?

No. For Canadian society, it means that your neighbour who is feeding his family and keeping his shelter together has set time aside to dive into the amassed databank of human knowledge that we call university. Whether basket weaving or astrophysics, people are not simply existing for their own gluttony but actively partaking in understanding or furthering the knowledge of our species.

For a world reeling from debt, war, bad comedy movies and the ever elusive Starcraft II, this fact serves as a beacon of light in the darkness. We may not be able to solve all of mankind's problems, but we're not in danger of becoming apathetic to them either.