Happy Halloweeen!

First Tinky Winky, and now this! The horror! THE HORROR!

So, apparently Dumbledore is gay. Huh.

For those who don't know (are there such people?), Albus Dumbledore is the headmaster of Hogwarts, the fictional school of wizardry in J. K. Rowling's wildly popular Harry Potter books. Though the series is over, and this particular revelation never came up in any of the books, Rowling revealed this tidbit during a recent question and answer session. That's not what I really want to talk about though, as I couldn't care less. What's interesting, and worth discussion, is the response this has gotten, especially from the same people who already demonize the books for (supposedly) promoting witchcraft.

For one, there's this guy, whose attitude can best be described as neanderthal. He actually ends his post with this:

"I think it’s time that any Potter material in your home meet Mr. Trash Can. Unless you want your children to become like Dumblequeer. Yuck. What a dirty trick."

Really? Did he really just say that? And he's serious? ... Really? Like, really, in reality, the really real world? In a first world nation in the modern era, someone who is literate enough to post something online actually thinks things like that?

...

Really?

Moving on, "anti-Potter crusader" Laura Mallory is quoted in an ABC News piece as saying (my emphasis):

My prayer is that parents would wake up, that the subtle way this is presented as harmless fantasy would be exposed for what it really is -- a subtle indoctrination into anti-Christian values. [...] The kids are being introduced to a cult and witchcraft practices. [...]
A homosexual lifestyle is a harmful one. That's proven, medically.

Um... No. No it hasn't been "proven". People with agendas and no respect for truth often make that claim, however. I'll not even bother to point out how stupid the claims of witchcraft are (here's a hint: magic isn't real and it never was, ergo there is no threat from it). As for the anti-Christian claim, well, given that nothing about the books is directly anti-Christian, and the fact that this claim stems almost entirely from the ridiculous witchcraft argument (witchcraft being tied to Satan in Christian mythology... though having no such connection in any other, it's worth noting), this is also a load of crap. Some people are just angry and self righteous and they'll find something to gripe about no matter what.

SIDE RANT #1: This is a huge pet peeve of mine. If your agenda is based on a lie, then why are you pursuing it? Really, if you have to lie to make your point of view come out on top, then why is that your point of view? Obviously it's wrong or you wouldn't have to lie, or cherry pick the evidence, or anything of that sort. If your position is in the right, then the evidence will back it up. In fact, your position should be based on the evidence, not the other way around, if you have any intellectual integrity at all.

Somewhat saner is the post titled "Turns Out Dumbledore Was More Flawed Than I Thought" on Redstate.com. The author has a laugh at the way "

Rowling really pulled one over on [him]", then unfortunately goes on to imply Rowling is a fascist. Odd. The real kicker in this case is the following passage:

I wonder where her tolerance was for those readers who have beliefs different from hers. Where was the respect for them? Don't they too have a right to avoid and hide themselves away from ideas and themes they disagree with? I guess not. After all, there is no crime in creating an endearing story that is acceptable and appealing to many, and then pulling the rug out from under the readers later by revealing some disconcerting facts about a beloved character.

This fails to make sense on several levels. First of all, did he actually suggest that hiding from ideas you don't like is a good way to live? That's exactly the sort of behavior that leads people to say things like the troglodyte mentioned above. It also leads to the kind of super-limited world view that creates extremists and (if carried much further) suicide bombers. Secondly, is a guy on a Web site that actively rails against gay rights actually whining about intolerance? Furthermore, is he really whining about someone being intolerant of his intolerance? That's like those Christian activists claiming that life in the US is so hard for them despite being in the majority and living under a government that that is headed by an openly fundamentalist President and is heavily influenced by Christian lobbyists. It just doesn't make sense.

SIDE RANT #2: This reminds me of another pet peeve of mine, when people get after me for saying something like "I'm only intolerant of people who are intolerant" (which amounts to a slogan, by the way, hardly an exhaustive and nuanced mission statement) by claiming that it's a self defeating position, since I would have to be intolerant of myself. It doesn't work that way. My personal intolerance is in reaction to the behaviors and actions of others, it is not in reaction to something as trivial as race, religion, or sexual preference. I'm not going to welcome people who actively oppress and harm others with open arms simply because to do so would be "tolerant". I'm not going to be tolerant of the kid who spit in my face in high school for no reason either, nor will I tolerate the guy who broke into my car back in 2000, if I ever meet him. If your intolerance is for a valid reason, then more power to you.

Now, to be fair, there's some stupidity on the other side as well. Comments like "this is a victory for homosexuality the world over" miss the point entirely as well. So what is the point? Here we have a beloved character in a crazy popular book series, and after the fact we find out he's gay. Does this change our opinion of him? Why? The guy above who claimed that Rowling tricked him was actually on to something, but for the wrong reasons. The fact is that the whole time, doing everything that he did, Dumbledore was gay and we loved him anyway. The things he did haven't changed, he isn't a different character than he was before this revelation. In short, him being gay doesn't really matter. It wasn't mentioned in the novels because it didn't matter, except as a bit of back story that helped determine how he ended up the character he was.

If you see a burning building with someone trapped on the second floor, and some guy rushes into the building and saves them at great risk to themselves, then that person is a hero. Would finding out that person is gay change your opinion of what they did? It shouldn't, not any more than finding out that they're Jewish or black or a communist should (well, maybe the communist thing, though only because that's a conscious choice). The reason is that none of those things have any bearing on how good or bad a person is. Now, had that person turned out to be a murderer or rapist, sure, but then those are conscious actions that cause actual harm, and that's different.

So the point is, it doesn't really matter. Get over it already.

P.S.: In reference to the title of this post, I'm referring to Jerry Falwell's odd claims that Tinky Winky, a "Teletubby", was secretly gay. I was reminded of this by an article by one Mark Finkelstein in which he writes:

"It’s a children’s show, folks. To think we would be putting sexual innuendo in a children’s show is kind of outlandish."
-- spokesman for Itsy Bitsy Entertainment Co., which licenses Teletubby characters in the United States.

Yeah, outlandish. I mean, how could anyone imagine there could be undisclosed gay characters in pop-culture materials for children? That Jerry Falwell, what a Christian conservative crank!
[...]
What's that? It now turns out that Dumbledore is gay? That guy who was the headmaster at Harry Potter's Hogwarts? Author J.K. Rowling said so herself?Oh, well, that's different.
[...]
Somewhere, Jerry Falwell is smiling.

OK, it's sad to think that he believes he scored a point with this. It's sadder to think that believes that a character turning out to be gay - after doing nothing that would suggest his sexuality in any way, and never being in a situation in which that information was relevant - is the same thing as "sexual innuendo". Falwell was a blow hard, he always was, and he still is (yes, I know he's dead, but until we all agree to ignore everything he ever said, it still counts).

P.P.S.: I was reading the comments on a related Digg.com posting earlier and someone pointed out that the source for a great deal of the worlds best religious art, Leonardo Da Vinci, was gay as well. Someone responded that it's in vogue right now to insist that great historical figures were gay, and that Da Vinci wasn't.

Hate to burst your bubble, but he was. Along with a number of other clues (including his own writings) just take a look at his attempts at rendering the female anatomy versus his works depicting male anatomy. It's likely that he never saw a naked woman up close, but he was certainly up on his men. He's still one of the greatest artistic and scientific minds the world has ever produced.

Reason #101 Why I Don't Watch TV: The Spin Makes Me Dizzy

So, I'm watching actual broadcast television at home the other night for the first time in, I don't know, months and months, and a commercial catches my attention. The is particular commercial features a man who served in Iraq (his name is John Kriesel, by the way), and who lost both legs in the process, telling us to support the war there.

He says he joined after 9/11 for the sake of his sons, which is a noble thing indeed. He says he knows "what he lost" (his legs), which is tragic and heroic at the same time. So now I'm watching intently, this man has paid a high price and (apparently, I can't say for sure from a 30 second TV spot) served honorably. I may not agree with the war, but my beef in with the men who sent the troops there with lies and poorly conceived plans, not with the troops themselves, who are only doing their duty. He is a hero like so many others.

But then he drops two bombs:

First he claims that "if we pull out now, everything [he] has given and sacrificed will mean nothing". Second, he says "THEY attacked US". He ends by saying "this is no time to quit, this is no time for politics".

If that doesn't make your stomach churn, you're not paying attention.

First, the charge that leaving Iraq will render this man's loss meaningless. This is a bald faced attempt to use emotion to push a political agenda. It is also untrue, or at least misdirected. The implication is that the people who are protesting the war, who think that it is a bad idea and want to bring the troops home, are dishonoring the troops by doing so. That logic simply doesn't track. By serving honorably and following the orders of his superiors, this man's sacrifice - and that of others - is patently meaningful, and nothing can take that away. Right or wrong, his nation called and he answered and he did his part. For that he is a hero, and nothing can take that away. It is cheap and dishonest to claim otherwise.

The real question is whether or not the entire endeavor, and the sacrifices made, were worthwhile. If invading Iraq was a bad idea, if being there is a bad idea, then the whole enterprise has not been worthwhile, and has been so from the beginning. If all of that is true, then this man's sacrifice is already a waste and a tragedy, and nothing that happens now will change that either. Directing that kind of anger and frustration at people who are pointing out, after the fact, that the whole thing was a mistake is misguided. It's the people who sent the troops into Iraq in the first place that are to blame. They have the blood of 2000+ Americans on their hands and should answer for that.

If I tell you to cut off your arm because something good will happen, and afterwards someone else points out that I was lying, would you blame them for rendering your actions worthless? No, of course not, it's my fault, not theirs. If the decision to pull out is made, then yes that is a statement that the sacrifices made were not worthwhile (though not meaningless), but it is the people who sent our troops into this situation who are at fault, not the people trying to correct the mistake, if there was one.

The second statement mentioned above is far worse, because it is an outright deception meant to perpetrate a lie, and is thus despicable. Iraq did not attack us, we attacked them. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Nothing at all, period. If you believe that it did, then you have been had. Don't believe me? President Bush himself has said that there is no connection, though only after implying such a connection repeatedly. For good measure, here's Dick Cheney denying a connection as well (video), all the while attempting (poorly) a Clinton-esque attempt to make two issues out of one in order to save face.

Let's be clear: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, they did not attack us, we attacked them. Right or wrong, we are the aggressor, not them.

Given that a high percentage of Americans still believe this nonsense, commercials like this are obvious attempts to play not only on the nation's emotions, but also its ignorance. In effect, they are threatening us with the "unpatriotic" label by exercising our rights and disagreeing with them, and then saying we're too stupid to think it out for ourselves. It's offensive and disgusting.

Ending the commercial with the words "this is no time for politics" is just icing on the cake. The ad was part of a $15,000,000 ad campaign by a group call "Freedom's Watch", a Republican lobbying group headed up, in part, by Ari Fleischer, one time White House Press Secretary. This is a man who once said: "If Saddam Hussein indicates that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is violating United Nations resolutions, then we will know that Saddam Hussein again deceived the world. If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world." He operates solely on rhetoric and political dogma, twisting reality to fit within predetermined political "truths", rather than the other way around. Every word he says is tainted by politics.

Watch the ad below and see for yourself. Most importantly, get the facts and think for yourself.



By the way: They're running ads to support a war? What has the political system in this country come to that wars are being branded and marketed? For members of a party that supports free markets, the current administration is doing an awful lot to subvert the will and judgement of the people. Simply disgusting.

EDIT: By the way, that tag at the end "Call your Congressman and Senator 1-877-222-8001" is another deception. The number goes to an operator who asks you if you think the war is a good thing or not. If you say no, you get hung up on, if you say yes, they forward your call to Congress. That's clever, actually.

The real numbers, by the way: Senate (202)224-3121, House of Representatives (202)225-3121

A big, big day for Apple and the iPod

Wednesday was yet another exciting day for fans of Apple, in particular of Apple's dominant iPod music player. In particular, there were three announcement that excite me to no end.

iPhone Price Reduction - To cut right to the biggest announcement of the event, for me at least, the 8GB iPhone now costs $399, a price drop of $200. A lot of people are pissed about the "$200 early adopter tax", but Apple has offered them $100 in Apple Store credit to help alleviate some of the burn. Some still might not be happy, but then you got what you paid for at a price you were obviously willing to pay at the time, that's capitalism. For my part, I'm thrilled, as I may be able to afford one now, especially because the refurbished iPhones on Apple.com are down to $349 now. Woot!

iPod Touch - Second only to the iPhone price drop is the announcement of the all new iPod Touch. It's basically an iPhone without the phone (or camera, or bluetooth), and is available with twice the memory. The iPod Touch features the same interface as the iPhone, and includes WiFi abilities, allowing you to get online from any wireless hotspot. This is big news because many people have been asking for an iPhone without the phone, and also because once again Apple has leapfrogged past the competition in terms of interface design and capability. Comparing the iPod Touch to similar devices, one has to wonder how the others missed the mark so completely.

The classic example is going to be Microsoft's Zune. MS had a huge lead on Apple with WiFi capabilites and did nothing with it. The iPod Touch allows you to browse the internet using a full browser, and lets you browse the iTunes Music Store remotely (more on that later). The Zune lets you "squirt" songs from player to player. Hmm... For $7,000,000,000.00 a year in R&D, you'd think someone at MS would have thought of that first.

Apparently, they also can't hire a decent interface or hardware designer to save their lives. I mean, seriously, just look at the iPod Touch next to the Zune (and an old iPod, for comparison, note that they're not to scale):



Even the old iPod looks outdated by comparison to the iPod Touch. The Zune, well, the less said the better. I can only imagine that the atmosphere at Microsoft (at least the part that made the Zune) is bleak. This is all not to mention companies like Creative and Archos, who keep coming out with competent products that just can't seem to get any attention.

iTunes WiFi Music Store & Starbucks - Using the iPod Touch or iPhone, you can connect to the iTunes Music Store from any WiFi hotspot and buy songs, which will be synced back to your computer when you get back to it. This is huge for Apple, and a brilliant move. So long as you're in a WiFi area, you can snag music almost without thought. Hear a song you like on the radio, or in a store? Just go ahead and buy it right there. Not to beat up on them too much, but why didn't Microsoft think of this one too?

Also announced, in select Starbucks (starting only in major cities over the next year or so), you can purchase music you hear playing in their locations using an iPod Touch or iPhone, right then and there. Upon reflection, this is a bigger deal that I first thought. I couldn't care less about Starbucks, really, and besides that sort of technology won't be hitting Maine until, well, never as far as I can tell. But here's the thing: Apple has just created a whole new revenue stream for itself and Starbucks, one that consumers will likely appreciate since it's convenient, and satisfies the desire for instant gratification. It's brilliant, really, and I can only imagine it catching on with other retailers.

And that's the cool part. Imagine being at a concert and being able to buy the albums of the bands on the bill right there. Imagine listening to the radio and being able to buy any song you hear on the spot. Between the technology being rolled out by Starbucks, and the iTunes WiFi Music Store, there's no reason this and more can't happen. Once again, why isn't Microsoft already doing this? They have so much more money and infrastructure than Apple, I can only imagine they could pull this off just as easily. I'd feel sorry for MS except that they have every advantage, every reason to be on top, and they still can't pull it off.

Long story short, Apple is on top of the world and they're still going strong. Expect to see competitors (like Microsoft), and suppliers unhappy with Apple not letting them gouge customer (like NBC) continue to try and knock Apple down. So long as they can keep doing what they're doing, innovating and doing more with less, expect to see Apple remain on top.

Movie Review Mayhem!

On to happier topics...

I've seen a whole bunch of movies over the past few weeks, both new in theaters and on DVD. I couldn't decide which of these to review, so I'm going to run through the lot of them.

The Simpsons Movie - Second favorite movie of the year (right after Knocked Up). Wow, I mean, they took their time getting a Simpsons movie put together, but it was worth the wait. Rather than relying on endless references to episodes and characters from the past thirteen years or so (though there's plenty of that), The Simpsons Movie presents an original and surprisingly solid story. Simply put, after Homer causes Springfield to be declared an environmental disaster, the power mad director of the EPA encases the town in a large glass bubble. Through a series of events, the Simpson family escapes from the bubble, moves to Alaska, then learns of plans to blow the town up. Simple enough, really, but this is The Simpsons we're talking about, so of course this story involves bizarre side trips as well as plot holes and impossibilities delivered with a nudge and a wink. The humor is fast and clever, the dialog is snappy and all the voice talent on their A games, and the animation (which includes Futurama-style CGI elements) has never looked better. All of that makes this an hilarious and enjoyable film, but it's the extra step that makes it a great one.

What really makes the Simpsons Movie shine is its emotional underpinnings. A few scenes, for example the "Dear John" video Marge leaves for Homer at one point, brings out a level of honest, human emotion that most comedies - let alone animated comedies - lack. It's to the film makers' credit that the move never dwells on these scenes longer than is necessary, quickly returning to the jokes once the point has been made. Rather, they're used more to draw you in and to make you care, and give the story that extra push from good to great. Still better is how organically the humorous and dramatic elements work together. I suppose that after nearly a decade and a half they should know what they're doing by now, but there were so many ways to screw this up that the fact that it's not only good, but great, is a triumph.

Honestly, if you like The Simpsons even a little, and you haven't seen the movie yet, get thee to a theater! I saw it twice in as many days, and I'd see it again if asked, it's that good.

The Bourne Ultimatum - I have a mixed view of the Bourne films. The Bourne Identity was fantastic, and I sang its praises to friends who'd barely heard of it, practically forcing a few to watch the DVD when it came out. The mix of furious violence, intelligent action, and intriguing plot - all handed down using bare bones filming and little to no CGI - was an irresistible combination. The Bourne Ultimatum shared many of those traits, including a far more intense script, but delivered it all with a terribly shaky and seemingly sluggish hand. I'm sure the action was great, but I couldn't see any of it because the camera never stopped shaking and couldn't seem to follow the action. I understand that this was a stylistic choice, but in my opinion it was a bad one. If I were Matt Damon, I'd be pissed that the choreography I'd worked on for months never actually made it to the screen.

And now we have The Bourne Ultimatum. The shaky cam is still there, shaking away even when nothing else on screen is moving, but at least it actually follows the action this time. As for the rest of the movie, it's vintage Bourne, and as with the second ratchets up the tension even more. The agency's attempts to track and capture Bourne, scenes that could have been boring and routine, are some off the most exciting and riveting ever put to film. And once Bourne really gets going, well, I wouldn't want to get in his way.

In a way, the shaky cam adds to the drama a bit. It has the look of surveillance footage shot hand held from a distance, adding a sense of realism to the proceedings. In fact, at only one point in the movie did I spot a "bullshit" moment. Bullshit moments are those times when something happens that in no way could happen in real life, and even if you keep quiet a small voice in your head yells "bullshit!" Most action movies have many, and if they're exciting or inventive enough they're forgivable. The Bourne films take a different approach, actively avoiding BS moments, which makes the action that much more exciting because what you're watching could really happen. Sort of. In reality, no one could survive the punishment Bourne regularly receives. It's a testament to the skill of these films that even knowing that, you still believe.

I know this movie finishes up the original trilogy, but there are more Bourne books that those three, and I hope they keep making them into movies. I could envision a time when Bourne films become like Bond films, dozens of movies with no sign of stopping, with new actors swapped in as needed. It would be appropriate, seeing how Bourne is in many ways the anti-Bond.

I just hope that if they do, they add another line item to the budget and buy a steady cam (or just use the one from the first movie, it worked just fine).

Transformers - Let me put it this way: I'm glad I saw it once on the big screen. Spectacle is what this movie has going for it, and nothing else (except, perhaps, Megan Fox, who gave the robots a run for their money as big screen eye candy).

The giant robots fighting are, well, giant robots fighting, and blowing things up. On that count this movie is a resounding success. The only flaw, robot combat-wise, is that the robots themselves are so detailed and feature so many parts - all moving constantly for some reason - that at times you find yourself watching a large yellow pile of industrial garbage fighting a large black pile of industrial garbage. Or worse, occasionally you can't tell what you're really looking at. Thankfully this isn't too much of a problem until the end, when multiple robots, good and bad, go at it simultaneously. The final showdown also features a breathtaking sequence in which Starscream fights half a dozen or so actual fighter jets, constantly switching between jet and humanoid form to do so. The mess that was the rest of that final battle was worth it for that short combat alone.

As for the other aspect of the Transformers movie, well, meh. I'm somewhat a fan of Michael Bay's movies. Generally speaking they're disposable entertainment, and I'm fine with that. Occasionally he proves that he's capable of more, as he did with The Rock, the movie that makes it OK for movie buffs to tolerate him. If The Rock exemplifies everything that can be good about Bay, however, then Transformers exemplifies everything that's bad about him. Virtually every time a character opens his or her mouth it's to spout the dumbest dialog you've ever heard.

Incidental characters are liberally covered in layers of weirdness at the expense of actual characterization. In a single movie Bay managed to give us a cop who thinks he's in a tough-guy cop movie, a car salesman who thinks he's in a black comedy, a hip and cocky hacker (?!), a young and beautiful analyst with a sexy accent and the ability to hear hacks in progress (!?!?), and a government agent who, well, I can't even imagine where they got that strange collection of quirks and mannerisms. Not that any of the performances were bad, per se, just shockingly one dimensional even for an action movie. That's not to mention that one of the robots seems to think he's a jive talking soul brother, and the fact that Bay even managed to make Optimus Prime come off as an idiot more than once.

As a movie goer of (I hope) reasonable intelligence, as well as a Transformers fan of old, the failings of this movie far outweigh the successes. As I said, I'm glad I saw it once on the big screen. I don't care to ever waste my time with it again.

Dog Soldiers - British commandos vs. werewolves? I'm in!

Taking a few pages from the Aliens and Predator handbooks, and tossing in liberal doses of The Howling, An American Werewolf in London, and other horror movies, writer/director Neil Marshall has created one hell of a fun movie. The story is simple but enough for a movie like this, and the performances are spot on (I was especially fond of the character "Spoon"), and the action is pretty good for a low budget action movie.

The werewolves themselves are a mixed bag. Their animatronic heads are quite amazing, and thankfully most of what we see are close ups and quick flashes of snarling mouths and the like. The bodies, well, it's a good thing you only get a few quick full body shots. They're passable considering the budget, but less is more here.

The Descent - I liked Dog Soldiers so much that I immediately looked up what else Neil Marshall has done. Low and behold, he was behind this movie from 2005. In every way except for outright action and fun factor, The Descent is a far better movie, and has become one of my favorite horror movies, if not my absolute favorite.

Basically, a year after losing her husband and daughter in a car accident, a woman and four friends go "caving", exploring underground caves. Things quickly start going wrong, then go from bad to worse, not the least of which being existing tensions within the group. The first third or so of the movie plays out as a straight forward suspense movie, and a very effective one at that. I've never felt so claustrophobic watching a movie in my life. Then they introduce the creatures...

I won't spoil anything except to say that they're creepy and very well done. Marshall knows how to create atmosphere, and tension, and how to make mosters genuinely freightening. And the ending, oh my god, the ending (particularly the slightly extended international ending that's found on the DVD, let's just say that "The Descent" has several possible meanings in the context of the movie). I'm on board for anything he does in the future.

Clerks II - I'll go on record as saying I was one of those people who didn't like the idea of a sequel to Clerks, particularly a decade later. I've never been too down on Kevin Smith for "returning to the well" as they say, it just didn't seem necessary and seemed like it would be too easy to screw up. So it was with little hope that I sat down to watch Clerks II. Honestly, I wasn't terribly impressed the first time through, but I liked it enough that I gave it another shot. The second time through I loved it, it's definitely his best film since Chasing Amy. I think it's the first fifteen minutes or so that threw me the first time. Something about it seemed a bit too "we're Clerks, we talk about sex in a graphic and shocking way and tear apart pop culture", as if trying to tap into the good vibes from the first movie, but in a false way. Once the story really gets going though (during the conversation between Dante and Becky), this movie starts to work very well.

In the end, this isn't a movie about Dante's screwed up love life, as it first seems to be. Rather, it's a movie about friendship. The final twenty minutes or so shows genuine heart and makes up for everything that's wrong with the beginning of the movie. I know Kevin Smith has said, again, that he's done making his "Jersey" films, but if this is the quality of what he produces, I'm just fine with him returning to the well again and again.

Ginger Snaps - After Dog Soldiers, I was in a werewolf kind of mood. I'd read some good things about this movie, despite the fact that the title and cover art (to a point) made it look like a light, "teen" horror movie. Oh... Oh my... How wrong I was.

Ginger Snaps (which is actually a description of what happens rather than simply a clever play on the character's name) is one of the darkest and weirdest movies I've seen in some time. The title character and her sister are true goth types, depressed and angry and obsessed with death. They live in a faceless suburban community that's being terrorized by a creature that's eating the neighborhood dogs. In the same night Ginger gets her period ("the curse" she calls it), and is attacked by the creature. After that night, Ginger starts to change. She becomes outgoing, flirtatious, violent, and... hairy.

After that, things go very wrong very quickly. For a time there's a question as to whether what's happening to Ginger is simply hormones, or something passed by the creature's bite. As her sister tries to cure her, with the help of the local drug dealer (the only person who believes her), and their mother starts to suspect that something's up, Ginger rapidly goes out of control. The ideas in this movie are intriguing and disturbing, and the equation of lycanthropy with puberty - in fact at one point treating it like an STD - is something that's been done before (similar ideas have been explored in everything from The Craft to Spiderman), but the atmosphere of gloom and hopelessness in Ginger Snaps is something I didn't expect.

Overall a fine movie, the conclusion left something to be desired, not to mention the werewolf effects. Neither was bad, necessarily, just inconsistent, and maybe a bit incomplete.

An Inconvenient Truth - I hadn't seen this yet and thought it was about time. Putting politics aside for a moment (since, you know, global warming is a scientific issue and not a political one, ideology should have zero bearing when evaluating the evidence) I thought this was a very effective documentary. Al Gore seems to have relaxed a little, and the number of times he's given this presentation shows in how well he gives it. The information presented is compelling (though further research is necessary to confirm some parts of it), and it's presented in a way that's easy to follow and understand. You'll have to think, of course, but you won't have to be a scientist to get it.

The snippets about Gore himself are interesting, but it's probably a good thing that they're relatively short. They serve as little more than breathers between mountains of facts and figures. It's also interesting that the zinc mine Gore has an interest in is absent, as mining zinc is a very messy endeavor and it really should have been addressed. Other than that, I really liked An Inconvenient Truth. It speaks for the scientific consensus, which is the only way non-scientists have to judge these things (if you went to 100 doctors, and 99 said you had cancer and 1 said you had bad gas, would you forgo cancer treatment because you like the last guy's answer better and his solution was cheaper and easier? Didn't think so), and it does so clearly and effectively.

In Memory of Perry DeAngelis, a skeptical rogue of some note

A few weeks without a post, and I'm back with more sad news, though of a less personal nature.

For several years now I have been a fan of a podcast called "The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe" (SGU), the podcast of the New England Skeptical Society. I've listened to it every week, religiously (so to speak), and it's been a powerful force in shaping my ideas and critical thinking skills. One member of the weekly panel was Perry DeAngelis, a loud mouthed, brash man who never hesitated to name bullshit for what it is. He was a balancing force against the intellectualism of the show's host Stephen Novella and his brothers Bob and Jay and fellow panelist Evan Bernstein, as well as the liberalism of another panel member, Rebecca Watson, with whom Perry often sparred over issues of vegetarianism, women's issues, and more. Beneath all of that, however,it was obvious he had a big heart and a genuine love for what he was doing. And he could always be counted on for a laugh.

On August 19th Perry passed away after spending several weeks in the hospital. He'd been fighting several chronic conditions for some time, and they finally won out. This week's episode of the SGU featured a brief but wonderful lecture he'd given some years ago called "The Psychology of Belief", and then a collections of signature Perry moments from the first 100 episodes of the SGU. Give it a listen, it's as close to "Perry 101" as you'll find.

I'm shocked and saddened by this news. The SGU has been such an important part of my life in recent years, a guiding light of sorts, and though it will go on (as I can only imagine Perry would have wanted), it won't be the same without him. I never met the man in person, but after hearing his voice every week for so long I almost feel as if I knew him. It's as if a friend has died. Not a close friend, maybe someone I knew long ago and haven't seen for ages, but someone whose absence makes the world a slightly less interesting place.

Paul Smith in a post on "Paul Smith's Blog" posted what I think is the best possible tribute to Perry and his life long quest to further skeptical thought:

So long Perry. You lived in such a time where science and technology had advanced far enough that your opinions and thoughts can be recorded, stored and distributed not only throughout the world, but down through time as well, you pushed our science and understanding forward in your own way to help make this possible. As a result people shall be reading what you have written, and listening to what you have said, throughout the history to come. In this sense it is science and technology that has unlocked the ability for people to hear you, no matter where you were or when you were. It is science that allows you to speak from beyond the grave.

Science 1 – Mystics 0.

Other rememberances can be found on Stephen Novella's "NeuroLogica Blog" (he's a neurologist at Yale), and Rebecca Watson's "Memoirs of a Skepchick", as well as the SGU home page.

As a related thought, Rebecca Watson is currently in the 4th round in NPR's "Public Radio Talent Quest" to find a new radio show host (she talks about both this and Perry in this post on her blog). The idea of a skeptical/science show on NPR is an exciting one, and I've been doing my part by voting my approval every step of the way. The more support she gets, the more likely this is to happen. Perry was exited about the possibility and supported Rebecca's efforts despite their personal differences. Also related, SGUFans.net has set up a memorial fund in Perry's name to fund skeptical events. Reason and critical thinking are as worthy a cause as any.

Finally, from SGUFans.net: A collection of Perry quotes, and a collection of his writings. And here's a link to the SGU on iTunes so you can subscribe and listen for yourself.

Read up, listen up, and join the good fight.

A Weekend of Highs and Lows

This past weekend was one of extreme highs and lows for me. First the highs.

For several years now I have been studying a martial art called To-Shin Do (which loosely translates as "way of the sword and spirit"). It is a modernized form of Ninjutsu (a.k.a. Ninpo, Taijutsu, etc.) that was founded in the United States by Stephen K. Hayes. He had travelled to Japan, and learned the art from Masaaki Hatsumi, the last master of nine ancient lineages ("ancient" here being about 900 years) then brought it back to teach it here. My instructor, John Poliquin, is Mr. Hayes' senior student, and an accomplished martial artist in his own right (he held a black belt in Judo before meeting Mr. Hayes). It is sheer coincidence that a Quest Center (as To-Shin Do schools are called) is located nearby, and is run by an instructor like Mr. Poliquin. In Maine, of all places.

This past weekend Stephen Hayes was in Portland conducting a seminar at my Quest Center. Along with forty or so of my fellow students I trained under his instruction from seven to nine on Friday night, and again from nine to noon Saturday morning. It was worth the money, the time, and the pain (though I've been at this for some time, I'm still just a beginner, and I'm fighting my own out-of-shape body and lazy tendencies every step of the way). I don't know what more to say about it than that. this is the second time I've met Mr. Hayes, though this was in a smaller group, and a more intimate setting (and I am further along in my training) all leading to a more satisfying experience. Mr. hayes himself has always been upbeat and absolutely thrilled to be doing what he's doing, something that he passes along to others. I may not have learned a whole lot this weekend, in literal terms, but what I got was a glimpse of things to come, a chance to observe and learn a bit from a master, and a renewed excitement about what I'm doing (in the picture below, I'm the one on the left, if there was any doubt).



Now for the lows.

Sunday morning Laura and I realized that we had not seen one of our cats, Casey, since Friday. It isn't unusual to not see him all day, especially on hot days, since he likes to hang out in the basement where it's cooler. It was almost noon the next day, however, and his absence was noticed. On a whim I went downstairs to look for him. I found him curled up in an empty rubbermaid bin, dead.

From the look of things (I'll spare the details) he either had an aneurism, or he had severely injured his head. What it comes down to is that it was a fluke (and not something that would endanger our other two cats or dog), it was fast, and there's nothing we could have done. There's some consolation in that, faint though it may be. He's the first of our pets - meaning belonging to my wife and myself together - to die. He wasn't even four years old. Pets dying before you do is an inevitability, but we didn't think we'd have to deal with this for at least another five or six years.

Casey was always a bit off. Sick more than our other pets, clumsy, slightly schizophrenic in his behavior, but he was always lovable. He would demand attention, loudly, then run away when you tried to give it to him. If you could catch him before he got away he would melt into your arms, purring and kneading like he'd never been loved before. We have a small fountain for the cats (they prefer it to a simple bowl), and Casey's method of drinking from it was to stick a paw under the running water, shake it furiously as if surprised that it was wet, and only then drink. He would often misjudge jumps, or clean out whole shelves full of small items with his tail. His favorite treat was salsa and cheese sauce (not one or the other, but both mixed). Whenever we had some we would put a little on a chip for him, he'd lick the chip clean and then we'd give him a little more. Doing this three or four times was the only sure way to get him to leave us alone. He was annoying, demanding, frustrating, spoiled, impish, and we already miss him terribly.

Luna, Casey's sister, and our dog Markus, seem to have noticed his absence. They usually leave me alone during the day, but they've both been desperately clingy. Maybe I'm reading more into that than is there, I don't know. And I guess that's all there is to say. The big, dumb, lovable fuzz ball had a good life, I hope, he was loved and cared for the best we knew how.

I work from home most days, and the second chair in my office had more or less become his during the day. Today it was empty.

iPhone Follow-Up

This is just a (not so) brief follow-up to my last post about the iPhone. It's been two weeks without anything new, so it's about time. I'm working on a more substantive post that should be up shortly.

Some of you may have noticed the "iPhone..." tab at the top of the page. If you click on it, you'll find that it takes you to a stripped down version of this site, conveniently sized for viewing on the iPhone's small (but very dense) screen. I placed that there shortly after the iPhone was released in anticipation of actually toying with one. I wasn't sure if the built-in Safari browser was going to live up to expectations, so I wanted to have two versions of the site to check out. Though I know I can't get one, at least not for some time, I still needed to play with one for a bit, just to see if my speculations held up.

About a week after the release of the iPhone I found myself at an AT&T Store in front of an unoccupied iPhone, and there I touched the future.

"Hyperbole!" I can hear the more literate among you crying. "Bullshit!" the rest of you scream. Hey, call me a fan-boy if you want, but the first thing I said when someone asked me what it was like is "it's like holding the future in your hand." Honest to God (or Buddha, Allah, Odin, Zeus, take your pick), I did. The interface worked as advertised, and though it's not perfect, it holds an almost ridiculous amount of promise. The screen itself is bright and crisp, and the the touch controls are responsive and very fast. Moving through lists, flipping through albums and photos, all works just as I'd hoped it would. Sitting here at my desk afterwards I had to refrain from touching the screen of my iMac to flip through things, it's just that intuitive and natural.

The on screen keyboard wasn't the easiest to use, but the auto-correct feature I mentioned last time works so well that it almost doesn't matter. I don't know what kind of spelling engine they've employed, but the sooner I can get that in a word processor the better. The trick is to stop worrying about being 100% accurate and to just type away. Nine times out of ten, and probably more often than that, it knew exactly what I had intended to type, and this after only five minutes or so. Apparently it learns, building a database of words you commonly misspell so as to stay one step ahead of you (as I understand it).

One control I wasn't too sure about before hand was the "pinch" interface for navigating photos. Basically, to zoom in on a photograph you place two fingers on the screen and spread them apart. To zoom back out, you do the same but move your fingers closer together. In imagining this I'd thought it backwards, that you would want to zoom in by focusing on smaller bits of the photo. I'm fairly certain I thought this based on dealing with the navigation interfaces in programs like Photoshop. When you're physically touching the screen, however, it makes perfect sense. Think of it this way: You place your finger tips on points A and B, which are, say, 1 inch apart. Now spread your finger tips apart so that points A and B are two inches apart. Points A and B on the photo have not changed position relative to the photo, they have simply gotten further apart, so the photo is enlarged to compensate. Once you've done it you can't imagine doing it any differently given the touch interface.

As for the browser. Oh, my, the browser. This by itself is almost reason enough to want an iPhone. If you've ever used a browser on a cell phone before, you know that by and large they are crap. Even the decent ones, like Opera, suffer from the phone's control scheme. When loading a page on the iPhone it is rendered nearly perfectly (I did notice some elements shift slightly on this site, but not much), and scaled down to fit the width of the screen. To move around you slide the page with your finger as you do with lists and photos. If you want to see a particular part of the page - and here's the cool part - you double tap on it and the view is zoomed in. This is not a generic on-size-fits-all zoom either, the specific element you tapped on, be it a paragraph of text or an image, is zoomed in to perfectly fit the screen. It's brilliant, and once you've done it it makes perfect sense. I do admit, however, that you would be hard pressed to figure this out without being told first.

That is true of many aspects of the iPhone, and in that respect alone was I disappointed. But only a little. A few times I got lost, or stuck in a screen and unsure how to get out. Generally the answer is either "tap anywhere on the screen" (which will bring up controls), or find a small (too small) "X" button to tap (or something similar, I didn't use it for long, and it was a week ago). Once you know that it's simple enough. It's roughly akin to using an iPod. Once you're told that holding down the Menu button turns it off you don't have any trouble doing it, but you probably wouldn't have figured it out on your own. I don't mind, really, as this is a very complicated device that is almost very easy to use. It does it better than most.

Speaking of "most", I was telling someone about my previous post when it occurred to me that my cell phone does, in fact, have a one-button way to turn the ringer off. Hold down either the # or * button for three seconds to turn it off, and again to turn it back on. The problem is the "either". It's one or the other of those, and I can't for the life of me remember which one. This wouldn't be so bad if the other did something innocuous, but instead it locks the keypad. I set the unlock code two years ago when I got this phone, and can never remember what it is. Obviously, I always manage to figure it out, but the fact remains that choosing the wrong button in this case means having to take ten minutes to unlock the damn phone before I can use it again. At some point I subconsciously decided to forget this function existed, because one too many times I'd done it wrong and seriously inconvenienced myself. That's exactly, point for point, the kind of problem I was talking about last time.

I also had to change the backdrop on my mother's cell phone over the weekend, again, because she had somehow set it back to the default. I won't say much about it, except to ask what sub-genius decided that this feature should not be accessed through the "Display" menu, but rather through the "Camera" menu (even when it's not a picture you've taken using the camera)? Sheesh.

So anyway, how did my little "Life of Convenience: iPhone Edition" experiment work out? Given the quality of the built-in browser, having a special version of this site for the iPhone is unnecessary, but I still like it. It is slightly easier to read, and aesthetically it matches the iPhone better than the full version. It's also very easy to maintain, given that it updates automatically when this site does, so I think I'll leave it there for now. Let me know what you think.

And now, I'll leave you with this quote from this post over at Penny Arcade in which Tycho sums of some of my feelings about the iPhone more eloquently, or at least more interestingly, than I'm capable of doing (the emphasis is mine):

Having serviced Macs at one point in my illustrious IT career, I understand that there is simply an Apple Way of doing things, and it is often a very, very good way but it's still their way as opposed to some natural ratio of the universe. It's not universal, and there are strange blind spots, but there is a reason that their chosen people hoist the banner. My old phone, one based on Windows Mobile 5.0, had almost every feature the iPhone has - point by point. The differences between the products (like the differences between their desktop cousins) have to do with how functionality is exposed to the user. In this matter, you'll find that Apple's product is almost infuriatingly superior.



I have been waiting for the ability to manipulate technology by pressing dynamic symbols for basically ever. If you find such things unpleasant, then I suggest you develop a taste for forced labor because by the year twenty-twenty all that sneer is going to get you is a slot in the underclass boiling corpses. Get with the fucking program. Come and touch the neon glyphs.

Amen to that (I'm still waiting for a car with a dashboard comprised of graphical widgets I can rearrange, or a stereo or DVD or microwave with same).

You know, it might be time to break open the piggy bank...

Happy iPhone Day!

Unless you're living in a cave somewhere, or you actively avoid technology news, it's likely that you're aware of the iPhone's impending release. At 6pm tonight (it's a rolling release, at 6pm in each time zone) at Apple Stores and AT&T Stores across the US, the much anticipated iPhone will be available for purchase. In some places, people are already lining up (and have been for days), though I was at the Maine Mall the yesterday, and the AT&T Store there didn't look any busier than normal. The kind of hype and excitement surrounding the iPhone's release is the kind usually reserved for the latest video game console, and is unprecedented for a cell phone. Leave it to Apple to turn a convention on its ear, huh?

Predictably, along with the hype, come the haters. Nay-sayers who love nothing more than to tear apart whatever is popular at the moment. In some cases, they have a point. The iPhone doesn't have as many features as some other Smart Phones, and it is limited to AT&T, and doesn't include any expansion slots or a user-replaceable battery. Sure, the iPhone isn't the cure for cancer or a solution to poverty - I'm told it won't even painlessly remove warts or whiten teeth as widely speculated - but there is a very good reason that people are so excited about the iPhone. It's not the advertising hype, it's not the Apple brand itself, it's the interface.

Repeat after me: It's all about the interface.

It's all about the interface.

Interface design is one of the most important, and least appreciated, aspects of product design. It's under appreciated because when it's done well, you hardly notice. When's the last time you thought about how to operate a light switch? Or how to use a pair of scissors? When's the last time you forgot which way to turn the steering wheel in your car to make it go right? These are all examples of interface designs that are so sensible, or at least consistent, that you don't even think about it any more. There's no reason why clock-wise should translate into "turn right". While the top of the wheel is rotated towards the right, the bottom is rotated towards the left, and the wheel itself doesn't move in either direction, it just spins in place. However, it is such a convention at this point that we don't even think about it. This convention is carried into many other products as well. If you were to encounter a product that turned this convention on its ear, for example a stereo that required you to turn the volume knob to the left to turn the volume up, it would be confusing and disorienting. That would be very poor interface design.

Note that I said "turn the volume knob to the left", but you still knew that I meant "counter-clockwise", didn't you?

So what do light switches, steering wheels, and volume knobs have to do with the iPhone? Simply put, the interface design of most cell phones sucks. Modern cell phones are notorious for overly complicated, labyrinthine menus that must be slogged through to perform the simplest of functions. My cell phone, which is made my LG, is relatively easy to use, but some tasks that should be simple are not. As an illustrative example, let's try turning the ringer off:

First, I have to push the blue "OK" button to bring up the main menu. There is little indication that the OK button will do this, except for a red "Menu" blob above it at the bottom of the screen. I know, because I have read the manual, that the red blob is telling be what the blue OK button does, but there is no logical, or natural, connection between the two. Next, I go over to the Settings & Tools menu tab and down to Sounds. Initially I tried System and Call Settings before trying Sounds. From there I select Call Sounds. Here I am presented with Call Ringtone and Call Vibrate. Why the option to turn off the ringer is part of the ringtone menu eludes me. Among other things, this necessitates choosing your ringtone again when you want to turn it back on. Given that they are arbitrarily labeled "Ringtone 1", Ringtone 2" etc., I have to listen to each one to figure out which one it is that I liked. Here I'm presented with four options: Caller ID, no Caller ID, Restrict Calls, and All Calls. Going into the All Calls menu I scroll all the way to the bottom and select "No Ring".

This is a completely arbitrary multi-step process - seven steps in all - for something that I would think would be a common request. This same procedure must be followed to turn the ring tones back on. And really, mine is one of the easiest to use cell phones I've seen in years. Every time a relative gets a new cell phone, I end up sitting down with it for some time, trying to figure out how to do things so that I can teach the phone's owner how to do them. My mother still hasn't figured out how to use her phone's call waiting feature, and often complains that it beeps at her during calls. Given the level of technology we are capable of, this state of affairs is ridiculous. Phones, portable or otherwise, should not be this difficult to use.

Enter the iPhone. I'm realistic, I don't expect the iPhone to answer all of the little annoyances mentioned above. Whenever the number of functions excedes the number of controls, operation necessarily becomes a bit arbitrary, but it can still be logical and easy to follow. And it certainly solves the primary problem above: The iPhone has a switch on the side that turns the ringer on and off. When designing an interface, make simple actions simple and complex actions explicable.

The reason most people - including myself - are psyched for the iPhone is that it looks as if this will finally be the phone that works the way we want it to. The key is the fact that the majority of the interface is virtual, so that the whole thing can be re-arranged to account for the current action. For example, were my mother using an iPhone as another call came in, she would be presented with two large buttons, one offering to put the current call on hold and pick up the new call, and the other offering to ignore the new call and send it to voice mail (there may be a third "3-way calling" option, I'm not sure, but I thought I saw something about that). She wouldn't have to remember that the Send button doubles as a Flash button for switching between calls (she shouldn't even have to remember what a "Flash" button is). At any given time, the interface will show you only what you can do at that moment. As I mentioned above, when the number of features exceeds the number of controls, things become arbitrary. The iPhone's virtual interface goes a long way towards addressing that problem by showing you, to the best of its ability, only what you can do at that moment. Each possible action represented as a single clearly labeled button as in the Call Waiting example.

Despite the fact that the iPhone is a very complicated device, the interface has been thought out in such a way as to make it easy to use. But that's not the coolest part.

More important are the "natural" cues that have been programmed into it. By natural cues, I mean the kinds of things that humans are programmed to expect after thousands of years of dealing with the world we inhabit. Objects have mass and behave in a certain way, interacting with objects causes things to happen, etc. The iPhone's interface has been designed with this in mind. The clearest example, and one that can be seen in several of the recent commercials, is how scrolling works. In order to scroll through a list, you place your finger on the screen and drag it one way or the other, as if you were moving a paper tape over the surface. Beyond this, and far more impressive, the list has mass and inertia. If you fling it, it will keep moving for a time, then slow to a stop. When you hit the end of the list, it bounces slightly, in the manner of a retractable cord that's been pulled out as far as it will go. With these two relatively simple interface details, the list becomes a physical thing that you can interact with. In other words, you know how it works without thinking about it.

How many times have you come to the end of a list on your computer or cell phone, and had to push down a few more times just to be sure you're at the end? How many times have you thought you'd gone all the way to the top or bottom of a list, only to realize some time later that you hadn't? This simple bounce is a subtle but very clear clue that you've gone as far as you can. Both the bounce and the inertia also go a long way towards eliminating some of the abruptness inherent in most graphical interfaces. In the real world, movement and sound don't start and stop with abruptness, and when they do the effect is unsettling. It also makes things hard to follow and track. This is the reason I never, ever use page down when scrolling a document or web page. Pressing Page Down causes the entire thing to abruptly change, with no visual clue as to what has happened, or how far we've gone. Sometimes the last line is still visible as the first line on screen, but that still takes a moment to register, and I always fear I've gone too far or missed something. And what if I've hit it twice by accident? Or the program I'm using interprets Page Down differently? Internal links (the kind that take you to a different part of the same page) are even worse. Have I jumped to a new page? Where am I in relation to where I started? Hard core techies will laugh at me for this, but it's honestly the way I feel and I'm certain I'm not alone. This is basic to the psychology of objects and interaction.

The simplest way to avoid this particular confusion is to cause the document to slide, rather than jump. This can be done very quickly, but so long as it registers, there's no confusion as to what happened. Check this out for a rough example of what I'm talking about. By incorporating natural movement and inertia into scrolling on the iPhone, everything moves in entirely explicable ways. There's no confusion and you feel like you're in control at all times, because you get this. Brilliant.

Another great example is the spelling correction feature. If you misspell a word while typing, a bubble appears under the offending word with a suggested correction. If you choose to go with the suggestion, the incorrect word fades away and the correct word slides up into place. There is absolutely no confusion as to whether the correction has taken place or not (I can't be the only one who double checks just to be sure). In the real world, in order to replace something, you move it out of the way and then move the replacement into the vacated space. Again, the graphical interface of the iPhone mimics the natural cues of real life, letting you know what's going on in a subtle and unobtrusive way.

For these reasons, and countless others expounded elsewhere, the nay-sayers who point out the iPhone's short comings are missing the point, the same way they missed the point when the iPod was released without a radio tuner or voice recorder. In the end, the user experience sold it, and then some. Personally, I'm psyched about the iPhone. Not so much the device itself (I can't begin to afford one), but the ideas it brings to the table. With luck, it will work as advertised, and will completely re-write the rules for how cell phones work. Hopefully the iPhone will wake cell phone makers up to the fact that phones should be designed with the end user's ease of use in mind, and the torrent of crap they've been producing for decades will finally end. Hopefully.

On the other hand, if the iPhone fails to live up to its promises, it will be very bad. People like myself, and even more so people who actually bought one, will be outraged. We will show no mercy if this is the case, having been mislead into false praise and false hope. This would not only be bad for Apple, but for the cell phone using public. If the iPhone fails, people will take this to mean that the concepts it embodies are no good. The industry will just keep doing what it's been doing with the rational that it has worked so far, and the iPhone didn't.

If that happens, it will be very bad indeed. Here's hoping Apple's up to the challenge.

P.S.: In case you can't tell, issues of interface design and interaction interest me greatly. The iPhone is only one example of a technology (whether high or low tech) that fascinates and excites me. Expect more posts in the future about related issues. I'm not an expert, I'm just a regular guy who loves these kinds of ideas and loves sharing them with the world to see what people think. Check out The Design of Everyday Things by Donald A. Norman for a fascinating (if dated) look at these issues.

Odd Feed Behavior

For some reason the feed for this site has been doing some odd things. I'm signed up for e-mail updates so I can monitor what's actually getting sent out, and a couple times recently I've received e-mails containing a number of random older posts. I have no idea why this is happening, the feed itself looks fine, and I'm at a loss. So, sorry for any inconvenience or annoyance, hopefully it'll work itself out sooner rather than later.

Now, to ensure that this isn't an entirely boring post, check out what I just came across in Apple's support docs (my emphasis):

6) Check for Viruses
Macs are far more less likely to get a computer virus like Windows PCs are prone to but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

I feel like I should tell someone, but on the other hand they're Apple, they should know better.

iTMS Plus - Higher Bit Rate, No DRM, and Still They Complain

For some reason, I've been receiving e-mails from PC Magazine recently. I didn't sign up for this, but occasionally there is an interesting article or product review, so I don't really mind. Recently, however, the June 21st edition of the "PC Magazine Buying Guide" included a link to the article "DRM-Free Comes at a Price", by Tim Gideon.  In it, he outlines why he's not happy with Apple's plans to offer DRM-free music through their iTunes Music Store (iTMS). This article was first published on May 30th, before the offering actually took place (you can now buy "Plus" tracks by EMI artists which are encoded at 256kbps, and are DRM-free), so a few of his concerns have been answered, at least in part, but that's not what interests me here.  What interests me is the attitude of entitlement and the childish and petty nature of his complaints.

After going over the basics of Apple's announcement, he writes "I'm no fan of DRM, so why am I still annoyed?", and then launches into his criticisms. First is that Apple is charging $1.29 for these "Plus" tracks, as opposed to the $0.99 they've been charging all along.  He explains his disappointment like this:

Let's just bypass the insulting fact that we've been paying for lower quality all this time (since it's not a new gripe) and tackle the real issues here: The increase in bit rate is minimal and will be imperceptible to most ears. So, while you're ostensibly paying more to get better sound quality (which is still not CD quality), what you're really paying more for is the record label's "sacrifice." Since it's letting you actually own your music files now, it wants extra cash.

Insulting?  The quality of the tracks sold on the iTMS has never been a secret, you knew what you were getting when you bought them, so where's the insult?  I have never understood the nearly personal offense some people take to purchasing music from the iTMS.  Some people seem incensed that they're buying tracks that are encoded at "only" 128kbps and are saddled with DRM (Digital Rights Management).  I'm no fan of DRM myself, but where is the insult in all of this?  If you want higher quality and no DRM, don't buy from the iTMS.  It's really that simple.  Apple is offering a service, no one is forcing you to use it, so where does this self righteous anger come from?

As for his real point, the regular tracks on the iTMS are encoded at 128kbps (kilo-bits per second), while the "Plus" tracks are encoded at 256kbps.  Because of the way bit rates work, this doesn't translate directly into twice the quality, but it is a significant boost.  In fact, nearly every source I could find noted that at 192kbps and above, the vast majority of people can't hear any difference, and that's when dealing with MP3s.  The format Apple uses, AAC, uses a higher quality encoding scheme, meaning that these new "Plus" tracks should sound like MP3s encoded at a bit rate higher than 256kbps.  Especially given how often people gripe about the 128kbps encoding now, this increase in quality is hardly "minimal" or "imperceptible".  It is added value, plain and simple.  Whether it is enough of an addition to justify the price increase is up to each of us to decide for ourselves.  Again, no one is forcing you to buy anything, it's your choice.  He's just complaining for the sake of complaining.

As a side note, it is true that the individual tracks cost $0.30 more in their "Plus" version, but the same is not true of whole albums, which for the most part cost the same in either version.  As someone who very rarely buys individual tracks, this is wonderful news.  For example, I recently looked for Emery's "The Question" (which I highly recommend), and found that the full album costs $9.99 in either regular or "Plus" form.  Assuming that you take 256kbps to be acceptable quality (I do), and you don't mind not having the album art (in most cases, I don't), this is a better deal than buying the CD, which generally sells for $15 or more.  For someone like me, "Plus" is the killer feature that could, if the other labels follow EMI's lead, make music stores largely obsolete.

Next, he moves onto what seems to be his primary complaint:

Now on to the damage done: those now inferior tracks that you bought on iTunes over the past half-decade? They'll still have DRM and still be "protected" (from your desire to share them). If Steve Jobs truly believes DRM should be eliminated, the elimination should be retroactive.  This could be achieved by sending iTunes customers new DRM-free versions of all of their previous purchases via an iTunes update, or by updating the software to ignore all past DRM encryption.

As I mentioned above, this article was published before the "Plus" service was actually rolled out, so it's very likely that the author simply didn't know about the "Upgrade My Library" option, which allows you to upgrade all of your purchased tracks to their higher bit-rate, DRM-free "plus" versions.  Of course, this option comes at a cost, you have to pay the extra $0.30 to make up the price difference, so the author might still not be happy about it.  He wants the tracks he already purchased to become "Plus" tracks free of charge, apparently as a matter of principle.

Why he believes that Steve Jobs and Apple owe him anything is beyond me.  This goes back to the "you knew what you were buying when you bought it" point I made earlier.  When you bought songs on the iTMS, you knew that you were getting tracks encoded at 128kbps and saddled with DRM for $0.99 each.  You knew that, and you agreed to those terms, or you wouldn't have made the purchase.  End of story.  Now that there's something better available, why on Earth should you be given that free of charge?  Does that happen in any other industry?  Do people demand free upgrades for the computers they purchased last year because there's something bigger and better out now?  That would be like me demanding that Saturn give me a new Ion because mine is a year old now, and the new ones have some nifty features I'd like to have.  That's simply not going to happen.

And actually, Apple is offering a pretty good deal when viewed in those terms.  If I could get a brand new, updated car by paying the difference between what I paid a year ago and what the new ones cost, I would do it.  The same goes for my two year old iBook.  I paid roughly $900 for it two years ago.  The new MacBooks retail for about $1100.  I would gladly pay $200 to upgrade, but that isn't going to happen.

Of course, when dealing with digital files some of the rules are different.  it would certainly be possible for Apple to just give everyone these upgrades, and all it would cost them is some time (the people running the iTMS have to be paid after all), and possibly bandwidth, though given the monstrous amount they already use, they'd probably hardly notice.  But that's not the point.  Just because they can, doesn't mean they're under any obligation to do so.  They offered a service that you took advantage of, and now they're offering a service that is of greater value to you and they expect to be paid for it.  Welcome to the free market.  You can argue on philosophical grounds all you want that Apple should offer free upgrades, but they are under no legal or moral obligation to do so.

It's also worth noting that the author is willfully ignoring the fact that only one label is offering DRM-free tracks so far, EMI.  The only way to retroactively remove DRM from previously purchased tracks is to somehow separate EMI artists from all of the others.  In other words, to update the tracks themselves instead of the software as a whole.  Part of that $0.30 per track upgrade cost is going to pay for the fact that this has to be done case by case, as opposed to via a blanket upgrade.  Whether this actually costs Apple anything is irrelevant.  They are, once again, offering a particular service at a particular price, it's up to you whether their offer is worth it to you or not.

Finally, the author makes a clear implication that Steve Jobs and Apple aren't really serious about going DRM-free.  I can't speak for the intentions of Jobs himself, or of Apple as a whole, but I can speak to the simplistic - if not outright ignorant - nature of that implication.  It isn't up to Apple whether or not the tracks they sell feature DRM or not.  When the iTMS first opened, Apple had to appease the RIAA - the gate keepers who hold the keys to the majority of music the average consumer would be interested in - or they wouldn't have had anything worth while (from a business standpoint) to offer.  The RIAA is known for being opposed to digital music, to say the least, and so Apple was required to put a Digital Rights Management scheme in place before being allowed to sell anything.  Now that EMI has agreed to sell their tracks without DRM, Apple is able to do so, but they are still in no position to force that on the other labels whose music their sell.  They also have to do whatever EMI asks of them lest they pull the plug.  For all we know, that $0.30 is a condition EMI demanded before allowing this change.

To imply that if Apple "truly believes DRM should be eliminated" they would throw the doors wide is to ignore the realities of the business Apple is in.  They can no more dictate these policies to the record labels than can K-Mart or Wal-Mart (well, maybe Wal-Mart... regardless, Apple doesn't have that kind of clout).  Again, the author is complaining for the sake of complaining, and displaying (yet again) a willingness to ignore facts for the sake of a petty attack.

Maybe it's time I start marking these PC Magazine e-mails as spam, if this is the quality of their offerings.

Movie Review - Knocked Up

First of all, to get this out of the way: I've seen "Shrek the Third" and "Pirates of the Caribbean - At Worlds End", and "28 Weeks Later" between seeing Spiderman 3 and Knocked Up. They were, respectively, "a lot of fun, but not as good as the first two", "weird and wild, but not as solid as the second", and "really good, probably better than the first, but they're so different it's hard to compare". Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's talk about Knocked Up.

Knocked up is Judd Apatow's follow up to The 40 Year Old Virgin. It's an interesting amalgamation of genres that probably appeals across several audiences. It's a pregnancy comedy and the female lead is from Grey's Anatomy, so the chick flick crowd is well represented. However, it also features most of the second string cast of The 40 Year Old Virgin, a goodly amount of stoner humor, and more F-bombs than any comedy in recent memory. Fans of raunchy comedy will be pleased. It also, against the odds for a movie like this, features well rounded characters and a solid story. So what did I think of it?

It's the best movie I've seen all year, hands down.

That's a big claim, particularly in this season of major blockbusters, but I stand by it. The thing is, not only is Knocked Up uproariously funny - I haven't laughed this hard since Borat - it's also a very well made and superbly acted film. Take away the jokes, and it would still be a solid drama. For the most part, everyone seems to agree with me on this. I do have one friend who was quite disappointed with it, but I'll get to me thoughts on that later. The one word I've heard over and over again is "honesty". This movie deals with issues of pregnancy, relationships, marriage, friendship, responsibility, and all of the myriad emotions that go along with them with stark honesty. Even the language in the film, which is filthy to say the least in places, rings true. Also, just to put this out there, I hope that both Seth Rogan (Ben) and Paul Rudd (Pete) star together in many, many more movies. They're brilliant together, to say the least.

I might get in trouble for this, but at this point I would almost describe Judd Apatow as a mature Kevin Smith. Not to take anything away from either film maker, but that's the vibe I get. The naturalistic dialog, bracingly honest treatment of the subject matter, and the low key production are all reminiscent of Kevin Smith, particularly of Chasing Amy. However, Apatow's characters and subjects are decidedly more adult, and his habit of letting actors improvise (something Smith would never do) lends his films a more spontaneous feel. Take from that what you will.

WARNING: MILD SPOILERS AHEAD

The inciting incident in Knocked Up is the chance meeting of Ben - an unemployed stoner who's out partying with friends because he doesn't have anything better to do - and Alison - an up and coming talent with E! who's out celebrating her first "on air" assignment. Ben manages to charm the slightly innebriated Alison, and the two of them go back to her place and have sex. Unprotected sex, due to a drunken misunderstanding. Eight weeks later, Alison realizes she's pregnant, and Ben is the only candidate for father.

From there we follow these two near strangers as they try to get to know one another and figure out what to do about their situation. Where Knocked Up differs from your average pregnancy story is in its focus. What makes Knocked Up different from your standard romantic comedy is its honesty and heart. The jokes come entirely from the characters being who they are and bouncing off of one another, the emotional moments are almost painfully real, and not once does the film talk down to its audience.

Ben doesn't have the typical "I don't want to take on this responsibility" reaction when he finds out he's going to be a father. His initial reaction is emotionally violent and angry, but once he's had a chance to come to grips with the idea, he tries to do the right thing as if it's his only option. Alison's reaction is panic and sorrow - she can see her career, all that she's worked for, going away because of this - but she almost immediately decides to keep the baby and do the best she can. Of the few negative reviews I've seen of this movie, most seem to point to these two immediate decisions as a weakness. Why doesn't Alison consider an abortion? Why does Ben so readily give up his hedonistic ways? The answer to the first is simply that she doesn't want to. Most people probably have their minds made up already whether that's even an option for them (regardless of their political views), and apparently it isn't an option for her. The answer to the second cuts a bit closer to the heart of this movie. First of all, Ben is a decent guy. It is largely to Seth Rogan's credit that even when his character is doing something unseemly, you can't help but think that he's a decent guy. Secondly, and here's the real meat of it, he doesn't quite grasp what he's doing at first.

Where the women in this movie - Alison and her sister Debbie - give the film its strength and intelligence, the men - Ben and Debbie's husband Pete - give it its heart and soul. Initially, Ben "does the right thing" by doing what he thinks he's supposed to do, but it's little more than playing the part. It's almost as if he's acting out the things he's seen in movies and TV shows. He means well, but he hasn't yet grasped the fact that he's actually going to have to change his ways. In one scene where this comes to a head, he forgets that Alison is asleep in his bedroom when an earthquake hits. He leaves her there and instead carries a large bong to safety. Pete, by contrast, has given himself over almost completely to his wife and two daughters, and fears that there's nothing left of who he once was. He makes up excuses to get out of the house and do things alone to try and regain some sense of self. This leads to problems in his marriage, which gives Ben and Alison a glimpse into what their future may hold if they can't figure this out.

Again, this movie doesn't play down to it audience, so Pete isn't a stereotypical disinterested father and husband. He loves his kids and is shown to be nothing less than a stellar father, and loves his wife as well, he simply feels trapped and overwhelmed by her. Debbie, for her part, could have played as a standard nagging wife, but instead is possibly the most compelling of the characters here. Alison isn't the model of strength and patience she might have been in less capable hands. Instead, she gives back to Ben just as good as she gets, and nearly destroys her career by trying to hide her pregnancy out of fear. Where Ben's journey takes him from acting the part to actually embodying it, Alison's takes her from fear and uncertainty to strength and maturity.

This shouldn't have to be said, but it's nice to see a movie like this where the women are just as unsure of themselves as the men, and the men are just as redeemable as the women. I'm not ashamed to admit that when Ben finally comes into his own and claims not only his responsibilities, but the inherent privileges and dignity of being an expectant father, I was moved. What he finds in himself is something I can only hope I do if I'm ever in that situation, and that thought touched me deeply. Ben's crowning moment comes when he is finally able to put Debbie - the one character who has always held the moral upper hand thus far - in her place and banish her from the delivery room after she tries to unceremoniously dismiss him. When she says to her husband "He just kicked me out... I think he's going to be a good father... I think I like him!" (or something close to that) it's a brilliant validation that Ben has finally arrived. It's also important to note that Ben does not give up being who he is, his actions are very much in character, only his focus has changed completely (going from himself to his girlfriend and new baby).

Now, about people who didn't like this movie, in my experience so far, they fall into two camps: Those with political objections (lack of focus on the question of abortion, for example), and those who simply felt no connection to it. A good friend of mine saw Knocked Up expecting the funniest movie ever, based on what he'd heard (from myself included). While I freely admit that this isn't even the funniest movie of the year, he saw almost no humor in it. I found that baffling, until it occurred to me that we are at two very different stages of our lives, despite being good friends. I am married, I own a house, I have a degree and work in my chosen field. He is single, will soon be living with his parents again, and works in fast food. I'm certainly not trying to knock him - in some ways I envy him (don't read too much into that, I'm very happily married) - but the fact is that introspective humor centered around long term relationships and what it means to grow up and become responsible not only to yourself, but to a family of your own, just isn't going to resonate as strongly as it would with me.

I had a similar observation about the movie Big Fish, which is still among my top movies ever. After my wife's younger sisters and mother went to see it, I asked them what they thought. The young girls, barely out of high school at the time, thought it was boring and pointless. Her mother, on the other hand, found it deeply moving. Similarly, my father had a very powerful reaction to it, possibly more than I did, due largely to the themes of fatherhood and true understanding across generations.

I stand by my statement that Knocked Up is the best movie I've seen this year. You don't have to agree, it isn't a movie for everyone, but don't be surprised if some day you see it again and find a lot more there than you did the first time around.

Today is a very special day for me

Two years ago today I was lucky enough to marry the love of my life.

Woot.



It'll be interesting to see what happens next.

Taking Stock

For a number of reasons, I've been thinking a great deal about what I really want in life, what I really believe (or don't), and how that fits into the life I'm leading. Over the past few years (particularly the past nine months or so) my interest in things scientific, spiritual, philosophical, and religious has been at all time high.

For most of my life, I have had definite leanings away from organized religion and towards a more scientific world view. I do my best to be a good skeptic though (if nothing else, I've learned that I am a skeptic, and always will be), so I've been looking at as many different viewpoints as I can and holding my beliefs up against them. I've realized how little I actually know about the things I think I know. Pondered this, I found that many of my long held beliefs and assumptions were held without proof or evidence, I simply believed them because I always had. Not good.

The most obvious reason for this is environmental. Like most people, I spent most of my time around people who are somewhat like me. Especially as a child, the people you choose to spend time with are going to be those that you agree with in most cases. In that respect, until the age of 24 or so, I had rarely spoken at length with a person of deep religious conviction, or a staunch conservative, or an anarchist, or even a member of a truly repressed minority (I grew up in Maine, after all, and could count the non-Caucasians I've known well on one hand). It was rare for me to put a political or religious view out there and have it disagreed with. Intellectually, I knew that such people as fundamentalists, free market capitalists, and country music fans existed, but I hadn't knowingly come into close contact with them on more than a few occasions.

What changed all of that for me was the Internet. In particular, I found a forum that for a time fostered respectful debate and disagreement, only occasionally getting personal or nasty, about all of these topics and more. It was filled with intelligent and interesting people from all over the country, and even the world, and from all walks of life and ideologies. Interestingly, it was a forum for a then young web comic about movies. The web comic, Theater Hopper, is still going strong and I highly recommend checking it out. The forum, unfortunately, has declined of late, having been over run by spambots and, regrettably, one too many mean spirited arguments. I still hold out hope that it will reclaim it's former glory, but we'll see.

What happened on that forum was not something that I had really experienced before. Someone made a comment that prompted me to state a smirking opinion about people who believe in the Bible as literal truth. In hindsight it was probably a dumb and impolite thing to say, though I don't remember the exact wording now. I didn't think anything of it, assuming that we would all have a little chuckle about "those people" and then move on to other topics. Instead, someone challenged me, politely, to defend my views. What followed was a long and exhaustive debate covering nearly every facet of that particular argument. I know full well that I didn't sway his opinion, or that of any other true believer, but I came away from that debate feeling very good about it.

Being forced to defend me views had pushed me to actually research them, to see if there really was any basis for what I thought I knew. It turned out that I held a number of beliefs for which there was no basis, mostly about people who think differently than myself. Mark, the person who questioned me, will forever have my gratitude for pushing me towards becoming the person I am today. Granted, I'm sure he would have been happier to have shown me the One True Way as he saw it, but I believe we were both happy to discover that you can respect and be courteous towards people you disagree with, even on such a fundamental level.

That little back and forth started years of research and self examination on my part. I've had to let go of some of the things that I've always held as truth, and accept certain things that I'm not altogether happy about. I've learned that wishing something were true doesn't make it so, and that if you have to overlook or dismiss evidence to defend your position, it's probably not a position worth defending. I've also learned that it's OK to say "I was wrong", and to change your views as new evidence comes to light. Doing so doesn't make you "wishy-washy" or weak, quite the opposite. Admitting you were wrong and altering your whole view of the world is harder and more painful by far.

So, what conclusions have I come to? Where do I stand now on the topics raised here, and others? I'm saving that for (possibly many) future posts. I believe it's important to know where a person is coming from first, and how they got to where they're going, before you get into the big questions. Not doing so is how so many of us, especially myself, ended up holding views that don't stand up to scrutiny, and I certainly wouldn't want that.

The truth is always so much more interesting.

OK, now I really do feel old.

She's probably going to kill me for this, but it's big news and I haven't had anything interesting happen recently (that I can talk about here), so here goes: My sister is engaged. That's right, my little sister is going to get married. I just happen to have a picture of the happy couple (from Christmas) to post, for which she will probably break my knees or remove some vital bit of my anatomy. Oh well, it's a nice picture, and I've found that pictures really spice up a blog page.



While this is certainly good news, I've noticed some interesting things in my reaction to the news. First and foremost, I have to make it clear that I really am happy for them both. He is a good guy and really seems to care about her deeply. Plus, if anything he is even more of a nerd than I am, which makes him interesting company, and makes it really easy to bug her by getting going on some topic she cares nothing about. That's something you can't put a price tag on. They've been together for years now, and really this news was only a matter of time (the only person surprised by this, apparently, was my sister).

Beyond all that, however, my first thought was "but she's so young!" In my mind she is perpetually 14 years old. The fact that she's going to be a senior in college this fall doesn't seem to matter to my subconscious, when I think of her, I think of her at roughly 14 years of age. Those of you with younger siblings - especially if there's a large age difference - and parents as well, will appreciate this sentiment. I'm six and a half years older than her, she's literally my baby sister. I remember the first time I saw her when she was less than a day old, and now she's engaged. When I expressed this to Laura, she reminded me that she was only a year older than my sister is now when we bought this house together.

Really? Wow. That thought is almost as mind blowing as the day I realized that I was older than my father was when I was born.

As of now there are no immediate plans for a wedding. She has another year of school to get through, and they're not really in a position to seal the deal just yet anyway. Good, I say, no need to rush things. I feel old enough as it is, I'm happy to wait a bit before attending my baby sister's wedding.