Only three decades ago (okay I guess four oh my GOD the first decade of the 21st century is almost over...*cough* two more years), the word 'intangible' had a very different meaning.
Intangibles were thoughts, feelings, sensations. Private things, personal things.
But today...well, let's just start with these words. Where do they exist? I mean, yeah, there's a data bank somewhere in Red...something City where this information is stored, but here, now, on your computer? Working with the things has at least made me appreciate a hard drive, but it hasn't made anything seem any more real.
And when you think about the kind of data filling up millions of servers and machines that would be completely useless given a circumstance as whimsical as a power failure....
Take a moment to think about how strange it is that the most--and least--important stuff in the world is no longer in a form you can touch.
On a probably unrelated note, my nails are covered in glitter. It looks like a unicorn puked on them.
Awesome.
10.28.2009
10.27.2009
Go On, Scare Me
Seriously?
I have never, ever seen an original American horror movie that got more than an 'oh my god that gore was totally awesome!' out of me. (Okay, so I don't jump for anything less than a really loud noise, but hey whatever how is that relevant to...)
I want to be scared by something that is genuinely impractical!
So here's an open challenge for, actually, any horror director, although every other country seems to be better at not just raining down the CG...make me a movie that is really. fucking. scary.
How?
God, I have no clue. I've spent far too long predicting what'll come next or being cynically amused at bad attempts to shock...so I guess you'll just have to surprise the hell out of me.
And, of course, I have talked this over with my ego and we do agree that anything I find scary will also terrorize you.
Yay!
On a final note, though, American moviemakers...keep up the makeup work.
I have never, ever seen an original American horror movie that got more than an 'oh my god that gore was totally awesome!' out of me. (Okay, so I don't jump for anything less than a really loud noise, but hey whatever how is that relevant to...)
I want to be scared by something that is genuinely impractical!
So here's an open challenge for, actually, any horror director, although every other country seems to be better at not just raining down the CG...make me a movie that is really. fucking. scary.
How?
God, I have no clue. I've spent far too long predicting what'll come next or being cynically amused at bad attempts to shock...so I guess you'll just have to surprise the hell out of me.
And, of course, I have talked this over with my ego and we do agree that anything I find scary will also terrorize you.
Yay!
On a final note, though, American moviemakers...keep up the makeup work.
10.24.2009
Stop Looking For a Cure
I get it.
Looking for a cure sounds good--rather, great. It offers hope not only to all the people who've had cancer in the past but to all the people who are just finding out they have it, or to the people who have relatives or friends in any of these situations.
The problem is, though, that focusing on a cure detracts from the thing with the real chance of increasing survival rates: early detection.
With science, you can't just go around using words of absolute certainty, which is why I--and the thousands of people out there stuck using research against a bunch of singleminded idiots (not the cure searchers)--are forced to use such limited, indeterminate-sounding terms. But this is really good, and if you don't believe me, look up the survival rates and chances of remission for any cancer based on the point at which it was detected (yes, I am too lazy to find them myself and post them here, although if you find me a news article I'll gladly go after the original journal).
I'm sure I've said this before, but hey, it's Breast Cancer Awareness Month (which is actually another thing that kind of annoys me...you can't really do a prostate cancer awareness month because Americans would totally make that awkward, and there are other common but dangerous cancers such as melanomas; although, at the same time, it's better to narrow the focus--look at the success we've had with those BRSA genes).
And, for something I haven't said before: the real problem with Windows Vista is that stupid dwm.exe process.
Where's my free copy of 7, Microsoft?!
Looking for a cure sounds good--rather, great. It offers hope not only to all the people who've had cancer in the past but to all the people who are just finding out they have it, or to the people who have relatives or friends in any of these situations.
The problem is, though, that focusing on a cure detracts from the thing with the real chance of increasing survival rates: early detection.
With science, you can't just go around using words of absolute certainty, which is why I--and the thousands of people out there stuck using research against a bunch of singleminded idiots (not the cure searchers)--are forced to use such limited, indeterminate-sounding terms. But this is really good, and if you don't believe me, look up the survival rates and chances of remission for any cancer based on the point at which it was detected (yes, I am too lazy to find them myself and post them here, although if you find me a news article I'll gladly go after the original journal).
I'm sure I've said this before, but hey, it's Breast Cancer Awareness Month (which is actually another thing that kind of annoys me...you can't really do a prostate cancer awareness month because Americans would totally make that awkward, and there are other common but dangerous cancers such as melanomas; although, at the same time, it's better to narrow the focus--look at the success we've had with those BRSA genes).
And, for something I haven't said before: the real problem with Windows Vista is that stupid dwm.exe process.
Where's my free copy of 7, Microsoft?!
10.23.2009
love letters from outer space
Dear Earth,
We thank you most gratefully for, on every part of the planet, providing at least one time of year when a) costumes are not only expected but in some instances demanded and b) it is perfectly acceptable to speak of the consumption of human flesh, although there are certain limits, we've learned. It is astonishing that the contents of your innards are not as delicious as said innards themselves.
We would also like to extend our appreciation towards your strangely un-"Darwinian" behavior. Your tendencies towards murders strange, gratuitous, and completely deranged have done a great job of covering up our remains. It's almost better than dumping bodies into that one river in "New York"--which, by the way, we recommend cleaning up before the entire thing erupts in toxicity. Your ability to live side-by-side with the utterly disgusting never ceases to amaze us.
Do continue your tradition of labeling all singly witnessed events as conspiracies or the work of madmen! (It's so endearing.)
Love,
Alpha Centauri 6
We thank you most gratefully for, on every part of the planet, providing at least one time of year when a) costumes are not only expected but in some instances demanded and b) it is perfectly acceptable to speak of the consumption of human flesh, although there are certain limits, we've learned. It is astonishing that the contents of your innards are not as delicious as said innards themselves.
We would also like to extend our appreciation towards your strangely un-"Darwinian" behavior. Your tendencies towards murders strange, gratuitous, and completely deranged have done a great job of covering up our remains. It's almost better than dumping bodies into that one river in "New York"--which, by the way, we recommend cleaning up before the entire thing erupts in toxicity. Your ability to live side-by-side with the utterly disgusting never ceases to amaze us.
Do continue your tradition of labeling all singly witnessed events as conspiracies or the work of madmen! (It's so endearing.)
Love,
Alpha Centauri 6
10.19.2009
Children
Well, they are the natural consequence of sex....
So, my sister was asking me why there were no good PG movies. I was all, sure, there's ones I like!...but seriously, those are few and far between, and it's definitely not the plot elements (well, usually...admittedly Pixar has more than a little awesome going on) that's happening for me.
Seriously. Good movies always have a PG-13 or, more often (I hate romantic...anything) an R rating, and it's even for something mundane and avoidable like cursing. For instance, "The Informant!"--not the kind of movie that kids should be seeing because it's not relevant until you're actually shopping for yourself, but still, the R rating was only from the fact that they said 'fuck' a few times on there.
Anyway. The American system of treating kids like they're complete fluffy-headed morons explains a lot about a) that self-esteem bullshit we keep hearing about and b) the abysmal performance of schools as compared to other countries.
Kids understand things if you explain it to them!
I remember this one completely moronic editorial complaining about the theme of death in "Finding Nemo" as scaring kids...uh, if your kids equate a 3D fish with themselves, I don't think it's the movie that's the problem.
On another note, it's nice to finally read someone else's review of "Where the Wild Things Are." The Chicago Tribune had a massive hard-on for that entire project, barely mentioning any flaws and going on and on about how much that book defined the way adults see childhoods...10 sentences? Really? I mostly liked the art; I found the ending too sappy when I was young...but I was at least five or six by the time I saw it.
I don't know how you picture your childhood, especially if you're further from it than I am (I have a convenient sibling to live vicariously through), but it surely isn't this saccharine-sweet.
So, my sister was asking me why there were no good PG movies. I was all, sure, there's ones I like!...but seriously, those are few and far between, and it's definitely not the plot elements (well, usually...admittedly Pixar has more than a little awesome going on) that's happening for me.
Seriously. Good movies always have a PG-13 or, more often (I hate romantic...anything) an R rating, and it's even for something mundane and avoidable like cursing. For instance, "The Informant!"--not the kind of movie that kids should be seeing because it's not relevant until you're actually shopping for yourself, but still, the R rating was only from the fact that they said 'fuck' a few times on there.
Anyway. The American system of treating kids like they're complete fluffy-headed morons explains a lot about a) that self-esteem bullshit we keep hearing about and b) the abysmal performance of schools as compared to other countries.
Kids understand things if you explain it to them!
I remember this one completely moronic editorial complaining about the theme of death in "Finding Nemo" as scaring kids...uh, if your kids equate a 3D fish with themselves, I don't think it's the movie that's the problem.
On another note, it's nice to finally read someone else's review of "Where the Wild Things Are." The Chicago Tribune had a massive hard-on for that entire project, barely mentioning any flaws and going on and on about how much that book defined the way adults see childhoods...10 sentences? Really? I mostly liked the art; I found the ending too sappy when I was young...but I was at least five or six by the time I saw it.
I don't know how you picture your childhood, especially if you're further from it than I am (I have a convenient sibling to live vicariously through), but it surely isn't this saccharine-sweet.
10.16.2009
It's Always Halloween in America
No, this is not a sarcastic commentary on how the store displays make you expect Christmas before it's even Thanksgiving, or Valentine's Day before the new year begins; it is a vague allusion to that one show, which I still haven't seen but it's totally on my list blah blah....
Anyway.
I would have gone with dress-up day, except that adults don't participate in it and then deny half of it guiltily and cover the rest up with the justification that it oooonly happens under very very special circumstances and possibly after many shots of tequila with a chaser of moonshine. This, of course, does absolutely nothing to explain the actual issue, which is....
Sex.
Oh, come on. This was never written for kids. And I think we're all mature adults here...eh, who am I kidding. The thing is, though, that Americans have a really, really weird attitude towards sex. On the one hand, it's perfectly acceptable to make horribly dirty jokes and show lots and lots of images of scantily clad women, and sometimes men. But get an ordinance like the one in New York that gives female joggers the right to go topless and...what the fuck! "Too distracting for drivers"? Really?
And then in the bedroom itself...the amount of toys, games, and books just explaining how to ritualize it even though, underneath, it's the same brainless act.
Personally, I'm more interested in how S&M can possibly be explained by anything biological.
NOTE: Right after this, a commercial with the background music of "Love Stains" came on. It was for the new Swiffer "Wet"Jet.
Anyway.
I would have gone with dress-up day, except that adults don't participate in it and then deny half of it guiltily and cover the rest up with the justification that it oooonly happens under very very special circumstances and possibly after many shots of tequila with a chaser of moonshine. This, of course, does absolutely nothing to explain the actual issue, which is....
Sex.
Oh, come on. This was never written for kids. And I think we're all mature adults here...eh, who am I kidding. The thing is, though, that Americans have a really, really weird attitude towards sex. On the one hand, it's perfectly acceptable to make horribly dirty jokes and show lots and lots of images of scantily clad women, and sometimes men. But get an ordinance like the one in New York that gives female joggers the right to go topless and...what the fuck! "Too distracting for drivers"? Really?
And then in the bedroom itself...the amount of toys, games, and books just explaining how to ritualize it even though, underneath, it's the same brainless act.
Personally, I'm more interested in how S&M can possibly be explained by anything biological.
NOTE: Right after this, a commercial with the background music of "Love Stains" came on. It was for the new Swiffer "Wet"Jet.
10.12.2009
The Fractal Nature of Nations
A fractal is an iterative object: something whose minutiae are indistinguishable from the entirety of the thing. Think of a mountain, where a single rock might have as complicated craggery (it's a word now) as the mountain itself.
As for a nation...classically, a nation is supposed to be a culturally distinct group; whereas a state is a group defined by political unity.
I am starting to question this definition. Basically, the problem with this--for me--is that the latter basically expects that the country will change rapidly with the whims of its elected body. Of course, part of this is obviously proven untrue by the way the two-party system actually works: even when one party has a complete majority in Congress and control of the White House, it can't effect immediate change (cough, cough...stop expecting immediate everything, jackasses...although I still think that Peace Prize was completely premature).
But anyway. I recently read Upton Sinclair's Oil!, which is the novel that "There Will Be Blood" is loosely based off (I mean, the main points are completely different, and that's just for starters)...and it's really funny, because the scandals with the oil business, the inquiries dependent on some fringe reporters, and the overwhelming power of corporations are all things that I have always thought were unique to our time. Obviously, Sinclair has a biased opinion--but it's still the same one that a lot of people these days go with, and is totally not helped by Cheney's mastery of Halliburton and all that.
Also, before this I read Jonathan D. Spence's Treason by the Book, which takes place in 18th-century China...and yet has the same kind of censorship and such that we tend to attribute to the Communist reign. (Well, the most unbelievable for me was that they suspected a professor who had simply used some characters that were the emperor's name with the top strokes missing--allegedly suggesting that the emperor should be decapitated--and then...he actually did turn out to be anti-government.)
So, anyway.
I'm starting to wonder if it really is possible to change the character of the state, even an infant one. Of course, this is fundamentally important to America's little pro-democracy pushes all over the world; not only are they completely wrong and in violation of the sovereignty of the native people, but they might also be futile. To the max.
It's like that phrase...the more things change, the more they stay the same...and applies equally to technology and its ability to increase the amount of leisure time people have in a day.
Also, HOLY SHIT EPIC MICKEY. Square Enix, meet thy competition!
As for a nation...classically, a nation is supposed to be a culturally distinct group; whereas a state is a group defined by political unity.
I am starting to question this definition. Basically, the problem with this--for me--is that the latter basically expects that the country will change rapidly with the whims of its elected body. Of course, part of this is obviously proven untrue by the way the two-party system actually works: even when one party has a complete majority in Congress and control of the White House, it can't effect immediate change (cough, cough...stop expecting immediate everything, jackasses...although I still think that Peace Prize was completely premature).
But anyway. I recently read Upton Sinclair's Oil!, which is the novel that "There Will Be Blood" is loosely based off (I mean, the main points are completely different, and that's just for starters)...and it's really funny, because the scandals with the oil business, the inquiries dependent on some fringe reporters, and the overwhelming power of corporations are all things that I have always thought were unique to our time. Obviously, Sinclair has a biased opinion--but it's still the same one that a lot of people these days go with, and is totally not helped by Cheney's mastery of Halliburton and all that.
Also, before this I read Jonathan D. Spence's Treason by the Book, which takes place in 18th-century China...and yet has the same kind of censorship and such that we tend to attribute to the Communist reign. (Well, the most unbelievable for me was that they suspected a professor who had simply used some characters that were the emperor's name with the top strokes missing--allegedly suggesting that the emperor should be decapitated--and then...he actually did turn out to be anti-government.)
So, anyway.
I'm starting to wonder if it really is possible to change the character of the state, even an infant one. Of course, this is fundamentally important to America's little pro-democracy pushes all over the world; not only are they completely wrong and in violation of the sovereignty of the native people, but they might also be futile. To the max.
It's like that phrase...the more things change, the more they stay the same...and applies equally to technology and its ability to increase the amount of leisure time people have in a day.
Also, HOLY SHIT EPIC MICKEY. Square Enix, meet thy competition!
10.05.2009
Innocence
In children, it's generally seen to be a good thing. But, comparing the different degrees of innocence, I can't help but wonder: why?
Who--or, rather, what civilization--came up with the notion that a moronic little kid is a good thing to have?
I thought I had more here...but I don't...so:
Dear House, MD writers:
Please dump the emo shit. Soon.
Who--or, rather, what civilization--came up with the notion that a moronic little kid is a good thing to have?
I thought I had more here...but I don't...so:
Dear House, MD writers:
Please dump the emo shit. Soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)