Music for the Masses

Beginning last year I noticed that TV shows, TV movies, and theatrical releases all seemed to have the same problem: they didn't know when to shut up. By that I mean that so many TV shows and movies were filling every possible second with some sort of music or noise. It really came to the fore when my wife and I watched a few older films over the holidays.

It is my feeling that constant sound, especially a waxing and waning score, is a way for filmmakers to hide imperfections in their work. I seem to see this issue the most on long-running shows, shows with small budgets or unknown casts, and "B" movies. However, it is not just those that have the issue.

The reason for this post is that I watched the current Smallville episode last night via TiVo. I have enjoyed Smallville for most of its run, and this final season has, for the most part, been superb (for what it is, of course). However, every single episode this season, and in particular those directed by Tom Welling himself, have had a loud score rumbling over every single scene of every episode. This last episode, "Beacon," was especially bad for this: every scene with Alexander or Lionel had a heavy, driving, oppressive score overlaid. So loud on occasions that it actually drove out the background noise and impeded the main actors from being heard. Even the lighter moments at the end, as Clark takes another step toward putting on The Suit and taking his place at the head of the super-hero table had a lighter, but still overly loud, score on it.

It is to the point where I'm noticing it everywhere. Theatrical releases are not immune. We've seen a number of movies lately that seem to be driving the score home.Gone, it seems, are the days of a David Lean having the long shot of Omar Sharif riding toward Peter O'Toole on horseback with nothing but the sound of the wind in the background (an iconic scene that is often taught in film school) in Lawrence of Arabia.

I blame the current glut of super-hero and horror films on the market for this. Action movies in general and horror and super-hero movies in particular have a tendency to "fill the void" with music that is intending to elicit the reaction the filmmakers are trying to achieve. This is usually because they aren't good enough filmmakers to elicit that reaction using good technique (i.e., good acting, specific camera angles, well-written scripts, and real, actual sound effects, et al). Instead, we get jarring music meant to make us laugh, gasp, startle, or cry. It is rare these days for a movie to allow the audience to experience quiet, and hear nothing.

Matter of fact, with the exception of a film like, say, Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist, where the music is an integral part of the story and has "real world" sources throughout the movie (car stereo, live bands, jukebox, MP3 player, etc.), for the most part, a film has failed if you notice the score at all. If done right, the score should blend and heighten the impact of a scene without the audience being at all conscious of it.

Pay attention the to TV shows and movies you watch this week. See if you don't find at least a few that have an overwhelming score that simple will not the show/film breathe. I bet you find at least one.

Bell and Bell Mobility, Revisited

A while back, I told you about an exasperating incidence I had with Bell Mobility. A FB contact suggested that it wasn't actually Bell Mobility calling, but some other group that uses the Bell Mobility name, gets you to switch, and then you are part of their network.

As you can see in that previous article, I called Bell/Bell Mobility (I had to call both, because each side of the issue kept telling me that it wasn't their purview and I had to call the other). The Bell representative agreed with my FB source, and claimed that it wasn't Bell of any sort calling either, and that it was likely a scam. I was angry, and I insisted that she put our home Bell phone number and my Bell Mobility number as Do Not Call. She claimed it wouldn't help, because it wasn't Bell or Bell Mobility calling me. I insisted, and insisted that she do it for me right then and there and let me know when it was done. I was willing to wait. This required her to actually contact Bell Mobility herself, with my information, and do it for me.

As an aside: Companies "streamline" their call centers to the various divisions they have internally. It makes sense to them. But what they often fail to understand is that the customer is calling the company, they don't care about divisions. For example, in this case I had a Bell issue. They said "Bell Mobility" but were calling my home Bell telephony number. So I called Bell. And neither side wanted to own up or help me, because each side thought it was the other side's fault. You know what? I DON'T CARE! To me, it is a Bell issue and someone at Bell better fucking help me with it or I stop using Bell. It's that simple. I don't think I'm unique in that way of thinking, either.

After many minutes getting approval from her manager, calling Bell Mobility, working it out with them, and then doing it for our home number as well, she came back on the line and let me know it was done. She did gave me a parting, "But you'll still get calls, as it isn't us who are calling you." Fine, whatever. I was happy at the time.

Fast forward to today. Interestingly enough, ever since a few days after that conversation, I have not received the "scam" phone call from the India call center again. Now, it could be a WILD coincidence that my strong-arming Bell and Bell Mobility into placing our numbers on an internal Do Not Call list just happened to coincide with that scam India call center ceasing its operation but, since I know friends and family in the area are still getting those calls, I tend to doubt it.

What I'm learning via some other stumbles that Bell has made is that the company, basically, thinks its customers are stupid sheep that deserve to be fleeced. It tried to get UBB passed so it could fleece an entirely new set of customers. It has had some issues with the cable side of things, over-billing and changing packages so that people have to upgrade to continue getting the channels they used to. Basically, the company's name is mud in Canada, now more than ever. Yet they made earnings of $1.5 billion in 2009, with growth of between 6-10% in all sectors. However, since Bell and Rogers (with Shaw and Telus) have a virtual monopoly on TV, phone, and mobility in Canada and don't give a rat's ass about the people, because the people have nowhere else to go. And Canadians are too polite to sue.

Bell had better watch itself. You can only fleece the people so long before they will get wise, rise up, and take you down. The people seem to be at that stage right now. People are angry enough that they are actually talking about suing, which is practically heresy here. I hope it happens. I hope the people don't back down and keep pressing Bell to amend its ways and do the right things a company should be doing.

Home Run

I don't feel like I hit an electronics home run often. Usually, when I purchase anything electronics, I simply stop looking at my flyers and emails because I know that something better will be on sale within a week of my purchase, or whatever I purchased will have a massive price drop shortly afterward.

My wife and I agreed to use one of my paychecks from my current contract to get me a laptop. This had multiple uses and reasons behind it:

• First and foremost, it would get the software required for the current contract off my PC. Ever since installing it, my otherwise completely stable and never crashing PC has been crashing and achieving the dreaded BSOD.
• It would allow me mobility, to take my work into the office for a consultation or training, etc. It would also allow me to take it with me and work from exotic locales, if my wife and I travel somewhere but I still need to do some work while we're gone.
• It would allow me a separate machine that I could always reset to a "like factory new" setting after a contract, wiping away all traces of the work-related instals if needed.

I started looking. I didn't have many prescribed needs, but I knew I needed a maximum of memory, I wanted a 16" or larger screen due to some of the programs I would use as a technical writer (some of which will use all the memory and screen real estate you give them), and I preferred to have a dedicated graphics card.

We stumbled on a sale that had a Samsung NP-RF710 for $899. This machine had a 17.3" screen, 4 gigs of memory, a dedicated nVidia 330 graphics driver, an Intel i7 processor, and a full-sized keyboard. During my searches, pretty much all 17" and i7 or equivalent AMD processor machines were selling for between $1000 (cheap, no-name brands without dedicated graphics cards) and $1400, so to see one for $900, with those stats, was pretty incredible. In addition to that, it had USB 3.0 ports, the touch pad mouse had iPod-like capabilities, and the fastest wired/wireless networks.

We discussed it, and decided to pull the trigger. Neither of us were familiar with Samsung as a laptop maker, but we really liked the Samsung TV we had purchased recently and I said, "If they make great consumer TVs, how bad can their laptops be?"

I've been using the machine for a couple of months now. I am so impressed with it, you cannot believe it. The thing runs very cool and is extremely quiet. The graphics are superb, I have a nice, wide viewing angle on it, the i7 processor is fast. It has been able to run all of my tech writing software easily, as well as the various applications I need to install for this contract. I have yet to have a BSOD on the laptop.

I decided recently to run a Windows Experience test on both my PC and this laptop. The results were nearly identical, with my PC being slightly better in RAM and Graphics/Gaming Graphics, and the laptop actually beating my PC in processor (all other WEI numbers were identical). So, basically, I have a PC-quality machine that runs cool and quiet as my laptop.

What pleases me the most is that I haven't seen a laptop with equivalent stats sold as cheaply since that deal. It is refreshing to see that I a) got a great deal and b) actually got a very good machine, one that is working as well or better than advertised.

My wife and I will certainly entertain Samsung for laptops in the future. We have found it to be a quality product, sturdy, works as advertised, and without a lot of bloatware or adware. We are incredibly happy with the purchase and feel it has a made a big difference in my work.

800**

There has been a huge uproar here in Canada regarding the UBB (usage-based billing) for internet use. In a nutshell, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) can now charge between $1 and $4 for usage beyond very small caps on internet use. Now, that number doesn't sound like a lot until you factor in that they are charging you a dollar to four dollars for something that costs them less than a penny to provide. That is a markup of 100 to 400 percent!

The other problem is that they are making the caps very small, which all but guarantees the average user will go over their cap every month. The average seems to be around 25 gig a month cap on usage. That sounds like a lot until you start doing the math. Remember that this cap is on both uploads and downloads, so you have to account for what your PC sends as well as what you receive/download.

Now, let's think about this a moment, especially for those who claim "well, I don't download much, this won't affect me":

• Do you have or use an OS, utility, and/or productivity software/suite you use? These programs all need regular maintenance/updating to keep your machine safe, to fix errors, and to improve existing or provide new functionality. Microsoft OS (any), Microsoft Office, Internet browsers, and personal programs on your machine all have this capability now. Those add up, especially if you use online games (which typically patch every week).
• Do you IM, Tweet, or use a social networking site regularly? Each time you send or receive a message, you are adding to your usage total. While the amounts of data sent and received by the average person are small, they add up quickly especially in light of the other uses.
• Do you send emails with attachments? Do you receive emails with attachments? Again, most emails by themselves are small usage amounts toward the cap. However, you add in those pictures from/to your Aunt Mildred, those PDFs you sent for work, etc., and suddenly you are taking megabyte chunks out of your usage. And, remember, usage is bidirectional, so sending and receiving both hit your usage cap!
• Are you any sort of online game player? Whether it be an MMORPG, a cooperative/competitive first-person shooter, that game you like on Facebook, or even online gambling, those sites have to send packets to and receive packets from your PC. Again, they are small amounts, but they are nearly continuous and add up fast toward a usage cap. However, if your game needs to do an update-- all bets are off. A new release MMORPG-style game can frequently have multiple megabyte downloads. I've seen downloads for some of my games in the hundreds of megabytes to even a gig. When some recent games converted from paid to Free To Play, they had huge downloads.
• Are you starting or have you been using "the cloud"? For example, do you use an online site to backup your machine or save your photos? Do you like and use those nifty online Tools, like Google Docs or Yahoo Calendar? Do you use features of an online site, like the Character Builder from Wizard.com to make and print your Dungeons & Dragons characters? Do you do online banking, bill paying, or similar? All of these are, again, small usage hits to your overall cap.
• Do you work from home, even occasionally? Think of all the IMs, emails, PDFs, time spent on your work VPN, etc. that  you do while you're home. Each one of those is now another ding toward your cap limit.
• Do you have TVs, printers, a TiVo (or other DVRs), a Blu-ray player, use VOIP phones, that are connected to the internet? Guess what, each of them is going through your ISP to upload and download information, and all counts toward your usage cap.
• Lastly, do you like to stream video from online sites, or via the web to your internet-compatible devices? If you use Netflix (or similar) to stream movies, you enjoy trolling YouTube for the latest thing, or simply go to a TV network's site to catch that episode of that show you like that you missed last week, all of these are huge hits on your usage. The average movie from Netflix is in the 1 to 4 gig range, depending on quality (Standard versus HD) and length. Hour long TV shows can be up to around 1 gig.

Now, of course, most people don't fall into one of those areas above. Most people do online banking, enjoy IMing and emailing, maybe do a little gaming of some sort. Everyone knows/has that one person who sends pictures and videos to everyone in their email list on a weekly basis. And, all of a sudden, 25 gig doesn't seem so large any more. And you notice that in these examples I didn't even mention illegal downloading of movies or TV shows from peer-to-peer sites. That is because, even without doing something like that, you can easily and quickly surpass usage caps. These UBB laws do NOT target the "highest users" (i.e., the illegal downloaders) as the lawmakers are always trying to convince people.

Let me show you how easy it is to go over your use limits just performing legitimate internet use:

On an average day, between my work use and home use (IMing, email, some game playing, online banking, cloud use, etc.), I am using about 500 meg. This is on the average day. A few days ago, Windows 7 wanted to update (usage was just over 1 gig). Last week, on the same day, two of my online games and my browser updated (total of 2.5 gig of usage). I've started using an online, secure backup site for documents and photos after my wife and I experienced a hectic and expensive situation where a hard drive failed. Nearly all of my banking is done online. I IM with friends and family on a daily basis. I have a FaceBook account. All of this adds up: in the space of the last two weeks, I've hit approximately 30 gig of total internet usage. Which means that I would be paying between $1 and $4 per gig until the start of the next billing cycle with our current ISP. And all of this doesn't even take into consideration my wife's internet use.

Image a family of four, with two teens (the son loves online gaming, the daughter loves tweeting/FaceBooking and sharing photos/videos), one of the two parents works from home at least a few days a week, and the family as a whole likes to stream a Netflix movie on Friday nights and have a family movie night. There are at least three PCs of various sorts in the house, and all of them need updating regularly. A family like this could easily go beyond 25 gig each week! Let's say they average 30 gig per week and don't realize they need to make a change when that first bill arrives. That means that they went over their 25 gig limit the first week, and for the next four weeks racked up a staggering 95 gig of additional usage. At $1-$4 dollars, their bill will be a whopping $95 to $380 more than they are used to and on top of their standard ISP monthly amount (probably around $50+). And all of this is pure profit to the ISP, as it cost them <$0.95 to provide that 95 gig of extra use.

The other side to all of this is that the owners of the internet backbone/network (Bell and Rogers, predominantly) also get to charge those smaller ISPs who are "piggybacking" on their network more for the privilege. This means that those smaller ISPs now have to charge more for the same service as well as instituting UBB. This effectively stifles any competition the big two have, and expands how much the big two can charge their own customers as well.

Canada is already near the bottom of all industrialized nations for internet charges compared to use. Canadians will become Oliver Twist, going up to their big, bad ISP and asking, "Can I have some more, please?" And, if we back up the money truck to their doorstep, they might allow it.

At a time when other countries are laying the foundation for a totally fiber optic internet network (Australia, among others) and other nations are passing laws that internet is a right (Denmark, et al), Canada is taking a huge step backward that will limit competition, limit creativity and job creation, limit growth, and further anger its citizens. It doesn't make a lot of sense.


**In case you're wondering, the title refers to the number of posts on this blog.

Abortion Clinic Tragedy

Let me state right at the beginning that I am personally against abortion. I feel that there are enough options out there for both men and women, including abstinence, condom use, and chemical and surgical options, that pregnancy is an extremely remote possibility for the conscientious. However, I understand that a very sizable minority of women want and need abortion as an option, so I feel it should remain safe, legal, and affordable for those times when circumstances out of a woman's control occur and/or an abortion is deemed necessary by the woman/couple/doctor.

Today, I read articles (here's one) about a doctor in Pennsylvania who was running what can only loosely be called an "abortion clinic." From what the article describes, this man was simply a modern day Dr. Frankenstein or, worse, serial killer masquerading as a doctor. I will not go into detail and I advise those with weak stomachs or who get nightmares easily from disturbing images not to read those articles. This man and some of his staff are up on multiple charges of murder.

These articles show why a) abortion needs to be kept legal, b) it needs to be overseen very stringently as a medical procedure, c) it needs supervisory oversight on a very regular basis, and d) women need to consider this a medical procedure and go to an established medical facility with a good record to have an abortion done.

What was described in the articles was similar to what we used to read about pre-legalized, back-alley abortions, where women literally put their own lives at risk to get the procedure done. It hard for a modern mind to wrap itself around the idea of the acts this man performed on these low-income, minority, and recent-immigrant women, who didn't know any better in a lot of cases. It is upsetting to think that no oversight group had been to his clinic to ensure safety and compliance since 1993.

My hope is that they throw the book at this man and his staff for the heinous and barbaric things to which they subjected these women. I hope that this stimulates better oversight and regulation, and certainly better and more frequent in-house inspections, of abortion clinics.

And, in the end, I hope it galvanizes more women to seek pregnancy abatement options outside of abortion, so they don't put themselves at further risk by going to one of these charlatans masquerading as a doctor.

Movie Round Up, 2010

I usually have specific dates for each movie, as I keep my ticket stubs. This year, I had a little accident involving losing my glasses case and whoever found it at the movie theater "helpfully" threw all my stubs out (but put the case in the lost and found). So I have to guess on some of the movie dates.

Avatar 1/16/10
Disappointing film. While visually stunning, of course, and with surprisingly good acting, the plot was weak. There were plot holes so large you could drive a space cruiser through it. It was, quite literally, Dances with Wolves and Pocahontas mixed together and set in outer space. If you don't believe me, check this site out and laugh. And damn James Cameron for starting the whole 3-D craze which, thankfully, seems to be dying out already.

The Book of Eli January 1/10
This was a disappointment only because the first three quarters of the film, nay, more, was really effective and interesting. The "twist" ending, however, absolutely destroyed the otherwise decent movie that they had made about a post-apocalyptic world and a traveler who may or may not be a modern day messiah. When a twist ending invalidates and makes laughably ridiculous everything that has come before it, it has failed.

*Spoilers*
First, why would a blind man wear headphones throughout most of the movie, negating or limiting his remaining good sense to make many of the action scenes impossible? Why the trick with the Bible? Why not have him listening to the Bible on tape, via his headset (which would make sense with how much he is willing to spend to get batteries)? Why have Mila Kunis' character leave the sanctuary as some sort of bad ass?
*End Spoilers*

The Wolfman February 2/10
I had such high hopes for this film. I am a werewolf fan and I thought that they could remake the original film with today's technology and it would so much better and all kinds of good. Instead, they put in about 40 minutes of needless back story, had a plot twist that anyone could see coming a mile away, and the effects were anything but special. A relatively decent acting job by most of the cast was wasted here. I'm still hoping someone will make a scary, sexy, engaging werewolf story using today's technology.

A Single Man 2/25/10
The photography and acting are superlative. The story has some small weaknesses, but nothing major.  The emotional impact is strong. I'm not a huge fan of Colin Firth, like my wife is, but he was excellent as the main character. Rich, deeply moving, and nuanced in the role. And the use of colors in the photography is incredible. Overall, one of the best films of the year I've seen.

Clash of the Titans 4/4/10
I have a soft spot for the Harry Hamlin movie. It is the last Ray Harryhausen stop-motion effects movie, and he was a Golden Age god of special effects. This is the second of the films I thought could be remade with today's technology and be pretty outstanding. Instead, this new movie is ... okay. It took itself WAY too seriously, had huge plot holes that didn't make much sense, and the acting, as in the first, was rather tepid. Ralph Fiennes as Hades was a thrill and Liam Neeson as Zeus was a  standout. This movie wasn't bad, but neither was it any great improvement over the cheesy-goodness of the original. The effects, entirely digital this time, were good but not thrilling. I think the sequel will do much better and will be much stronger.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 5/10
I'm a big fan of the original NES and thought that this was another movie that could be remade with today's technology and be superb. The casting of Jackie Earle Haley was fabulous and I was expecting new and wildly inventive nightmares that took full advantage of digital effects. Instead, I got a rehash of the original movie, using digital versions of the exact same effects plus a back story that watered down the visceral impact of Freddy. *sigh

Iron Man 2 5/12/10
The sequel to one of the best movies of 2008 was more of the same. And I mean that literally. They mashed up two comic book villains into one screen villain (Whiplash and Crimson Dynamo), who has to build an uber-version of the Iron Man armor and fight Iron Man and War Machine at the end. There are quips, there is drinking, there are double entendres, and a sexy new addition of Scarlet Johanssen as a version of Black Widow. All runs smoothly and is relatively successful, but it lacks the emotional depth and visceral excitement of the first movie. If the first was an A, then this one is a solid B.

The A-Team 6/10
There was a decent movie in here somewhere. They got decent actors who fulfilled their roles admirably and with some flair. There was a nice mix of action and humor. There was, in short, the chance for this to be a worthy successor to the TV show. But they had to add that scene where the team "flew" a tank falling out of the sky, shooting down drones along the way, and getting the falling tank to angle into a deep lake so they could survive the fall. This scene was stupid, had bad CGI effects, was nonsensical, and left me high and dry. Also, the surprise ending wasn't much of one. After the initial opening sequence I was certain of the final villain and was right... it just took another 90 minutes to get there. This movie could have been a Wow, but ended up a dud.

Toy Story 3 7/5/10
This is, without a doubt, one of the best films of the year. It is exciting and fun for children, and emotional for adults. It has a strong story, good effects, and excellent voice acting. The Toy Story franchise is one of the better series overall in film history, with no real weak links in the chain, and the final one being arguably the best. Definitely worth a watch. I'll be surprised if this isn't up for multiple awards, with a possibility of a Best Picture nod.

Predators 7/10
Here is another of this year's theme of movie that should be better with today's technology and just isn't. It is not a bad film, however, and delivers on most of what a die-hard fan of the Predator series is looking for. However, the editing really lets this movie down (I'm assuming; it could also be sloppy writing or direction, but it felt like important pieces were left on the cutting room floor). Scenes jump around too much, it feels like important linking events or dialog were left out, and they overdid the use of aliens in the movie a bit (the entire scene with the dogs could have been cut out and replaced with a bit more back story and horror-like build up to actual Predator use). Overall, a decent movie, fits in with the original Predator, but not stellar.

Inception 7/20/10
Another of the year's best. It is, essentially, a heist movie on steroids. The editing, direction, cast, and effects are all excellent. The story has some minor weak spots, where things could have been defined and explained better and more succinctly, and the opening with the addition of the Ariadne character could have been shortened by about 15 minutes or so, but overall a fabulous piece of entertainment. However, it comes with this caveat-- you have to pay attention while watching. This is not a movie to do something else while viewing, as you could miss key visual or dialog clues. And, it proves that Hollywood can have very successful films without a remake, re-envisioning, or repurposing of existing material. This is one to watch.

The Expendables 8/10
Schlocky, hokey, 80s-nostalgia, fun action movie. It doesn't try to be Shakespeare and it isn't. If you liked the 80s action flicks, you will most likely like this one. Don't expect to strain your noggin while watching it, though.

Unstoppable 11/22/10
This movie was surprisingly good. A very good cast, a surprisingly taut story, good action sequences, good direction, and good editing all come together to present a very nice movie. What I particularly liked about it was that no one is a super-hero. There are moments where they could have gone with the "impossible jump, that the character makes" or similar, but instead they have the people all be human with human limitations, and work within those to solve the problem. The other incredible part about the movie is that there is virtually no back story. All of the back story is presented in about the first 15 minutes of the movie, and any additional back story for each character is presented along the way and where it makes sense for the story. Take note of that, Hollywood. While this is most likely not going to be nominated for any Academy Awards, it is a movie which falls just shy of that in every category and is, therefore, far superior to the vast majority of schlock, hokem, and swill that Hollywood turns out. Definitely worth a watch.

Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader 12/14/10
And the last of my major disappointments of the year. In the previous movies, they missed the mark by slightly more margin with each. And it each case, it was a matter of deviating from the original story in ways that didn't make sense. And the money shows it-- the first movie was the closest to the original work and made the most money. The second was much farther, but still recognizable, and it made a healthy amount, but not as much as the first. This one, however, basically used the themes and characters and made nearly an entirely new movie, and did the worst at the box office of all of them. This isn't a bad movie at all-- if they had just changed the characters and named it something else, I would probably give it a much better review. But it is NOT The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. And therein lies the problem. They took the most immediately film-able story, with plenty of action and interest, and changed it to have more action and a tighter, completely unnecessary plot device that is nonexistent in the original story. This was a major disappointment. That being said, Georgie Henley has grown up and is becoming a decent actress. She stole every scene she was in and provided some much needed depth and emotion to the story.

Shot Congresswoman

Someone shot a Congresswoman while she was out on a meet-n-greet in Arizona. Along with the representative, a Chief Judge for AZ, a 9/11 baby, and a few others were shot and killed, and some number more were injured in the shooting. I do not condone this violence in any way, shape, or form. This is a heinous act and I hope those responsible, including family members and others who may have known and can be held accountable as accessories before or after the fact, all get prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

However, this violent act may cause some good. Hopefully, it will have a mediating effect on Congress. It is time for this asinine "war" between the Republicans and everyone else be shelved and the parts of Congress to work together to find solutions to the very serious issues that face America.

It is true that, after being under the thumb and steamrolled by Republicans for years, the Democrats when they got control of Congress turned around and did the same to them. However, neither side was right and the now Republican House needs to acknowledge that as they move forward with their small majority. If not, this "war" will continue and more Congresspeople may get caught in the crossfire, both literal and figurative.

America is on the precipice of a great fall. Political leaders are acting just as the leadership of Ancient Rome did as their nation was beset by both internal and external issues and relied on being the biggest and the best to survive. In the end, they ignored their people, they ignored the threats, they ignored the failing infrastructure, and they failed to heed the incursions by rapidly rising external forces long enough that Rome, as they knew it, ceased to exist and is now a minor player in the world. American political leaders need to stop the strife, figure out a way to work together toward the middle/common ground where solutions can be found, and solve the internal and external problems of the country.

America has a failing infrastructure of bridges, dams, sewage systems, levees, roadways, and railways that are in imminent need of repair, or more collapses like what happened in Minnesota will occur. This seems like an excellent opportunity to put Americans to work solving America's problems and injecting American cash into America's financial system, all of which would solve a host of other issues in America.

America needs to curtail military intervention in favor of diplomacy and respect toward other nations. Rome teaches us that a strong nation that always has its military off in foreign lands tends to leave itself open to attack at home. It also leads foreign nations to grow to resent and distrust the nation that solves all problems by military might. Any of this sounding familiar?

Lastly, we need to buy American, grow food locally, work toward energy independence, and respect the rights of citizens and the world. We need to once more be a shining light of progress and freedom, rather than the terrifying military and economic might of a decadent society.

Here's hoping that the reprehensible shooting of a Congresswoman can bring about the first steps of change and growth in the pompous, bombastic, and narrow-minded who now inhabit Congress. Let's hope for positive change that leads to economic growth, better leadership, and compromise that all Americans can accept.

Musical Importance

I have been wondering lately why none of the music that comes out seems to have meaning or impact on my life. When I was in my teens and early twenties, music had importance. A band like U2 came out and they not only had a message, but that message had a great beat and you could dance to it. George Michael had songs that were potent and fit into the rhythm of my life. Prince and Guns n Roses spoke to my inner wild child in various ways. Tori Amos had deep, emotional resonance. These days, nothing speaks to me. I don't think in terms of songs expressing an era of my life and I don't feel the same rhythms. I simply listen to music and either enjoy it or not.

That led me to wonder, does music being important and a way of expressing your life have a shelf life? Each person I speak with seems to have the same 14 to about 25 age range wherein the music spoke most loudly and clearly to them, and meant the most to their lives. Today, those who still love music, seem to be searching to replace, replicate, or recapture that feeling. And, while they may get a nostalgic glimmer here and there, it is usually of the "this reminds of when..." rather than being a completely new moment of music importance.

One person I spoke to thought that his younger relatives, who just happen to be entering or in that 14-25 age range, were having that feeling about music now, with today's music. Katy Perry, Justin Bieber, Rhianna, Justin Timberlake, and others are speaking to them and those songs are becoming the rhythm for their (current) lives, just as my 80s and 90s artists were for me. This seems to lend credence to the idea that it is an age, rather than the type or quality of music.

On the other hand, music has proliferated in the last decade and a half, as have most other forms of entertainment. Our discretionary dollars are stretched thinner and our attention spans are shorter as there are so many channels of TV, types and sources of music, number of movies, games, and internet distractions. Using YouTube and other internet sources, a person can pick up a lyric sheet and a guitar and self-promote and self-publish themselves, and develop a following without going through the usual musical path. With so many choices to weed through, maybe the entire product is watered down.

As late as the 1980s, the recording industry had a stranglehold on new artists and the music pipeline. While some would argue this stifled creativity, it also meant that the artists had to be hungrier, more creative, and better than all the others to rise to the top and get on the radio and into your hearts and minds. Today, the average person has to weed through the detritus of crappy talents and hackneyed artists to get to that cream. Does this affect how we view the music, when we have to do so much more of the work? Or does it make that cream of the crop we do find that much more important, because we had to work for it?

Lastly, does age itself have anything to do with it? When I was 14-25, I was still forming who I was to be and my impressions of the world. I had little to do beyond that except school, so I had more time for music, movies, TV, books, friends, family, and just being. These days, I have a wife, I have political and social concerns, jobs, a mortgage, and other issues that plague me on a daily basis. I don't have the same time to be affected by a new band, that hip new song, or time to spend thinking about music. Music is something I put on in the background while I am working or doing other things, instead of something I purposely did, as an end unto itself.

At most, I get a strong sense of nostalgia and I remember the "good ole times" when particular songs come on. So, in the end, I guess music still has importance to me today. However, where once it defined and set the rhythm of my life as it was and would be, now it is a tool to take me back and help me remember what I once was and where my life has been. Before, it was the window and telescope I used to see my life and my future, now it is the mirror and magnifying glass I use to see my past. In the end, I guess I have answered my own question: music is still important. However, like most everything in my life, that importance, and its meaning to me, has changed as I have changed.

Pain Revisited

After my bout with the migraine, my back continued to hurt to the point where I could barely walk, as every movement and step with my right leg gave me screaming pain, enough so to bring literal tears to my eyes. I emailed a friend with whom I had planned to go to the movies yesterday and canceled. Yesterday, Wednesday, I called my MIL, who is a nurse, and asked her advice about going to my GP or the ER and simply what she thought I should do about the pain/discomfort.

With the time of year, and with the poor medical system in this town, she recommended that my GP was most likely out of town/away and that I would sit for literally hours in the ER without being seen-- which wouldn't help my back and would probably make me sicker, what with all the ill people that would be there (their doctors being out of town too). She recommended taking some Midol/Aleve, keeping the heating pad on it, and taking a hot bath or shower as soon as my wife got home (so, if I couldn't get out of the tub, someone was here to take command and/or get help).

I asked my wife to come home at lunch and work from home the rest of the day, which she was happy to do. I then took the Aleve before she got home and went and took a piping hot bath soon after she got home. By the end of the bath, I was much more mobile, although still with pain. The pain was down to manageable levels and I was able to walk much more assuredly on my right leg.

Today, my coccyx area and the spot of the pain are both still sore. I'm having some issues with bending and twisting, but it is not the 'gasp out loud and double over or fall to my knees' level of pain. I can sit at my desk without undue discomfort. And I haven't needed to take more Aleve this morning. Hopefully I've knocked through/past the pain and can get fully better from here. It is good to know that the Aleve and hot baths will help alleviate the issue if it does come creeping back.

Privacy

Why is a customer's privacy so hard for current programmers/companies to safeguard?

Recently there have been many articles, lawsuits, and news programs/segments dedicated to showing just how much of your personal data is constantly leaked to third parties (just one example, here). I find it mind-boggling that these same companies, Facebook and Apple in particular, year in and year out are the subject of these lawsuits and reports, yet don't fix the system so it doesn't happen. It literally is cheaper for them to settle the lawsuits or go to court each time than it is to simply fix it so it can't happen.

Some will argue, "But you are using a social networking site, you take that risk!" No, actually, I don't. Just because a site is based around the idea of connecting with others doesn't mean I automatically give up my right to choose to whom I give my personal data. I use Facebook to connect with people I actually know. I limit my app usage. I am NOT, in any way shape or form, asking for X company to contact me about Y "deal." Yet, I may still be giving third party advertisers more info about myself than I want to simply because Facebook uses a constantly evolving and moving goalpost for its policies on privacy and is constantly adding new features without a) looking at the ramifications for user privacy, b) checking for new holes in privacy leaks, or c) alerting its user base to these changes and/or setting the changes to default to the most private setting (rather than always defaulting to the least private settings). Yes, I could stop using the application; but then I have lost a primary means to contact the actual people that I actually wanted to (re)connect with in the first place, simply because the application developers can't seem to understand the fundamental laws of the nation(s) in which they do business.

And apps on cell phones are assumed by the majority of owners to be "safe", as they aren't 'social networks.' Yet, if you own an iPhone, Blackberry, or other smartphone with a camera, you are likely geo-tagging ever single picture you take with the current location (in latitude and longitude). This setting is set by default by the camera manufacturers. You remember that cute picture of your kids playing in the park near your house? Geo-tagged. That picture your daughter took of herself in her bedroom? Geo-tagged. Now, all it takes is someone to stumble on those pictures, download geo-tag reading software (which you can get/find fairly easily online), and viola! the person knows what your kids/daughter looks like and where they play/sleep. How's that for creepy? Your cell phone also defaults to geo-tagging your location at all times, regardless of camera capability. Anyone who has the means of accessing the GPS system can know within a about a dozen feet where you are at any time if your phone is turned on, by default. And turning this feature off can be a pain in the ass on most phones.

For those who say simply don't use the apps or devices, I respond: well, what are my alternatives? I could call them by landline phone, I guess, but then if I wasn't using the social networks I wouldn't have reconnected in the first place and wouldn't know their phone numbers. And, even if I do use a landline, the government under the Bush administration made it legal for the gov't to listen in on any phone call at any time without the need for a warrant or to go through the legal process to get the tap, so I'm trading telling advertisers information for telling my government information. That's better. Even if I only ever say or do anything both legal and morally correct, what business of either group is it? I have the right to privacy.

Use standard email you say? Well, the gov't is also checking those under the same laws passed by Bush. Use standard snail mail, you argue? Okay, that is probably the least likely to be intercepted or opened and read by the gov't or advertisers, I agree, but we go back to the whole "how would I know my friend's address if I hadn't reconnected via the social network site in the first place" issue. Plus, land-line calls and snail mail cost money. And snail mail costs resources (paper, envelope, writing implements)... social networks, landline phone calls, visiting in person all have additional costs to them.

And these don't address the geo-tagging of my personal photos or location by my phone. Or the fact that lawyers for car insurance companies can get access to your car's records, including speed, mileage, location, engine data, etc. from OnStar to keep from paying on your insurance claim when they prove you were going 1mph over the speed limit when the accident occurred. Or what about someone you don't even know filming you do something embarrassing at a party or social event, posting it without your approval or consent, tagging you on it, and then it comes up on a standard web search when your prospective employer does a background check on your name before hiring you?

What's next, HR Block or Intuit's tax software keeping track and sending meta data showing how you "played with the numbers" (completely within legal limits, and even supportable with documentation) before finalizing and sending in your electronic tax forms so that the IRS can "better determine" if you should be audited? Doesn't matter that you did nothing illegal, but do you want that hassle?

I just want to reconnect with family and friends, and take pictures with my cell phone. I don't want to give advertisers/companies an extra window into my habits or personal information or the gov't a deeper look than is necessary into my life. Is that too much to ask?

Hurts So (Not) Good

Sometimes, being me hurts more than other times. Today is one of those days. I woke up to a splitting, pounding headache. Within an hour it had turned into a low-level migraine, which caused me to wear my sunglasses in the house and avoid too loud of noises (I wasn't sound sensitive, but I didn't want to push it either). Then a spot on my lower back, on my right side, suddenly decided to swell and cause excruciating pain whenever I moved around.

All this on a day where it snows 5 inches over night and we have to go out and do some shoveling. There is, simply, no way to avoid bright lights when you are in a winter wonderland. The snow reflects and redirects any light like a mirror. The shoveling hurt like hell on my back. By the time we were done, I was easing toward medium strength migraine, my back hurt worse than ever, and I was having hot/cold flashes, was sweaty, and disgruntled.

The migraine eased back with some more Advil and with the darkening of the skies and sunset. The back, however, wasn't touched by the Advil at all and continues to be an issue.

All of this is on top of the slight cough I've had for two weeks now, the stiffness and soreness in my hands, hips, and knees from a general non-flare arthritis issue, and the bloody noses I can't seem to avoid. Oh, and don't forget the upset stomach. Nothing like waking up every day for close to a month with the strong feeling like I'm going to throw up that only gets worse with breathing and talking.

So, all those general symptoms that have plagued me for a couple weeks or long added to the sudden issues of today made for one crappy last day of vacation.

Paying the (Court) Costs

I think that the easiest way to cut down the plethora of frivolous lawsuits is to pass a federal statute that says that the loser and the law firm of any lawsuit, be it federal, civil, class-action, or any other type, must pay all the legal fees and court costs of BOTH SIDES of the lawsuit.

Recently, a fan at a Jets game in 2008 sued a player who threw a gigantic snowball at him. If you watch the video (here), you see that the fan is excited to have been the recipient of the snowball, sort of dances around and waves the big ball of snow around in celebration. Yet, two years later, he is suing the player for lost wages, emotional damages, future lost earnings, and a whole host of other issues.

If he had been injured enough to be out of work due to this incident, he would not be reacting as he did to it. He would have gone down in a heap and not gotten up. Paramedics would have been called to the stadium and he would have left on a gurney and been in the hospital in traction.

The man is suing because the economy sucked (and continues to be weaker than expected), he's out of work, and he has this tenuous link to someone with a lot of money who might settle out of court for a nice lump sum to help the man make his ends meet. Now, imagine if the (scum-sucking) lawyer who thought this was a good idea had to think for a moment and decide if it was worth the risk of having to help pay the fees for the defendant should they lose. A lot of these marginal, ambulance-chasing lawyers couldn't afford to stay in business if they had to help pay the thousands of dollars the other side charged. And most individuals would think twice about suing in the first place if they were worried about paying 50% of the court costs and legal fees of the other side in the litigation.

However, I don't think this would be so bad a negative that it would stop those who feel they have a legitimate claim to make against someone or a business. There would be more calculation and risk involved, sure. And more cases would likely go to where they belong: small claims court.

Something needs to be done to clean up, streamline, and assist the overburdened legal system in America. I think this one step could do all three, but virtually eliminating frivolous lawsuits from the system.

How to Fix DC Comics: Kryptonians

DC Comics has a nice panoply of heroes and an interesting and long history. However, it constantly struggles with the interconnectedness of its far-flung characters and the hierarchy of the characters as they related to one another within the fictional universe. The following idea came to me as a way in which to resolve some of these issues.

Kryptonians and their powers are one of the toughest aspects of the DC Universe. Through Kal-El/Superman, we know that the Kryptonians are god-like in their abilities when given a strong enough power source (our yellow star). Overall, however, the Kryptonian's history has been varied and subject to change. I suggest DC Comics codifies it (within reason) using the following history.

~~~~~~~

Sometime in the far distant past, the Kryptonians were a proud and strong race of bipedal humanoids. They were a scientifically advanced species, curious about the universe in general. There arose within their ranks a leader who was charismatic and persuasive. He first got the youth on his side, and then slowly inculcated the military to his way of thinking. Before anyone realized it, he had made himself into their dictator.

This Hitler-esque leader (the obvious choice would be to make him a distant House of El person, or related to Zod, but I wouldn't go either route if I was DC), espousing genetic superiority, then turns his eyes to two goals -- conquering nearby species/planets and making the Kryptonian race genetically superior to all others.

Scientist work feverishly for him. They make huge strides in genetics, getting improvements in speed, durability, and, especially, longevity out of the existing Kryptonian DNA. As the military advances through the galaxy, they encounter and conquer other planets, including Czarnians (which, as an infant race, already has strong regenerative abilities, which the scientists take and splice into Kryptonian DNA), the Daxamites (which are extremely hardy and powerful), etc. (DC Comics would need to determine which specific races the Kryptonians affected and/or conquered-- I don't have a comprehensive list of all the races, as they do.) Pretty soon, the "modern" Kryptonian is starting to be seen; one with vast strength, speed, and durability, various other abilities, but especially long life.

And, because they took abilities from these races and added them to their own genetic makeup, this shows why Kryptonians are superior to Czarnians and Daxamites, among others, on the hierarchy of powers and abilities. Any one race may be superior in one area (like the Czarnian's ability to regenerate, or maybe Daxamites are actually inherently a bit tougher or stronger), but no one race has the whole array of powers at the same levels.

This also allows the DC creators to decide which races the Kryptonians met and could not conquer, putting those races' abilities on par with Kryptonians. For example, I suggest the Martians, due to having similar overall powers, but also mental abilities and shapeshifting. Maybe the Kryptonians ran into the New Gods, and they were repulsed by the combined might and ingenuity of Highfather and Darkseid (explaining even more why Darkseid hates "the Kryptonian" so much).

Other races could owe their existence and abilities to the meddling of the Kryptonian scientists. During this phase of the Kryptonian evolution, the scientists also play god a bit with uninhabited planets, seeding them with the potential for humanoid life. Also, on each planet they conquer, some amount of interbreeding occurs as certain Kryptonians are intrigued by, and fall in love with, the native populations. On others, they simply experiment with the existing population to see what they can get out of them. They are ruthless in the goals and heedless of the wake of fear, envy, and anger they are leaving in their wake.

Over a vast amount of time, the Kryptonians are successful in their goal. They evolve their DNA so that every member of the race has great strength, durability, and many other powers and abilities, with some variation due to genetic combinations. Some can fly, while others can heal more rapidly, and still others can shoot energy from their bodies. Their bodies are vast solar cells and batteries, and the more powerful the solar radiation they can absorb, the more powerful they become. These changes are at a genetic level, so their offspring (fewer and fewer with each generation) inherits these abilities, distilling them and making them even stronger with the combinations. The Kryptonians are feared, hated, and envied by most other races, but especially those who are conquered.

As they reach the goal of genetic superiority, the longevity they create has the side effect of fewer children being born and a longer perspective. The long-dead first leader has been, over time, replaced with leaders who question Krypton's role as universal conqueror and slowly turn the race toward science and law and peace.

Determining that they have become too powerful, but also realizing that they have made a lot of enemies out of the races and planets they have conquered and manipulated, the Kryptonians move to a planet near an older red sun. This allows them to retain about half of their formidable powers, which, along with their scientific might, will dissuade most races from attacking them, but also lowers their power level to a point where other races will actually believe that the Kryptonians are not the conquering race to be feared and envied any more.

During the next millenia, the Kryptonians further look like the race we know from the comics-- cold, sterile, scientific. A race that is, for the most part, apart from the rest of the universe, and okay with that. Because of their longevity, they have very few children and the race is dying out. Very few of the Kryptonians are worried or care about this. It is during this period where Jor-El begins watching the planet Earth and marveling at the newly formed human beings and their zest for life. They serve law and anyone who breaks the law is punished severely. The highest crimes that are punishable by removal to the phantom zone are those relating to insurrection, rebellion, and sedition.

~~~~~~

This history change to the DC Comics universe helps explain much of the universe as they have always written it, once codified and expanded by the appropriate Editors at the company:

• Why the Kryptonians are so powerful, and how they got that way.
• Why there are so few Kryptonians when their planet explodes.
• Why there are so few children.
• Why they keep out of the universe's issues.
• Why so many other races are in awe of, and fearful of, Superman when they learn he is Kryptonian.
• Where the other races fit into the hierarchy of powers and abilities. Basically, Martians, Kryptonians, New Gods, (and others that the DC editors deem necessary).
• Why and how other races and powersets came to be, through manipulation of the early Kryptonians.
• Allows DC Comics to then flow this information into a "powers hierarchy" so that readers have a better understanding of where someone fits into the power level scale, with Superman at the top.
• Allows them to clean up Power Girl and Supergirl's back story. Both can now be a Kryptonian with slightly different powers, as defined by the genetic anomalies that provide variation in the Kryptonians. Or, maybe one is the result of the seeding of the planets that the Kryptonians did, which included Earth and creates Kryptonian-like genetic mutations once every thousand years or so.
• Helps to explain why there is such power diversity on Earth, as opposed to most other planets in the DC Universe.

Anonymous Gifts

When I give to a charity or cause, I prefer to do it low-key and behind the scenes. I don't like people to know, I don't share how much or when or what causes I give to with my friends or family, and I support what I support because I want to at that moment, and for no deeper meaning.

I get irritated when charities then use their ways and means to continue to ply me for money. I gave what I gave when I gave it... leave me alone. If you leave me alone, you are much more likely to get me to donate again in the future.

Most, however, hammer me to the point where I ask them to remove my name from their rolls and to never contact me again. Which they rarely do.

I have given to a host of causes in the past: AIDS, breast cancer, the homeless, food at holiday times, liver research, cancer research, ALS, arthritis. I've given my stuff to shelters and Good Will and churches.

But, and here's the catch, I do it all anonymously and simply because I feel like it that day and for no other reason. Yes, I have liver disease and arthritis, so those two causes tend to get slightly more money from me than others, but it still happens spur of the moment and because I feel like it, not because I have the diseases. Sometimes a friend is feeling strongly about a cause and, if they catch me on the right day or in the right frame of mind, $50 or $100 goes their way. If they catch me at a time I don't feel like giving, then they get nothing, friend or not.

One of my favorite causes is to donate money or food to shelters or food banks during the Thanksgiving to Christmas holiday season. These places use the money directly to buy, prepare, and serve food for those who don't have any, so I feel safe in giving them my dollars. In Irvine, I even helped push work-place food drives and donated money to one cause, but then it started hounding me and asking for more, more, more, so I cut them off and stopped doing it (it didn't help that my company didn't help out with the food drives much, no matter how many posters and what type of competitions I tried to get going).

Susan J. Komen is another one that simply wouldn't leave me alone. I donated to your cause, now stop emailing, mailing, and calling me! I've been away for closing on three years now, and I still get an email from it at least 4 times a year, even though I have unsubscribed. I think that's rude... no money for you any more.

I have found a new food bank in Maine that seems, so far, willing to keep my desire to be anonymous intact. So I donated another $100 this year. Supposedly, that will help feed 488 people on Christmas. That makes me feel good. My wife and I will find somewhere here in Canada to donate to, as well. Hopefully each place will continue to ignore me for the rest of the year, sending only the gentle reminder at Thanksgiving that the holiday season is here. If they do, then they get more money.

And, for me at least, it is that simple.

Movie Frustration

I am an avid movie watcher. It is one of my most favorite things to do. I feel that movies are America's "oral tradition," the way in which it hands down its values and stories to the next generation, and presents itself to other cultures.

Lately, however, I have been very disappointed in the movies in general. Hollywood has gone soft, preferring to rehash the same old story rather than finding the gem in the submission file. While it is true that remakes and sequels can be good (see Toy Story 3 for one example), it most often is not.

Most recently, my wife and I went to see Voyage of the Dawn Treader. It, like so many movies, is based on an existing story which has lasted and has been beloved for years (decades in this particular case). Yet, outside of a decent opening scene, using the names, and the general theme being the same, the producers, writers, and director decided to completely change the story for the screen. They took an exciting action/adventure story, with pirates, a sea serpent, a dragon, slave traders, storms and becalmed oceans, and turned it into a ... much less exciting action/adventure story that barely paid homage to the original story. Why?

If I were the producer on this series, I would note that each movie has taken more liberties with each subsequent story, and each movie has opened smaller and done less business than the last. I would then look at the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings movies and note that they stayed much closer to the source material, and the changes made were to focus the story on (a) specific character(s). Outside of those changes, the rest was, for the most part, directly from the books, just reinterpreted for the screen.

I would look also at the current spate of comic book character movies and which were highly touted and made money and which did not. Iron Man, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Spider-Man, and Spider-Man 2 all stayed very close to the source material, not taking undue liberties with it, and told exciting, interesting stories. Each made boatloads of cash and are rated very highly on IMDB.com. Now look at, say, the two Fantastic Four movies. Both took a lot of liberties, did not stay true to the characters as they have existing in the comic books for some 50 years now, did not play to their audience, and dumbed down all of the villains... and did rather poorly in box office and with the critics and audiences. One of the worst cinematic catastrophes occurred when someone decided to bring Catwoman to the screen and then totally ignored the character's 70 years of comic book history and spat in the faces of the millions of fans of the character. Halle Berry could have been a dynamic, sexy Catwoman, but the movie they made was a travesty.

Another excellent example would be the recent attempt to take Susan Cooper's excellent "The Dark Is Rising" series to the big screen as a movie series. Ignoring the book almost entirely, they changed so much in bringing it to the screen that it was unrecognizable to fans of the books. It tanked horribly at the box office and with critics/audiences, dooming chances of this very film-able series ever making it to the big screen.

My point being that those films that stay true to the source material, taking it and the audience for it seriously, tend to do very well at the theater. Those that don't, do not.

It really boils down to something simple: if you make something true to the original, the fans of the original story will like it and want to see it multiple times, bringing friends and family along with them. Those who don't know the original story will still be getting a strong story, one that is well rounded and easy to identify. So it is a win-win for the movie makers. But those who choose to go too far afield with their production lose the original, core audience. That core audience poisons the well for other audiences, do not see it multiple times, and do not bring it to a wider audience of their friends and family. Those movie have just halved or worse their potential paying audience.

My hope is that a film like Inception, doing so well both financially and with critics/audiences, will show studios that taking the chance on the unique and interesting can pay off. I also hope that the relative failures of Robin Hood, The Last Airbender, Prince of Persia, A-Team, and The Wolf Man show that you can't just remake something without making it good and being true to the original.

Sick Again

Since I take medications that lower my immune system responses, I get sick a lot. If you are a frequent reader to my blog, you already know this from many past blogs on the subject. However, since moving to my present location, I have been much healthier than ever for a few reasons: my wife helps me to eat better; I work from home, so I don't constantly get hit by sick people and people's sick children in an office environment; with the weather here, I don't go out as much so, again, I'm not around as many other people who are carrying their own germs.

My wife goes out of her way to avoid sick people at her office, to keep herself healthy, and to try not to bring anything home. Most of our friends know about my health, so they try to limit exposing me to stuff if they are sick, too. So, overall, I'm better than ever these days.

However, I still get sick. The cold swings, the wet weather, the fact it is unavoidable to go out sometimes, seeing friends (many of whom have children) regularly all do add up and I still get sick. Maybe not as often, but it still happens.

Today the temperature is over 15 degrees Celsius warmer (13) than it was on Saturday (-4). Saturday was cold/snowy, and about 2 inches of snow accumulated. Today it is rainy and much warmer. Those kind of shifts are hard for a body to take so suddenly. On Saturday, I was also out, first seeing friends during the day and then to a Christmas party in the evening, so I was around a total of around 30 people (plus strangers, servers, etc. at the Christmas party). Today, I am headachy, upset stomach, hot/cold swings, congested nasal passages, and just vomited. Go figure. And this is all after I loaded up on Advil Cold/Sinus and was sucking a Halls Defense with Vitamin C.

I'm heading back to bed now for a bit more sleep so that, hopefully, I can get some more work done on my contract today. I've had my PM reschedule the usual Monday meeting until I'm feeling better. Hopefully this will turn out to be something "minor" that I can get over and get back working quickly.

DCUO Revisited

I guess the big problem I have with DCU Online is that it is a massively multiplayer online game. If it was a simple first-person style action game, without being online (or, like Diablo 1 and 2 were, possible to play online with friends but not a requirement), it would be worth the $50 for the game just for the action and the graphics, both of which are well-done.

However, they want you to play with others online, and plan to charge $15 a month to do so. The problem I have is that the stories are not immersive enough, there is nearly zero replayability in the game, and the action feels just about the same regardless of the character type and style you select. I guess you could play it twice-- once as a hero and once as a villain. However, Sony will likely find the same thing is true for their eventual audience that they found in City of Heroes/Villains and Champions Online-- in general, the people who want to play these games want to be, well, heroes. COV never had more than about a quarter of the audience of COH, so they very quickly merged both games into one, and now have a system by which you can change your faction (so you can start with a villain archetype and make them a hero and vice versa).

It literally makes absolutely no difference if you want to be a more support-type character, healing and buffing your comrades or debuffing your enemies, you will have to attack using the same sets of clicks and holds of your mouse buttons as everyone else, with pretty much the same results. Not bad for those who like action/fight games on their console, but certainly not what the PC MMORPG crowd is seeking in a game.

In the end, I think DCU Online will be fairly successful with the game on the PS3. But I think they will see their PC market shrivel up and die (or go Free 2 Play, which they already seem to be programming for) very quickly. The lack of power sets, the awkward character generator, the fact that you are expected to make a generic hero and play the game to get the costume pieces you want, and the poor interface for PC players will be enough to counter the very nice graphics and fighting action.

My hope, as I want the game to succeed, is that they have enough there to hold onto enough audience paying the subscription fee that they will have time to make a ton more stories, add at least four more power sets (Might/Super Strength, Electricity, Earth, and Hard Light (which should be coming, as a tie-in to Green Lantern movie)), clean up and better explain the character generator and how you'll be gaining features in-game to help make your character look how you want (a tough sell for the crowds coming from COX and CO), and fix the clunky in-game interfaces to make more sense and be more useful. In six months time, granting updates every month and bug fixes every week, they might have enough to lure enough of us back to make a difference to the PC side.

DC Universe Online

The Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA) for the new game DC Universe Online (DCUO), currently in Closed Beta, was lifted yesterday. It is now safe to talk about the game. Unfortunately for Sony Online Entertainment (SOE), this means that many of us in the closed beta can warn people away from this game.

When creating a game in a genre that already exists, most manufacturers look at their competition, do some data mining on what works and what doesn't work, and try to “one up” their predecessors by keeping what works and by fixing what doesn't work. Sony did not choose to do this in any noticeable way. So instead of a game that is incrementally better than either City of Heroes/Villains (COX) or Champions Online (CO), you have a game that has all of their faults and a few new ones of its own.

Ostensibly, DCUO was made as both a PC game and a game for the PS3 console system. However, those two clients will run entirely separately at launch. This means that PC users of the game will never play with or against PS3 players. What I find strange and interesting is that the programmers have forced a PS3-like interface on the PC users which, when using a mouse and a keyboard, makes for a really awkward, hard to manage, and non-intuitive interface for PC users. Due to lag during closed beta, I could rarely get the “combos” of taps and holds of the mouse key to work correctly to give me the bonus maneuvers that the game promises. Matter of fact, I usually got the same ineffectual maneuver rather than either of the two I wanted, because the game either read my attempt at “tap-hold-tap” as “tap-tap-tap” or as “tap-hold-hold”. I can only imagine how hard it is to get the rare five and seven combos to initiate.

COX has a large number of both player and villain archetypes you can choose from. Even at release, it had a decent collection of archetypes and powers, and each power set had both a primary and a secondary tree from which you could take powers. It had/has a strong story element that runs through all levels of the game. The character builder started as one of its strongest elements and has gotten stronger over the years... you can pretty much make any character concept you can think of in terms of costume and powers. Some of the negatives are that you have an Endurance bar that limits how often you can use your powers, you are locked into a specific archetype for the career of your character, you can only select limited abilities outside of the tree of Primary and Secondary powers listed for you. Many players who find such things important feel that the end game content is lacking (although the designers have continued to add more). Balance was decent, but still needed constant tweaking as the game started as City of Tankers, then became City of Blasters, then City of Scrappers. Now, with the exception of a few builds which most think are a bit overpowered, you can play pretty much any archetype or power set and a have a fair chance at completing the game.

CO was built by some of the same people who made COX, so many of the best aspects of that game were ported over. CO has a similarly strong character builder, allows for duplicate names, has Endurance/Power generation inherent in a character's first power, so you actually are able to gain power while fighting (as opposed to COX's way of only losing power/endurance during combat, unless you or an ally has some way of providing endurance). CO's combat also managed to feel faster than COX's (although when timing combats in both games, I found the actual result was roughly equivalent, it felt faster in CO). CO also introduced a system by which you could take any power available in the game and could inhabit just about any of the roles or archetypes of an MMO (Tank, Blaster, Scrapper, Support, Control). The graphics used new elements, so were a bit fresher than COX and the environment was semi-destructible. Balance during both closed and open beta, and then especially at launch, was non-existent. Because you can take any power in the game, you can build really interesting combos of powers that mean you can do hellacious damage AND be virtually invulnerable to incoming damage. Lastly, the story elements were much slicker and shallower than in COX, which meant, in addition to building your icon as able to withstand nearly any effort by the game elements to defeat you, that you could breeze through the game without ever teaming if you chose to.

After reading the above, and knowing that DCUO is a new entry in the same genre, you would expect them to resolve some of the issues and keep some of the positives from each of those games, and then throw their own twist or cool new thing into the mix. They didn't.

1. Interface. DCUO for the PC is very hard to control with non-intuitive mouse and keyboard setups. MMOs have existed for two decades+ now, and PC users have a rote way of doing things. You can tweak that a bit, but should stay close to that standard setup in order to make your game easy to manage and use for those who are used to the genre. This game did not, instead forcing the PC users to mimic a PS3 controller interface. This includes combos that often don't work due to lag or hiccups in the internet, menus that are hard to open, use, and close, an incredibly difficult chat screen, and menus that involve more clicking than is needed for one using a mouse or a keyboard.
2. Character Builder. DCUO made a horrible, non-intuitive, and difficult to use character builder. The Next button pretty much only takes you to the save and start game screen, while the Back button is used after you've made a selection to return to the previous screen and make a new selection (usually Back means ignore what you've done and return, not accept what you've done and go back).
3. Costumes. Related to the Character Builder issue, there are not a lot of costume options available when creating your character. This is because, although it is not stated anywhere in the game as you begin (at this time), you are expected to “flesh out” your character with costume drops from enemy defeats. This should be spelled out and made very clear to the user, so they aren't horribly disappointed in the minimal selections available.
4. Mentors. This is a new concept in DCUO, and should be very cool. In reality, it falls flat. Your Mentor is the hero or villain you want to emulate and “be like.” So, for example, if you want to be a Tank-type of character and a hero, you would pick Superman. This will set you up with his general costume design and colors (red, blue, yellow), give you the Fire power set (Fire and Ice are the two tanking power sets), and set up your fighting style as Hand/Boxing. You then have him give you your starting missions and you start in his starting area (Metropolis).
5. Powers. DCUO has chosen to partially do away with archetypes (Tanker, Blaster, Controller, etc.). They assume everyone is a “damage dealer” type, so they only have three roles from which you can choose: Tanker, Controller, Buffer/healer. However, as you gain levels and purchase new abilities, you can open up other roles and can switch your archetype to some degree. This is a good concept in theory, but the limited number of powers and the poor to non-existent explanation of what those powers do and how they work, mean that you don't necessarily know how your character will play in the actual game. For example, you cannot and will not be able to make the classic “flying brick” superhero that created the comic books. So if you want to be a “Superman-type” or a “Hulk-type” of character, you are out of luck. Or, let me correct that, you CAN do it, you just have to completely ignore your powers, and only use your fighting styles, for about 10 levels of play until you can start selecting Iconic Powers, which you can then use to very poorly mimic some of those abilities. The incredibly limited selection of powers, and the fact that you can augment these later in the game using the points you earn from defeating enemies and finishing quests is poorly explained, may turn off a lot of people coming from COX and CO and expecting to build their own character.
6. Story. The story here is decent, not as immersive as the COX story lines and not as light and breezy as the CO story. However, the content itself is so minimal that regardless of the mentor you pick during character creation, you have to run through pretty much all of the content in order to level to 30. This limits replay-ability as if you pick Superman with your first character, you have to run through Wonder Woman's and Batman's story arcs to reach then end. If you then start a new character with WW or Bats as your mentor, the only difference is that you run the missions in a slightly different order.
7. Endurance/Power. COX had an endurance bar that limited your play. A vast majority of players found that taking one tertiary power set that improved endurance regeneration pretty much mandatory in order to play their characters the way they wanted to. In the latest update to the game, they have given all characters that tertiary power set for free at level 2. CO allowed you to build endurance using one of your attacks, so actually being in a fight improved your ability to stay in a fight. DCUO has struck right down the middle. You have an endurance/power bar that only goes down, like in COX. However, the regeneration on the bar is incredibly high and some of the powers can return endurance to you during combat, sort of like CO.
8. Combat. This is one are where DCUO shines. Combat is fast and furious, the graphics are incredible and, if you can actually get the combos to work, you can do some amazing things with your character. If you use a gamepad or a PS3, I think you'll really enjoy the game. On a PC, the combat feels a bit out of your control and hard to maneuver. One thing I found particularly annoying was the auto target feature-- it rarely jumps to the combatant I am expecting or trying to hit and frequent targets someone off-screen or behind my icon, causing the screen to whirl around to face him and get me all confused. Manual targeting wasn't much better.
9. Destructible Environment. DCUO does have semi-destructible environments, allowing you to pick up cars, trash cans, light poles, etc. and throw or swing them at opponents. You can also damage buildings and the ground with powers and effects via a skinning effect layered over the actual environment. After a few moments, the skin disappears and the environment is back to normal.
10. Teaming/Player Interaction. People play MMOs for a reason. They want to play with other people. They many not always want to team up, but that is certainly an aspect of the game genre that is strongly held. DCUO has made a game where, for the most part, you can solo the entire game. There are a few quests and raids that require at least a duo and a few that require more people, but you can go from 1 to 30 without ever teaming and without missing much if you choose to. And you can do it pretty quickly, even with stopping and reading all the missions and paying attention to the story. And the chat system on the PC side is so hard to use that you pretty much cannot use it while traveling or for quick comments during combat or such, so you can't really interact easily with your fellow players. This leads the game to feel like a single-player action game that just happens to be online and the other heroes and villains are played by other people. There are few ways to build a community or create a “super-group” feeling in the game (including no way to create super-groups/teams/kinships/etc. or to have a house/base).
    
11. End Game. There really isn't much right now. You can quickly get to 30 and there there are only a couple of things to do, including re-doing missions you've already done on a harder setting. There are a couple of raids, but nothing great and nothing you want to do more than once.

Giving 'Til it Hurts

I hate the double-standard to which America is held. Most nations deplore American's "meddling ways." They publicly denounce anything that the country does that may be construed as tampering with their country. They hate American businesses for coming in and driving out the local businesses. They curse our politics and our "warmongering" ways.

That is, they hate it all until a disaster strikes, whether man-made or natural. No nation gives more money, food, or personnel to a disaster than America. If America decided not to give to the next big disaster, the world would suddenly shoulder so much responsibility, both financial and otherwise, that the other nations would come crying back to us for our assistance.

Most of those Arab nations that hate us and from which it seems the vast majority of anti-Western terrorism seems to spring would cease to exist without American business, American imports/exports, American tourism, and American financial and military assistance. North Korea, spouting hate speech and threatening war with its southern neighbor, found out when America stopped shipping it food a few years ago in response to some of their aggression that about 90% of their food comes from America. It was incredible how fast the leadership in North Korea backed down and changed their tune when they were starving and their people were threatening revolt due to the shortages.

When the tsunami hit at Christmas a few years ago, America sent so much money and manpower to the region that the next closest supporting nation was about half the amount of American time, money, and resources. People have complained about America's lack of response in Haiti, yet the country is still the #1 contributor in money and food to the stricken nation. The Army Corps of Engineers, Red Cross, American military, and other groups are frequently the only thing standing between a disaster area and the people being wiped out entirely. There are drought-, war-, and genocide-plagued regions of Africa where the people would have been wiped out long ago if not for constant food and medicine shipments, and even military efforts, from America.

Has America been a bit too "uppity" lately? Maybe. Has the country tampered in places where tampering wasn't necessary? Likely. Is the country a bit full of itself, at a time when its people are hurting, its educational system is in dire need, and the leadership is in turmoil? Yes. However, if you take America's time, money, and resources out of any disaster's recovery effort, you have problems of Biblical proportions that the rest of the world just isn't ready to tackle. I just wish the rest of the world would realize this and stop its complaining about America and its people.

TMI

The Information Age, indeed. I am drowning in information. Everywhere I go there is something new, something probative, something radical, something obscene, something political, or something religious screaming at me. The news cycle is twenty-four hours a day, which means that reports and news providers have to keep hitting it (whatever it happens to be) until you are unconscious and don't care any more.

The first signs of this apocalypse should have been one of these:

• The first war in Iraq, where CNN came into its own and had people glued to their TV sets watching minute by minute updates on what was happening. At least during this one, people still cared through the hours and days of the war.
• The OJ trial, where people were glued to their TV sets watching a sports figure trying to put skin-tight gloves over plastic gloves. People couldn't get enough and were turned into news junkies looking for their next fix of OJ info during the day and flipped on the TV as soon as they got home.
• The 9/11 attacks, where people were stunned and couldn't escape the information. Every channel had it on, ad infinitum, until people became completely numb to it. They couldn't turn away, escape, or find release from the horror of it. This is where people went from junkies to zombies, drooling at the altar of TV.

What irritates me the most is that I have been suckered into it as well. I find myself constantly seeking out the least detail about the new Superman movie, the next in the Batman franchise, waiting for the least word on my favorite fiction series (Dresden Files), and following any tidbits on my favorite sports teams. If something serious happens in the world, I'm flipping between right and left wing news gatherers trying to piece together what must be what really happened, since neither side gives an accurate or fair view.

When I was growing up, the news was something you got at 5pm until 6pm, at which time the half-hour national news came on. They had 22.5 hours to probe, question, dig, and write the news stories before that hour and a half of news came on and presented the story to you. People from both sides of the political debate worked fairly equally at each station, so you had less bias as a left-wing reporter may have to get editorial approval from a right-wing editor (or vice versa). This meant the stories were checked and double-checked from both sides before airing. The newscasters had integrity and were the voice for the people. The old-school newscaster would never think of putting themselves in front of or into the story, because they knew that once they did that, they were no longer objective. Now, the poster boy for the current crop of newscasters is Anderson Cooper, who can't seem to stay out of the story, and often becomes the story, blowing any credibility he had and losing all objectivity while he does it.

We have now entered into a very dangerous area for news, where newscasters are making the news. We've had FOX News personnel hosting political rallies. We've had reporters attacked by people and attacking others. We have Anderson Cooper going out to any disaster so we can get the "hero shot" of him crying while carrying a dead body or severely injured person to safety.

Now, with the 24/7 news cycle, it is all about being the first and most sensationalistic getting a story out. Fact checking? That's for people who have time to do it, not for me! Balance and integrity? If I stop to check my facts, make sure they are accurate and beyond reproach, and rewrite the story I will lose audience, readers, and money. As soon as news became entertainment, most notably with those three examples provided above, the end of news as we knew it was at hand, we just didn't recognize it.

News shouldn't be about ratings, entertainment, or sensationalism. It is supposed to be about facts and figures, provable allegations and assertions, and about integrity and responsibility. Tell that to CNN or MSNBC or FOX News -- do any of those owners know what those words mean without a dictionary and examples? The 24/7 cycle has destroyed this notion in favor of "get it out now, we'll apologize later (or just spin it so we look good anyway)."

It is no wonder the American public is so confused on so many issues. No one is telling them, honestly and with integrity, what is going on, why, and how it impacts them. I fear for the future.