I admit it: I'm a technology-whore. I love gizmos and gadgets. I love all kinds of cool new stuff. And knowing all that, it's even more astonishing that I have been this patient with the current gizmos I have.
First of all, my computer is a Mac Mini. When I bought this computer over two years ago, it was the cheapest and slowest Mac available (not including used hardware). And it has served me well, even though new and cooler computers have been released (by Apple, naturally) since I bought this one. It has just felt that this computer is... good enough, and there's no need for something better. Well, that will change this summer when I will move to a laptop. Besides, I need more power since I have started shooting huge RAW-files with my camera. The Mini simply does not cut it anymore.
What about the display that is connected to my computer? Well, if I remember correctly, it's three years old. LCD, true, but nowhere near the state of the art. Again, it has been "good enough".
How about my iPod Mini? I bought it two years ago and it has served me well, even though new and better models have taken it's place. But it too will get replaced this summer. I want the ability to watch videos and pictures, and I'm running out of space on my device.
But, as things are, it seems that my technophilia has been giving way to more rational thought. I haven't bought new stuff just for the sake of them being new. I have actually kept on using my older stuff (although some might dispute the notion that two-year old computer is "old") since it has worked just fine. And now that I am replacing them, I'm doing it because I have clearly defined needs which are not met with my current devices. Could it be that rationality and level-headedness is creeping in to my geek-paradise?
Of course, as I replace my devices, my old hardware is recycled to good use. Mrs. will propably get the iPod Mini, while my Mac Mini will either me turned in to a household-server, donated to relatives or sold away.
Children of Men
I finally watched "Children of Men" last weekend. I actually missed in when it was playing in the theaters (or they never showed it here at all), so I took a calculated risk and bought the DVD when I saw it for sale. And I wasn't disappointed.
It's a good sign when you read the comments in IMDB, and you have bunch of people telling how the movie is "racist", while you also have a bunch of people telling how the movie is "left-wing propaganda that glorifies immigrants". The movie obviously evokes strong emotions in viewers, and that's a good sign. And looking at the ratings it has received (currently 8.2/10 in IMDB), most people like it. No, the movie is not racist. It just depicts a society that suffers from xenophobia, but that does not mean that the movie itself suffers from it.
The movie is set in to near future when women have stopped having children. Last child was born 18 years ago, and mankind is slowly moving towards extinction. Most of the world has descended in to anarchy, while the remains of civilized society try to hang on. And the "civilized society" isn't really that civilized anymore.
While the world is coming to an end, it isn't going away with a bang, it's fading away. People still go to work, they still buy their coffee from coffee-shops, they still watch their news. And still, there's the constant feeling that mankind is doomed. None of the individuals are doomed as such: there is no nuclear war that is going to wipe them out, there is no disease that is going to kill them, nor are they waiting for radioactive cloud to kill them all. There's just a bunch of people living out their lives, with full knowledge that after they are dead, there will not be others to take their place. It's a society of silent (occasionally not so silent) resignation.
Actors do a good job thorough the movie. There's no poor performance to be seen, and Clive Owen does a solid job at the lead. So the story is interesting, and the actors are good. That gives a good foundation to build a great movie. And this movie delivers.
There's one thing in the movie that is truly superb: cinematography. The scenes are long and jaw-droppingly outstanding. And I'm not talking of scenes with just dialogue, I'm talking about action-packed scenes as well. They seem to go on and on. No, they do not drag on, which would be bad, they flow naturally. I'm not sure how they did it. Maybe they somehow digitally stitched several scenes together, and if they did, they did a superb job at it. If they really just shot long cuts, it is a real testament to the skill of the actors and director. Either way, the end result is simply stunning.
The filmmakers also did a great job at creating the remnants of human civilization. I don't think I ever saw any bright colors anywhere. Everything is muted and gloomy.
"Children of Men" does not suffer from the curse of Hollywood, where everything is explained to the viewer. We are given bit and pieces of the backstory, but things are not explained in detail. The ending is open, and it's up to the viewer to determine what happens next. In short: it forces the viewer to think. And that's always a Good Thing (tm).
A damned fine movie if you ask me!
It's a good sign when you read the comments in IMDB, and you have bunch of people telling how the movie is "racist", while you also have a bunch of people telling how the movie is "left-wing propaganda that glorifies immigrants". The movie obviously evokes strong emotions in viewers, and that's a good sign. And looking at the ratings it has received (currently 8.2/10 in IMDB), most people like it. No, the movie is not racist. It just depicts a society that suffers from xenophobia, but that does not mean that the movie itself suffers from it.
The movie is set in to near future when women have stopped having children. Last child was born 18 years ago, and mankind is slowly moving towards extinction. Most of the world has descended in to anarchy, while the remains of civilized society try to hang on. And the "civilized society" isn't really that civilized anymore.
While the world is coming to an end, it isn't going away with a bang, it's fading away. People still go to work, they still buy their coffee from coffee-shops, they still watch their news. And still, there's the constant feeling that mankind is doomed. None of the individuals are doomed as such: there is no nuclear war that is going to wipe them out, there is no disease that is going to kill them, nor are they waiting for radioactive cloud to kill them all. There's just a bunch of people living out their lives, with full knowledge that after they are dead, there will not be others to take their place. It's a society of silent (occasionally not so silent) resignation.
Actors do a good job thorough the movie. There's no poor performance to be seen, and Clive Owen does a solid job at the lead. So the story is interesting, and the actors are good. That gives a good foundation to build a great movie. And this movie delivers.
There's one thing in the movie that is truly superb: cinematography. The scenes are long and jaw-droppingly outstanding. And I'm not talking of scenes with just dialogue, I'm talking about action-packed scenes as well. They seem to go on and on. No, they do not drag on, which would be bad, they flow naturally. I'm not sure how they did it. Maybe they somehow digitally stitched several scenes together, and if they did, they did a superb job at it. If they really just shot long cuts, it is a real testament to the skill of the actors and director. Either way, the end result is simply stunning.
The filmmakers also did a great job at creating the remnants of human civilization. I don't think I ever saw any bright colors anywhere. Everything is muted and gloomy.
"Children of Men" does not suffer from the curse of Hollywood, where everything is explained to the viewer. We are given bit and pieces of the backstory, but things are not explained in detail. The ending is open, and it's up to the viewer to determine what happens next. In short: it forces the viewer to think. And that's always a Good Thing (tm).
A damned fine movie if you ask me!
Be a sheep: wear trendy clothes!
I hate fashion. The more I think about it, the more I realize it goes against everything I believe in. What do I believe in? Well, among other things, I believe in personal liberties and freedoms. What does that have to do with fashion? Quite a bit as it turns out.
What annoys me is the way this whole fashion-thingy works out. Basically, there are bunch of people who decide what is fashionable and what is not. They decide that "next year, red is in". then we get bunch of magazines telling us what is in and what is out, and then mindless drones wander to the stores to buy new clothes so they could be "trendy". How about buying clothes that you actually like? Clothers that feel comfortable? Clothes that are practical? Forget that crap, we need to be "trendy"!
What happened to people buying clothes that they like? Sure, lots of people do that. But the very idea that we actually have a bunch of people deciding what is fashionable and what is not, is what really pushes my buttons. Instead of companies selling certain types of clothes, and people buying whatever suits them, we have the fashion-elite telling us what we should be buying.
And what is the other thing that really pushes my buttons? The fact that there's a metric assload of people who actually care what the fashion-industry is telling us. They rush to the stores in a desperate attempt to be "trendy". They proclaim their individuality and independence while wearing clothes that someone else told him to buy.
No, I'm not saying that we should dress purposefully in an unfashionable way. What I AM saying is that we shouldn't decide our appearance based on what some other people decided in a committee. If the clothes you happen to like become fashionable, go ahead and keep on wearing them. But don't change your look just because something else becomes fashionable. Don't switch from jeans to spandex just because spandex becomes fashionable.
What does this have to do with personal liberties? I mean, no-one is forced to buy anything. But it's still very annoying to think that there are some people who feel that they have the power to decide what we should be wearing. And I get very annoyed whenever someone tells me what I should and should not be doing or thinking.
And it gets even more annoying when you realize that for quite a few people, they do have that power. "Yeah, I'm wearing pink bikinis and bell-bottoms because I heard they are trendy".
What annoys me is the way this whole fashion-thingy works out. Basically, there are bunch of people who decide what is fashionable and what is not. They decide that "next year, red is in". then we get bunch of magazines telling us what is in and what is out, and then mindless drones wander to the stores to buy new clothes so they could be "trendy". How about buying clothes that you actually like? Clothers that feel comfortable? Clothes that are practical? Forget that crap, we need to be "trendy"!
What happened to people buying clothes that they like? Sure, lots of people do that. But the very idea that we actually have a bunch of people deciding what is fashionable and what is not, is what really pushes my buttons. Instead of companies selling certain types of clothes, and people buying whatever suits them, we have the fashion-elite telling us what we should be buying.
And what is the other thing that really pushes my buttons? The fact that there's a metric assload of people who actually care what the fashion-industry is telling us. They rush to the stores in a desperate attempt to be "trendy". They proclaim their individuality and independence while wearing clothes that someone else told him to buy.
No, I'm not saying that we should dress purposefully in an unfashionable way. What I AM saying is that we shouldn't decide our appearance based on what some other people decided in a committee. If the clothes you happen to like become fashionable, go ahead and keep on wearing them. But don't change your look just because something else becomes fashionable. Don't switch from jeans to spandex just because spandex becomes fashionable.
What does this have to do with personal liberties? I mean, no-one is forced to buy anything. But it's still very annoying to think that there are some people who feel that they have the power to decide what we should be wearing. And I get very annoyed whenever someone tells me what I should and should not be doing or thinking.
And it gets even more annoying when you realize that for quite a few people, they do have that power. "Yeah, I'm wearing pink bikinis and bell-bottoms because I heard they are trendy".
-110C
That's the new lowest temperature I have experienced so far, and I guess it's pretty safe to say that I wont experience anything colder, ever. -110c is almost twice as cold as it is in the South Pole in the winter.
Me and the Mrs. spent some time in the Haikko Manor. Besides manor, they also have a spa. And in addition to the normal activities you can have in a spa, they have what they call "Super Cold Cryo Treatment". It consists of three rooms, first having the temperature of -30c, second is -60c, and the last one is -110c. You walk through the first two rooms (so your body can adjust to the extreme cold) and then spend three minutes in the last room. And you are wearing just slippers, gloves and your swimsuit.
Let me tell you something: that temperature is something totally unreal. I don't know how they make it so cold, but it apparently involves liquid nitrogen. When I first heard that you only spend 3 minutes in -110c, my initial thought was "What if I want to spend more time there?". But 3 minutes is the longest period of time you could do. I actually thought about leaving sooner, but since I had told the Mrs. that I can do it easily, I stayed there. Man can take the pain, but not the shame. Well, I got a diploma to prove that I did it.
They instructed us to "breath in through your nose, and out through your mouth". And that worked for about 20 seconds, then my nostrils started to freeze. So I had to breath in through my mouth. But you can't really breathe air that is so cold, so you just gasp for some air and hope for the best. It was so cold that it actually felt like burning. It was like million needles sticking in to you at once. I could feel and hear my heart pumping. You can't really move that much, since that would make the air move, and that would make it even colder. You just stand there with adrenaline pumping through your veins.
All in all, it was a great experience, and I'm looking forward of doing it again.
Me and the Mrs. spent some time in the Haikko Manor. Besides manor, they also have a spa. And in addition to the normal activities you can have in a spa, they have what they call "Super Cold Cryo Treatment". It consists of three rooms, first having the temperature of -30c, second is -60c, and the last one is -110c. You walk through the first two rooms (so your body can adjust to the extreme cold) and then spend three minutes in the last room. And you are wearing just slippers, gloves and your swimsuit.
Let me tell you something: that temperature is something totally unreal. I don't know how they make it so cold, but it apparently involves liquid nitrogen. When I first heard that you only spend 3 minutes in -110c, my initial thought was "What if I want to spend more time there?". But 3 minutes is the longest period of time you could do. I actually thought about leaving sooner, but since I had told the Mrs. that I can do it easily, I stayed there. Man can take the pain, but not the shame. Well, I got a diploma to prove that I did it.
They instructed us to "breath in through your nose, and out through your mouth". And that worked for about 20 seconds, then my nostrils started to freeze. So I had to breath in through my mouth. But you can't really breathe air that is so cold, so you just gasp for some air and hope for the best. It was so cold that it actually felt like burning. It was like million needles sticking in to you at once. I could feel and hear my heart pumping. You can't really move that much, since that would make the air move, and that would make it even colder. You just stand there with adrenaline pumping through your veins.
All in all, it was a great experience, and I'm looking forward of doing it again.
And speaking of conspiracies...
There seems to be a conspiracy against me. Every time it seems that I could save some extra money, "something" happens. For the last few months I had been paying back my credit-card bill, few hundred euros a month.No, I'm not a big credit-spender, I usually just the credit-card for online-shopping and to even out some bigger purchases I make. So last month I decided to
repay all of the credit back, figuring that "if I do that, I'll "earn" few hundred euros extra every month, since I don't have to worry about the credit-card bill anymore". And it _seemed_ to work. But no. So far this month I have been hit by two electricity-bills (100+e each), my broadband-bill (150e) and I had to buy new set of summer-tires (380e). Previously whenever it had seemed that I might actually manage to squeeze some extra money to the savings-account, I've been hit by magazine-bills or something. There's ALWAYS something unexpected just around the corner, waiting to drain me from my hard-earned cash. But whenever I have some big-ish monthly expenditure (like, the credit-card) I wont get those "surprises".
repay all of the credit back, figuring that "if I do that, I'll "earn" few hundred euros extra every month, since I don't have to worry about the credit-card bill anymore". And it _seemed_ to work. But no. So far this month I have been hit by two electricity-bills (100+e each), my broadband-bill (150e) and I had to buy new set of summer-tires (380e). Previously whenever it had seemed that I might actually manage to squeeze some extra money to the savings-account, I've been hit by magazine-bills or something. There's ALWAYS something unexpected just around the corner, waiting to drain me from my hard-earned cash. But whenever I have some big-ish monthly expenditure (like, the credit-card) I wont get those "surprises".
A revelation
I realized something a while ago... I realized that I hate Dan Brown. No, I don't hate him personally, I just hate his books. Well, with all due honesty, I have only read "The Da Vinci Code", and even that, only halfway through. But as I read the book, there was something in the book that kept bugging me. I still don't know what it was actually, but it was there. Maybe it was the time wasted telling all those useless details about the people, places and actions? Maybe it was the annoyance because _everything_ seemed to have some hidden symbolic meaning?
As I read the book, I did see why people were crazy about the book. But still, it somehow rubbed me the wrong way. I haven't read "Angels and Demons", but I heard that it's very similar to "The Da Vinci Code", so the guy isn't even original. And looking at the plot-summary on the Wikipedia, I see this: "Angels & Demons follows Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon, as he tries to stop what seems to be the Illuminati, a legendary secret society, from destroying the Vatican City with the newly-discovered power of antimatter". Really? How did he come up with THAT?
Oh, the movie about the book was crap as well. Pure, 100% concentrated crap. That's two hours of my life I will never get back.
What about his other works? Well, there's "Digital Fortress". And it apparently is filled with technical inaccuracies. True, those wouldn't matter to 90% of the readers, but for those in the know, it would make the book seem... Silly. Yes, it's only fiction, but suspension of disbelief only takes you so far. For better alternative, go read Neal Stephensons "Cryptonomicon". I would encourage that book to just about everyone, not just those who are interested in technology and encryption.
Maybe he's ready to move on with his career? Drop this stuff about conspiracies and secret societies? Well, not yet at least. Apparently his next book is about the Freemasons. The horse is dead, but let's just keep on beating it.
As I read the book, I did see why people were crazy about the book. But still, it somehow rubbed me the wrong way. I haven't read "Angels and Demons", but I heard that it's very similar to "The Da Vinci Code", so the guy isn't even original. And looking at the plot-summary on the Wikipedia, I see this: "Angels & Demons follows Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon, as he tries to stop what seems to be the Illuminati, a legendary secret society, from destroying the Vatican City with the newly-discovered power of antimatter". Really? How did he come up with THAT?
Oh, the movie about the book was crap as well. Pure, 100% concentrated crap. That's two hours of my life I will never get back.
What about his other works? Well, there's "Digital Fortress". And it apparently is filled with technical inaccuracies. True, those wouldn't matter to 90% of the readers, but for those in the know, it would make the book seem... Silly. Yes, it's only fiction, but suspension of disbelief only takes you so far. For better alternative, go read Neal Stephensons "Cryptonomicon". I would encourage that book to just about everyone, not just those who are interested in technology and encryption.
Maybe he's ready to move on with his career? Drop this stuff about conspiracies and secret societies? Well, not yet at least. Apparently his next book is about the Freemasons. The horse is dead, but let's just keep on beating it.
A review...
I went to see "300" yesterday. And I don't think I have ever seen a movie that is so full of macho-bullshit (Dirty Harry might come close), muscular men (Conan might come close), spraying blood (Ummmm.... Kill Bill is a contender here), people getting killed (there are a number of movies that compete in sheer volume of corpses, but I'm not going to start going through them here) and general mayhem. I can understand if some people absolutely loathe this movie, truly I can. But I loved every second of it.
First of all, the movie is beautiful. I think it's the first movie that is filmed (more or less) entirely in front of a greenscreen and (again, more or less) entirely in slow-motion. Some might say it looks cheesy, but... It doesn't.
Second: I really liked the soundtrack. Yes, it was kinda weird of watching an epic movie that is set in ancient Greece, with soundtrack that has electric-guitars (or their electronic counterpart), but it works. The music has balls, and it does a great work at making those gargantuan Spartan brass-balls be even bigger than they are in the movie.
Third: There's something strangely satisfying in a movie that basically consists of hordes of men and beasts hurling them against the spears and swords of muscular Spartans. Is it "intellectual"? Hell no! And it doesn't have to be. One of my coworkers described it as a "two-hour action-scene", which is quite close. Well, there are the moments when the story progresses outside the battlefield, but those are relatively few and far between. And even those scenes usually consist of muscular Spartans being macho.
Fourth: This is a 100% guy-movie. But those unfortunate women that have been dragged to the theater by their husband/boyfriends at least have something to look at. That's right, those muscular Spartans. And even though this is a guy movie, there's relatively little gratious female-nudity in the movie. Well, there is some nudity, but it's not like they used every possible moment to show us naked women. Almost, but not quite.
The point I'm making here is that "300" is not a "good movie" like "Citizen Kane" or "Godfather" is. What it is, is a 100% entertaining movie that is pure joy to watch. And in this day and age, that's quite a good accomplishment. Don't expect to see a movie that makes you think or makes you ponder the meaning of life. What you will get instead is a movie that is just oozing with coolness and kick-ass action. And balls. Huge balls. Made from genuine Spartan brass.
First of all, the movie is beautiful. I think it's the first movie that is filmed (more or less) entirely in front of a greenscreen and (again, more or less) entirely in slow-motion. Some might say it looks cheesy, but... It doesn't.
Second: I really liked the soundtrack. Yes, it was kinda weird of watching an epic movie that is set in ancient Greece, with soundtrack that has electric-guitars (or their electronic counterpart), but it works. The music has balls, and it does a great work at making those gargantuan Spartan brass-balls be even bigger than they are in the movie.
Third: There's something strangely satisfying in a movie that basically consists of hordes of men and beasts hurling them against the spears and swords of muscular Spartans. Is it "intellectual"? Hell no! And it doesn't have to be. One of my coworkers described it as a "two-hour action-scene", which is quite close. Well, there are the moments when the story progresses outside the battlefield, but those are relatively few and far between. And even those scenes usually consist of muscular Spartans being macho.
Fourth: This is a 100% guy-movie. But those unfortunate women that have been dragged to the theater by their husband/boyfriends at least have something to look at. That's right, those muscular Spartans. And even though this is a guy movie, there's relatively little gratious female-nudity in the movie. Well, there is some nudity, but it's not like they used every possible moment to show us naked women. Almost, but not quite.
The point I'm making here is that "300" is not a "good movie" like "Citizen Kane" or "Godfather" is. What it is, is a 100% entertaining movie that is pure joy to watch. And in this day and age, that's quite a good accomplishment. Don't expect to see a movie that makes you think or makes you ponder the meaning of life. What you will get instead is a movie that is just oozing with coolness and kick-ass action. And balls. Huge balls. Made from genuine Spartan brass.