I attending my first convention, the "Super-Con" in San Jose over the weekend.
Since it was my first I'd barely any idea of what to expect, I just went on impulse.
There was a row of celebrities as I entered. There was Bruce Dern, I think he was in Last Man Standing with Bruce Willis. There was also the man who played the Flash in the live action TV series around the 90's. Margot Kidder was there, you know Lois Lane from the Superman movies starring Chris Reeve. Dern, and Kidder both seemed very unapproachable. The Flash on the other hand was smiling and seemed happy to be there.
Humberto Ramos was there and getting all the attention. And making quite a bit of money off of commissions. I really wanted to ask him for one but I didn't have enough money for an Inked work, besides I dunno if he'd know who the heck the "Super-Wizard" was.
Anyway, It was very different, didn't know how to approach the ppl/artists at their booths, but I'm a bit asocial. There's always next time. Hopefully Avatar will have something in California in the near future, I'd be a bit more comfortable approaching that sort of booth.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
Star Trek Review
5 out of 5 stars for action, Special FX, 2 out of 5 for Story= overall: 2 1/2 stars
***SPOILER ALERT***SPOILER ALERT****SPOILER ALERT***
I watched JJ Abrams Star Trek over the weekend. I'm no Trekkie, I don't follow the characters or their stories religiously, though I have enjoyed a number of Star Trek films and episodes.
Throughout the film the lead character, Kirk, shifts roles between, rebel, genius, womanizer,brawler, and comic relief; sometimes within one sequence. It's a bit much to ask I think. I'm supposed to believe that such a doting character, can also take charge in a potentially dangerous situation? Okay, fine. The actor playing Kirk seems to over act and in nearly every scene is not as graceful or charismatic as one would think Kirk should be;however he does have a good sense of comedic timing. The action/drama, which is done well, is always followed by a slight comic relief, no matter how boring and devoid of content each following scene is.
The very Clever use of a version of time travel which creates alternate timelines as a device to ignore Star Trek's years of history was brilliant. Although, this kind of device can create convolution, which could be a problem since the people behind this are also behind the television series LOST. Despite how brilliant this device is, it's used simply to say "hey, this ain't your dad's Star Trek". The entire film, while being entertaining and doing well with the introduction to the new cast of familiar characters, fails to have any underlying theme. It's a series of scenes without any real story, a prologue. The strongest part of the entire story is left as a backdrop. With this alternate timeline comes a number of different possibilities, including the fact that each character, including Spock may die at any moment. This is never brought up, there is no sense that young Kirk was robbed of his place in history that the events at the beginning of the film took away opportunities he otherwise would've had. The line "Do you ever feel like you were meant for something more" (paraphrasing) should've held more meaning by the time it was spoken.
I agree with one of the only critical reviews about this movie I could find. Quoting from some of the parts I agree with:
"'Star Trek' as a concept has voyaged far beyond science fiction and into the safe waters of space opera, but that doesn’t amaze me. The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action. Like so many franchises, it’s more concerned with repeating a successful formula than going boldly where no 'Star Trek' has gone before."
"The new movie essentially intends to reboot the franchise with younger characters and carry on as before. The movie deals with narrative housekeeping. Perhaps the next one will engage these characters in a more challenging and devious story, one more about testing their personalities than re-establishing them. In the meantime, you want space opera, you got it." ,
Friday, May 08, 2009
Now What?
So, no one reads this but me. Maybe that will change soon as I start mentioning it exists by other means?
Title should now read 3YearsLeftTilTheEndofTIME.
I've been gone a long while, got my head stuck in the virtual world of Online gaming. It aches knowing I could write better sentences and have more interesting conversations while I was knee deep in researching one of my many bullshit projects while hopped up on political commentary from mainly public radio sources.
I should read a fucking book.
Title should now read 3YearsLeftTilTheEndofTIME.
I've been gone a long while, got my head stuck in the virtual world of Online gaming. It aches knowing I could write better sentences and have more interesting conversations while I was knee deep in researching one of my many bullshit projects while hopped up on political commentary from mainly public radio sources.
I should read a fucking book.
Friday, May 05, 2006
Illegal Immigrant Rights?
A bit of my thoughts on a local news article I read that bleeds into a bigger issue somewhat.
The "Day Without An Immigrant" began on Monday morning May 2nd 2006 in Gilroy with over 600 people marching through the city streets to gather at Gilroy's City Hall. At the end of the demonstration dozens drove to larger protests in San Jose. This was not the first march of its kind concerning "immigrant rights". The first was held in April and was organized in protest of a proposed bill that would have made it a felony to be an illegal immigrant and to help an illegal immigrant. Soon after the demonstration the bill was revised and did not include language making illegal immigrants felons. The point of the May 2nd demonstration was to show the law makers in Washington the economic power of the illegal immigrant work force and those who support them, corporations notwithstanding.
The Gilroy Dispatch reported an unofficial list of local businesses affected by the boycott, most of them "Hispanic-owned" and frequented in large part by the very people boycotting them. The Dispatch also cited "preliminary reports from The California Association of Employers that indicated only 97 percent of businesses in a statewide survey reported they do not believe the boycotts put a financial strain on their business." Although, nationwide the demonstration/boycott did shut down some big name corporate factories. The impact may have been softened, however, by a number of workers calling in to request the day off before the march, allowing employers to find cover for the marching workers.
"We're trying to help the 11 million that have no rights" and "we need to defend the human rights of everyone", the protesters reportedly said. No one offered any specific example of the human rights being withheld or who is doing the withholding. One Gavilan College student who made signs for the protest but did not attend, opting instead to participate in school that day said "America is the greatest country in the world because of immigrants. As long as there is poverty around the world, people are going to come. As long as there is a dream--people will run, jump, swim here. That's why this country is great--because people die trying to come here." While I agree with the sentiment that America is a great country due, in part, to immigration, I cannot say the same for the last part of the comment. People die trying to cross into Mexico from the South but that's not because the country is great, it is because Mexico can shoot border violators on sight. Maybe the quote should instead be "That is why this country is great because people aren't killed for trying to come here."
While the protests are largely in support of amnesty for illegal immigrants both the news media, and the demonstrators fail to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants; Even a number of members of the California State Senate seemingly endorse the breaking of our immigration laws. Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, is the chief author of Senate Concurrent Resolution 113. The resolution compared the illegal immigrants plight to that of the African-American Community during the Jim Crow days. Given that illegal immigrants are not American citizens and there is no organized oppression of immigrant workers, legal or otherwise, it is hard--if not impossible--to see the connection.
I do not agree with making all illegal immigrants felons along with any person who would help them. In fact I would accept granting citizenship to illegals currently in the U.S. who meet the current requirements and who pay any pertinent fines and fees that go along with it. I do, however, support the upholding of laws passed in the 80's concerning employment of illegal immigrants. Laws which have been ignored by corporations in favor of cheap labor and politicians across party lines in favor of those who lobby for the corporations. The laws and systems in place are no more complicated than those of any other country. Disregarding the system of laws put in place, such as financial and health requirements--which have not dampered America's position as a magnet for immigration--threatens to weaken that magnetic force that draws more immigrants to this country than to any other in the world.
The "Day Without An Immigrant" began on Monday morning May 2nd 2006 in Gilroy with over 600 people marching through the city streets to gather at Gilroy's City Hall. At the end of the demonstration dozens drove to larger protests in San Jose. This was not the first march of its kind concerning "immigrant rights". The first was held in April and was organized in protest of a proposed bill that would have made it a felony to be an illegal immigrant and to help an illegal immigrant. Soon after the demonstration the bill was revised and did not include language making illegal immigrants felons. The point of the May 2nd demonstration was to show the law makers in Washington the economic power of the illegal immigrant work force and those who support them, corporations notwithstanding.
The Gilroy Dispatch reported an unofficial list of local businesses affected by the boycott, most of them "Hispanic-owned" and frequented in large part by the very people boycotting them. The Dispatch also cited "preliminary reports from The California Association of Employers that indicated only 97 percent of businesses in a statewide survey reported they do not believe the boycotts put a financial strain on their business." Although, nationwide the demonstration/boycott did shut down some big name corporate factories. The impact may have been softened, however, by a number of workers calling in to request the day off before the march, allowing employers to find cover for the marching workers.
"We're trying to help the 11 million that have no rights" and "we need to defend the human rights of everyone", the protesters reportedly said. No one offered any specific example of the human rights being withheld or who is doing the withholding. One Gavilan College student who made signs for the protest but did not attend, opting instead to participate in school that day said "America is the greatest country in the world because of immigrants. As long as there is poverty around the world, people are going to come. As long as there is a dream--people will run, jump, swim here. That's why this country is great--because people die trying to come here." While I agree with the sentiment that America is a great country due, in part, to immigration, I cannot say the same for the last part of the comment. People die trying to cross into Mexico from the South but that's not because the country is great, it is because Mexico can shoot border violators on sight. Maybe the quote should instead be "That is why this country is great because people aren't killed for trying to come here."
While the protests are largely in support of amnesty for illegal immigrants both the news media, and the demonstrators fail to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants; Even a number of members of the California State Senate seemingly endorse the breaking of our immigration laws. Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, is the chief author of Senate Concurrent Resolution 113. The resolution compared the illegal immigrants plight to that of the African-American Community during the Jim Crow days. Given that illegal immigrants are not American citizens and there is no organized oppression of immigrant workers, legal or otherwise, it is hard--if not impossible--to see the connection.
I do not agree with making all illegal immigrants felons along with any person who would help them. In fact I would accept granting citizenship to illegals currently in the U.S. who meet the current requirements and who pay any pertinent fines and fees that go along with it. I do, however, support the upholding of laws passed in the 80's concerning employment of illegal immigrants. Laws which have been ignored by corporations in favor of cheap labor and politicians across party lines in favor of those who lobby for the corporations. The laws and systems in place are no more complicated than those of any other country. Disregarding the system of laws put in place, such as financial and health requirements--which have not dampered America's position as a magnet for immigration--threatens to weaken that magnetic force that draws more immigrants to this country than to any other in the world.
Monday, May 09, 2005
Hiatus pt.2
Well if by chance you're here cause you heard about this website from 1stperson singular i'll give you some links to a couple more active and interesting blogs:
FakePlasticNews always something to read there. and Socratic Gadfly Who writes mostly about the creationist vs. science aspect of things political. Though, he rarely replies he posts like a maniac. And feel free to comment on any of my old posts as they are starving for attention. As i said before aegri and i are venturing into another project, involving music, i'm sure it will end in tears.
FakePlasticNews always something to read there. and Socratic Gadfly Who writes mostly about the creationist vs. science aspect of things political. Though, he rarely replies he posts like a maniac. And feel free to comment on any of my old posts as they are starving for attention. As i said before aegri and i are venturing into another project, involving music, i'm sure it will end in tears.
Sunday, May 08, 2005
Hiatus
Aegri and Aegri's associate are busy with "other projects" forgive the complete loss of continuity we'll be back as soon as the weather changes to just the right temperature.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Creationists Take Another THWACK!
Kansas and Evolution
Creationists hiding under the guise of a philosophy called "intelligent design."
I wonder how Avida will impact this whole aspect of trying to destroy valid Scientific theories with philosophical ideas.
Creationists hiding under the guise of a philosophy called "intelligent design."
I wonder how Avida will impact this whole aspect of trying to destroy valid Scientific theories with philosophical ideas.
Avida Evolving
When Walking into your local grocery store you don't usually ask, How did i get here? or Why am i here? Unless of course you're as scatterbrain as i am--but even then it doesnt usually connote the existential weight it did when i walked into my local grocery store, and sprinted ritualistically to the magazine stand. It was there that i saw staring back at me, over the image of a primate, in bold yellow letters, the words "Testing Darwin, scientists prove evolution works." So i bought the magazine and read through the article as fast as i could. I, being an open-minded creationist, who by the way doesn't believe in the divine monarchy of christianity; nor the idea that the bible is the word or mind of god, was stunned and intrigued.
It seems that Michigan state researchers developed a computer program in the late 1990's called Avida. The program allowed them "to watch the random mutation and natural selection of digital organisms unfold over millions of generations." Now if you think of DNA as a set of instructions that tell cells how to assemble protiens, then it's easy to think of a computer program, or line of code, as virtually the same thing. These lines of code carry information on how to build a new line of code, or a new digital organism--just like DNA does in the physical world.The purpose of this program being to determine if a simple organism or line of computer code could evolve into a complex one. According to the article it has done just that.
The program was even shown to produce results similar to Richard Lenski's "longest continuously running experiment in evolution." Which profoundly demonstrated the idea of natural selection. Not only that but it also argued--with evidence to back up the aruments--against creationist ideas about intelligent design. Ideas such as "just how could they eye have evolved?" And destroyed the argument that mutations in an organism are unwelcomed and usually breeded out of a species after a few generations, and that one was based on a scientific experiment.
Though--even with the obvious breakthrougs achieved with the program--I believe that the crux of creationism was lost upon these men. The crux being that someone or something created us. Doesn't Avida in fact prove that without someone bothering to take the time to create us we would have never evolved into the "complex" organisms we've now become? After all Avida was created by these scientists right?
So why are we here? i mean, if something did create us, as those scientists created Avida, then it could be plausible that whatever did it may have done so to ponder how and why it was created. Though, that could just be nonsensical thinking. The only thing that steered me away from creationism is energy. The whole concept that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It lead me to think that if something can exist without having to be created then just maybe there was no "intelligent design" involved in our creation or evolution into being. Maybe some physiological programs won't allow themselves to compute that there was no grandiose purpose to thier existense. Maybe they need to believe that they were created for a purpose.
But,After all, in the end, people will just believe what they want to believe. Creationists will be hell bent on promoting thier beliefs and arguments. And evolutionists will do the same, albiet with much more proof than the creationists.
------
For more info on Avida go to: dllab.caltech.edu/avida
Or visit discover.com
It seems that Michigan state researchers developed a computer program in the late 1990's called Avida. The program allowed them "to watch the random mutation and natural selection of digital organisms unfold over millions of generations." Now if you think of DNA as a set of instructions that tell cells how to assemble protiens, then it's easy to think of a computer program, or line of code, as virtually the same thing. These lines of code carry information on how to build a new line of code, or a new digital organism--just like DNA does in the physical world.The purpose of this program being to determine if a simple organism or line of computer code could evolve into a complex one. According to the article it has done just that.
The program was even shown to produce results similar to Richard Lenski's "longest continuously running experiment in evolution." Which profoundly demonstrated the idea of natural selection. Not only that but it also argued--with evidence to back up the aruments--against creationist ideas about intelligent design. Ideas such as "just how could they eye have evolved?" And destroyed the argument that mutations in an organism are unwelcomed and usually breeded out of a species after a few generations, and that one was based on a scientific experiment.
Though--even with the obvious breakthrougs achieved with the program--I believe that the crux of creationism was lost upon these men. The crux being that someone or something created us. Doesn't Avida in fact prove that without someone bothering to take the time to create us we would have never evolved into the "complex" organisms we've now become? After all Avida was created by these scientists right?
So why are we here? i mean, if something did create us, as those scientists created Avida, then it could be plausible that whatever did it may have done so to ponder how and why it was created. Though, that could just be nonsensical thinking. The only thing that steered me away from creationism is energy. The whole concept that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It lead me to think that if something can exist without having to be created then just maybe there was no "intelligent design" involved in our creation or evolution into being. Maybe some physiological programs won't allow themselves to compute that there was no grandiose purpose to thier existense. Maybe they need to believe that they were created for a purpose.
But,After all, in the end, people will just believe what they want to believe. Creationists will be hell bent on promoting thier beliefs and arguments. And evolutionists will do the same, albiet with much more proof than the creationists.
------
For more info on Avida go to: dllab.caltech.edu/avida
Or visit discover.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)