Wouldn’t you like to know…
Mainly busy, but also reading a couple of webcomics I haven’t seen before.
Ctrl+Alt+Del is another gamer-type one. Very funny if that’s your kind of thing.
And aLp is rather surreal. I would definitely recommend starting at the start of that one to have any idea what it’s about. Fun, though.
Anyway. Back soon.
…while working nights.
Don’t close your finger in the top drawer of the filing cabinet - it is a remarkably unpleasant experience.
Night Watch. It’s very like The Matrix and very different to The Matrix.
Both:
Night Watch is different in that it’s a whole lot more fun. It has a zing to it that the Wachowskis never quite managed.
Actually, the best way to think about it might be as what Underworld wanted to be, but never even came close to a sniff of being.
It’s nice in that it’s a film that expects you to think a little, while also delivering in the style and action departments. Are you getting that I like it?
I just hope that the next two episdoes don’t do a Matrix…
Opera, for a long time my web browser of choice, is now free! Go, download, enjoy.
Superior to IE in interface (tabs, high configurability), security (remember when MS made a big deal about IE’s anti-phishing measures? Was never an issue with Opera), and rendering (doesn’t make it up as it goes along), and more mature and user-frindly than Firefox.
The sun was beating down in an almost painful way. Taken one Sunday afternoon last month.
I left the following comment on this post of Brodie’s:
You’ve kind of snuck in in front of a post that’s been coalescing in my head for a couple of days:
I’ve been thinking about a lot of the politicking that’s going on, from politicals of every persuasion. To a lot of people it seems like a great opportunity to get some more digs in at George W, even on this side of the Atlantic. And there’s been this kind of incredulous response to the US asking for aid.
But it seems to me that, especially since the weekend, there seems to be a lot more vocal concern over the failings or otherwise of the US government than there has been over the fact that actually, there are still people in danger and/or suffering in that part of the world, don’t you know.
And just because much of the world of the world feels that America can (should?) look after herself, doesn’t mean we should leave them to do so, does it?
Let me expand a little.
This is not a time for politics. I have been known to engage in a little criticism of the current US government and it’s policies. Rather more than a little, actually. And I could make plenty of comment after the last week and a half. But I don’t want to.
The USA might be the last country you expect to appeal for aid. But that appeal has been made, and answered. Many will argue that they shouldn’t need to ask. That may be.
Many will argue that as one of the richest countries in the world, they could easily look after their own. I’ve had converstaions where people have been asking (pointedly) which recent expenditures have left them unable to meet their own need.
Maybe they could sort it out themselves. Does that mean we need to let them?
How about an incredibly mundane and simplistic example: you’ve got a friend who’s just moved into a new flat. They ask you for a hand painting the living room. Sure, they could do it themselves, but why do you need to let them?
No, I’m not comparing disaster relief for a devastated city with interior decoration, but could you really do one and not the other?
Grace will give help where it’s needed, and not get side-tracked by political mudslinging and faulty notions of ‘justice’.
Just a thought…
Living in Edinburgh has its advantages. August is great. The city buzzes with the fun of the festivals, and a walk down the Royal Mile is well worth it to catch some of the street performers plugging their shows. Plenty that are best avoided, but some high quality entertainment alongside.
My favourite advantage right now is the Edinburgh International Film Festival, which offered me the chance to see Serenity last night (if you’re not in the know, it’s the big screen follow-up to Joss Whedon’s tragically short-lived Firefly).
Without spoiling (however much I’d love to), the movie holds a full measure, pressed down and overflowing, of main arc goodness. You get the feeling that Whedon is trying to get as much of his story out there as he possibly can, in case it ends here. There probably would have been a couple of movies’ worth, but you can see why it was done this way. Yet it hints at a whole lot more still to be told, with the scope to expand into something properly epic. Maybe it helps that I’m reading Iain M Banks at the minute - that man does epic right.
Serenity jumps straight in, and doesn’t let up for a whole two hours (although I suspect it might shed a few seconds before it goes on general release, if they want a 15). Some of the action is beautiful, and it has an intensity on the big screen that isn’t often there in Firefly.
If you liked the show, you’ll like the film. The good bits are all present and correct - heart, humour, quirky dialogue - with some extra darkness. Firefly ranks among my favourite TV shows, and Serenity lives up to it.
No, it’s not perfect. The first five or ten minutes feel a little self-conscious until it gets into the swing of things (although there are some very nice visual touches to connect with the series), and some of the exposition for the benefit of anyone who isn’t familiar with Firefly is quite clumsy. Actually, I wonder how well it’ll work if you don’t know the show; it just relies too much on previous knowledge. Fine for me, but maybe not for you. I also wonder if too many loose ends have been tied up. Is there anywhere left that it will really go? Perhaps something to fill in the narrative between the series and the film, but probably not. This feels like it will probably be the last shout of a great universe. There is wisdom in that - go out while it’s still good.
And it’s great. As Firefly writ big, it does the job and does it well. I love it.
Yes, I am such a fanboy. But then, I don’t have a ‘Joss Whedon is my master now’ t-shirt. Yet.
A serious look at the end of the world:
Destroying the Earth is harder than you may have been led to believe.
You’ve seen the action movies where the bad guy threatens to destroy the Earth. You’ve heard people on the news claiming that the next nuclear war or cutting down rainforests or persisting in releasing hideous quantities of pollution into the atmosphere threatens to end the world.
Fools.
The Earth was built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. It has taken more devastating asteroid hits in its lifetime than you’ve had hot dinners, and lo, it still orbits merrily. So my first piece of advice to you, dear would-be Earth-destroyer, is: do NOT think this will be easy.
This is not a guide for wusses whose aim is merely to wipe out humanity. I (Sam Hughes) can in no way guarantee the complete extinction of the human race via any of these methods, real or imaginary. Humanity is wily and resourceful, and many of the methods outlined below will take many years to even become available, let alone implement, by which time mankind may well have spread to other planets; indeed, other star systems. If total human genocide is your ultimate goal, you are reading the wrong document. There are far more efficient ways of doing this, many which are available and feasible RIGHT NOW. Nor is this a guide for those wanting to annihilate everything from single-celled life upwards, render Earth uninhabitable or simply conquer it. These are trivial goals in comparison.
This is a guide for those who do not want the Earth to be there anymore.