I'm a sucker for sci-fi. When I heard about V I couldn't help but be at least a little interested. I don't know much about the original 1983 series, but I thought I might as well watch an episode of the reboot.
To get straight to the point, the pilot was really good. However, I'll admit now that it did have a rather big 'wow factor' that I'm not sure they'll be able to maintain for the rest of the series. The special effects were some of the best I've ever seen for a TV show. There's little chance the budget will allow for that kind of spectacle every week.
The characters introduced were interesting and mostly 'real' (ok, so they're sometimes cheesy, but they mostly get away with it). There's some (albeit limited) chemistry between the actors that's unspectacular, but watchable. Also, two words - Alan Tudyk.
As with much of good sci-fi, the genius truly lies in the subtext. There was a fair amount of exposition to help demonstrate what the show will attempt to explore. There was clear mention of indoctrination (and parallels drawn with religious extremism), parental responsibility (and teenage rebellion - itself paralleled with political rebellion) and political corruption. These themes will almost certainly play a big role in the show overall. So far they've been compelling and I hope the writers can keep it up.
Whilst I can't say I truly believe that the series will continue to be as good as this episode, I think the creators deserve credit for making an excellent pilot. The plot and characters are laid out clearly and the direction was used very effectively to help tell the story. The image on screen is often contrasted with the dialogue to highlight differences in characters' viewpoints and, conversely, to draw parallels between other characters. The dialogue itself is quite clever and often carries dual meanings. I get the feeling this has all been very well thought out.
In addition, the episode was well-paced and there were interesting, believable plot points that moved the story along. I didn't notice any examples of lazy writing or deus ex machina. This is often a dead giveaway of a poor sci-fi show. If the same attention to detail is given to the whole season then this show could really work. I hope it does.
Wednesday, 9 June 2010
Tuesday, 8 June 2010
The Boondocks
The Boondocks follows two black kids from inner-city Chicago who've been sent to live with their rich uncle in the suburbs. The story itself is not hugely important, but it provides the set up for what this show does best - social satire and biting political commentary.
The whole show acts as window through which the writer expresses his viewpoint as a true disillusioned 'African American'. So rarely does it seem that any black TV writer gets the opportunity to express their views this way without having to conform to the rules of mainstream American society. Thankfully, Aaron McGruder (creator) uses this opportunity to its fullest. The show is controversial, in-your-face and often downright offensive. Never before have I heard the 'N-bomb' dropped so many times in a show.
This may seem like a terrible thing, but it's only offensive to the people that, quite frankly, deserve to be offended. The 'N-bomb' is only overused because it is overused in real life. Much like other great satire, it uses these shock tactics to help highlight the ridiculous elements that exist in African American culture and (more broadly) American politics.
The Boondocks is thoughtful, obscene and incredibly funny. Everything it should be.
The whole show acts as window through which the writer expresses his viewpoint as a true disillusioned 'African American'. So rarely does it seem that any black TV writer gets the opportunity to express their views this way without having to conform to the rules of mainstream American society. Thankfully, Aaron McGruder (creator) uses this opportunity to its fullest. The show is controversial, in-your-face and often downright offensive. Never before have I heard the 'N-bomb' dropped so many times in a show.
This may seem like a terrible thing, but it's only offensive to the people that, quite frankly, deserve to be offended. The 'N-bomb' is only overused because it is overused in real life. Much like other great satire, it uses these shock tactics to help highlight the ridiculous elements that exist in African American culture and (more broadly) American politics.
The Boondocks is thoughtful, obscene and incredibly funny. Everything it should be.
Open Source: The Way of the Future?
For those who aren't 1337 h4xx0r5, the GNU Public license is the most widely used freeware license. It's one of many licenses that allows the creation of Open Source projects. I'm sure many reading this have never even heard of open source, so I'll elaborate. 'Open source' means that the source code of any software is available on a project hosting site to be edited by a host of community programmers. Unlike most commercial software development, this software is created for free by a group of enthusiasts that hop in and out of development whenever they choose. No individual/group owns the intellectual property.
The GNU public license is the legal framework for this kind of development. It allows programmers to submit code to the project without fear that code will be stolen or copied by other individuals and used for profit. There are actually many ways of profiting, but there are significant restrictions on anything that might in any way compromise the overall project.
It seems that open source is becoming more and more common in our generation. Part of this is because we now have the technology that allows us to do this incredibly easily. High-speed broadband, large amounts of web-space for hosting, advances in general program development, etc. all allow 'sharing' to happen much more easily than ever before. In my view, open source will become even more popular in the future as more people realise its advantages.
My first experience with open source projects came from homebrew on the Wii. Homebrew programming has been around for a long while. Video game consoles are essentially custom-built gaming PCs and many gamers felt that they should be able to run their own programs on these systems just like they do on their computers. They've paid for the hardware and are using entirely original code to bend the system to their will.
Their are currently large communities of amateur Wii programmers developing their own code to run on the Wii. Applications range from simple programs to back up their save games to fully fledged media players capable of turning your Wii into a media centre PC.
ALL of these projects are open source and all completely free. If a project is popular then more users will be attracted to it, more programmers will submit code and more users will report bugs. This means that updates can regularly be added to the program, fixing bugs present in previous versions and also adding new features. I've seen several projects, starting from humble roots, eventually develop into incredibly deep and robust applications. In fact, now I use the homebrew applications more than the original Nintendo apps! They work better, have greater functionality and greater use. Many Wii users don't even realise these exist and purchase expensive hardware that don't do the job nearly as well.
There has been some debate as to the legality of these homebrew projects. Mainly by the big hardware manufacturers that dislike their systems being used for purposes other than they were initially intended. Nintendo has tried many times to take legal action against the creators of such software. In my view, homebrew is only as illegal as adding spoilers and rims to a car or upgrading a part in a computer. No copyrighted intellectual property is used and all the code is entirely original. If a user chooses to change their system, for whatever reason, the manufacturer should have no control over it.
This legal issue thankfully doesn't affect PC users. Open source projects have thrived for many years on this platform. Many users are unlikely to have even noticed that they are using these types of programs because they haven't researched their development. Even web novices use programs like Firefox or VLC player. I heard quite recently that for the first time ever, Firefox has become more frequently used than Internet Explorer.
For anyone that has ever used these browsers I'm sure they'll notice that Firefox is faster, more intuitive and just all around better, even though Microsoft employs a huge team of developers to work on their browser (who, by the way, are employed using the money you spent buying their Windows operating system). They still can't best a project that is available entirely for free.
With talk of Windows, it's worth mentioning that there are entirely free operating systems available too. For those that don't realise, every time a computer is purchased with Windows or Mac OS X pre-installed, a surcharge is added to cover the cost of operating system development. I recently built my own computer and since I already own a Windows 7 license key, I saved myself the £100+ surcharge that would be added if a bought a computer with an OS. Many don't realise they're paying this fee and assume that computers actually just cost that much. They don't. Parts are surprisingly cheap, it's software that is unnecessarily expensive.
Now I like Windows 7. In fact I love Windows 7. It's fast, simple and functional. It helps that I got the license on a student offer that only cost me £30. That's a bargain in my eyes. However, this very same license normally costs 4 times as much and there are actually better alternatives available for free.
Ubuntu is part of the Linux family of operating systems. It's available at no cost and for a long while it has been better than Windows and OS X. I used Windows XP for almost a decade because Vista was just an abomination. All these years, I used (and paid for) an OS that was inferior just because I had no idea that there was any alternative.
Ubuntu recently released version 10.04 and after a quick play around with it I know it's actually better than the Windows product I currently own. The only reasons it's not my main OS is that I've already paid for Windows 7. From now on, I'll almost certainly choose a Linux build over paying for an upgrade. I'd also probably advise anyone else to do the same. It takes a little getting used to, but it's designed with novice users in mind, so expect simplicity and streamlined functionality. All drivers are pre-installed, connecting to the internet is automated, programs and features can be un/installed with a click and, hell, it even integrates your social network sites directly into the OS.
Most people never learn this, of course, because Microsoft has deals with manufacturers to ensure that Windows is distributed on 90% of PCs before they even reach the consumer. A recent European Commission ruling judged that Microsoft was creating a monopoly of internet browsers by integrating Internet Explorer into Windows 7. By the same logic, I believe that Microsoft's control over manufacturers stifles competition in the OS market. Could we perhaps see an eventual ruling that prevents this happening? I can't imagine it will happen any time soon.
It does raise an important point though. Technology is developing at such a fast rate that it's difficult for legislation to catch up. In my experience, those currently in power greatly misunderstand technology and so conduct that is otherwise illegal in other forms of business are rarely noticed.
I'm currently in the process of buying a new phone. I have to admit that I'm rather excited about getting an Android phone. Android is an open source OS for mobile devices (i.e. mobile phones). With the increasing success of smart phones, it is becoming more clear that consumers are looking for devices with functionality similar to a PC. After all, like video games consoles, mobile phones are just specialised computers.
Applications (or 'apps') have become incredibly popular as flexible functionality becomes more important. Before, every single phone of the same model had the same features. We can now add apps that work within the phone's OS to add functionality that previously didn't exist. Apple has had incredible success with its iPhone but, in my view, it is still limited by the OS of the device itself. If a bug exists, the original OS developer is still needed to fix that bug. Android doesn't have this problem. In fact, because the source code is available online, anyone with sufficient skill can (in theory) legally create their own version of the OS and tweak it to their liking.
However, things aren't so hunky dory. Currently, your mobile service providers have the final say on what Android version can be installed on any smartphone. This is not the case for sim-free, factory unlocked versions, but it is true for any other phone. If your phone came with a sim card and has an Operator logo on the box, then you're out of luck. You'll have to wait for that version of the OS to be approved by your network. This can take months, even years. It's a pretty ridiculous system that allows the Service Providers to push their users into upgrading their phones more regularly by allowing bugs to persist. It's the equivalent of your computer manufacturer restricting your upgrade to the latest version of Windows, only to then turn around to you and say that they can sell you a new computer that does have the new software that you were entitled to get for free in the first place. There are no laws against this, so the system is easily exploited by those with know-how.
I've talked a lot about open source yielding better results - better software for the consumer - and that's all very well, but how do these people make any money? Community led projects are not owned by any individual and cannot be sold. What would happen if all software became open-source? Many of these 'enthusiasts' are actually programmers working for big software companies, who use their spare time to help support a project they really like.
At the moment, this is the big problem I see with Open Source. It's still reliant on large corporations to support the skilled individuals who then contribute to these projects. I can complain all I want about Microsoft and mobile phone service providers exploiting the system for profit, but if the law did change, wouldn't these companies make less money? Wouldn't there be less jobs for programmers working for Microsoft, Apple or Orange? Consequently, wouldn't there be less skilled people to actually work on these projects?
It's a valid argument. The restrictions on this technology allows more profit to be made, which is then reinvested into the software industry. If all software was open source, there would need to be a way for people to make money off it, without compromising or restricting the project. There needs to be a reason for people to be sufficiently interested in programming to make it their career, without worrying about financial difficulties.
Now I've quite clearly delved into the realm of economics. There's no way for this model to work without skilled programmers in large numbers. By its very nature, open source maximises the number and variety of individuals working on any project and therefore means that end products tend to be better than proprietary software. This success is dependant on the number and skill of the programmers involved. Affecting these two factors positively is important for the prosperity of this model.
Therefore job attractiveness is important. Money and job satisfaction are probably the two most important factors in making this job appealing. I can imagine that much of the reason open source is already so successful is that it's far more satisfying working in a community, producing a product that people love (even more than the ones that they have to pay for). However It's less straight-forward to make money from freeware.
As with any popular, in-demand product there is always a way. XBMC is a good example. XBMC (XBox Media Center) is an open source media player originally developed as homebrew for the XBox but then brought over to multiple platforms including Linux, Windows and Mac OS X. The program is similar to Windows Media Center (WMC) and allows users to browse through their media collections using a TV. Once again the free version is almost unequivocally better than the Windows version. Boxee is a program that was developed from the XBMC source code and took the program in a slightly different direction. The developers have used the basic elements of XBMC, but added proprietary (closed source) elements that are all their own original intellectual property.
Boxee itself is free, but the developers managed to negotiate a deal with hardware developer, D-Link (most well-known for their network adapters and routers). D-Link have designed a hardware kit (named the Boxee Box) that bears the Boxee logo and acts as a specialised platform for this software. Boxee are paid by D-Link for the closed source elements that they own, D-Link get money from selling their hardware and the consumer gets a great, cost-effective product. Boxee's revenue is still heavily dependent on XBMC so they have vested interest in contributing heavily to the original project. They also have to release Boxee for free on all other platforms because the license prevents them making profit from the XBMC elements. Everybody wins.
Whilst things may not work out so well in every case, it does show that hardware development is a great source of revenue for open source developers. HTC have been able to do exactly the same thing by slightly modifying the Android OS and selling hardware with their version shipped on it. No other hardware manufacturer can use that exact software because HTC own the bits they've modified, but the whole Android project benefits from HTC's success and development. So long as HTC is able to continually create great software and hardware, they will always be able to make a profit. Is this not a true example of a meritocracy? Isn't this why we value the idea of a free market in the first place?
Of course, hardware is not the only route for revenue. There are many other projects that get money from advertising, donations and many other methods. If you're still not convinced that it's possible then here's an entire article on how profit can be made.
On top of that, due to the nature of a community led project, non-programmer users of the program are invited to participate in discussion and development. I myself have submitted bug reports and enhancement ideas for programs I like and want to support. Project hosting sites like Google Code make this simple and straight forward. There's a very democratic approach to the whole process. Each individual has a say in what the final product will be and can give their expertise (however limited) to the project. Great with ideas? Suggest a new feature. Great with computers? Write a few lines of code. Great with design? Help develop a new user interface.
The whole system rewards input, even in small amounts. Large companies producing commercial software would have to out-source for all these little things and the whole process ends up being incredibly cost-inefficient. The older model encourages developers to do the bare minimum to cut costs and just get a product out so it can sell. Quality control isn't such an integral part of the model as it is with Open Source. Here only the best ideas are retained and anything disliked will be changed in future releases.
I did want to end on a bit of a big bang, so I saved the best 'til last. Whilst it may not be software, it's still the biggest community-led project in the world. It's also the most widely used and widely revered. Yup, that's right, Wikipedia. If you haven't used this site then, chances are, you're completely brain-dead. This project has revolutionised the way we access information on the internet. It is the single greatest collection of information available in human history. If that doesn't convince you that Open Source is an integral part of our future, then I don't know what will.
For those who are interested, here are a few examples of excellent open-source projects that served as the inspiration for much of this article:
Firefox,
Google Chrome (Chromium project),
VLC Media Player,
Media Player Classic,
Linux,
Android OS (mobile),
Chrome OS,
Quake (Quakes I, II and III arena),
Doom,
Wolfenstein 3D,
GIMP [lol] (save yourself £500 and download this freeware Photoshop-equivalent),
XBMC (A vastly improved alternative to Windows Media Center)
Wiibrew (wiki for all legal Wii homebrew applications)
The GNU public license is the legal framework for this kind of development. It allows programmers to submit code to the project without fear that code will be stolen or copied by other individuals and used for profit. There are actually many ways of profiting, but there are significant restrictions on anything that might in any way compromise the overall project.
It seems that open source is becoming more and more common in our generation. Part of this is because we now have the technology that allows us to do this incredibly easily. High-speed broadband, large amounts of web-space for hosting, advances in general program development, etc. all allow 'sharing' to happen much more easily than ever before. In my view, open source will become even more popular in the future as more people realise its advantages.
My first experience with open source projects came from homebrew on the Wii. Homebrew programming has been around for a long while. Video game consoles are essentially custom-built gaming PCs and many gamers felt that they should be able to run their own programs on these systems just like they do on their computers. They've paid for the hardware and are using entirely original code to bend the system to their will.
Their are currently large communities of amateur Wii programmers developing their own code to run on the Wii. Applications range from simple programs to back up their save games to fully fledged media players capable of turning your Wii into a media centre PC.
ALL of these projects are open source and all completely free. If a project is popular then more users will be attracted to it, more programmers will submit code and more users will report bugs. This means that updates can regularly be added to the program, fixing bugs present in previous versions and also adding new features. I've seen several projects, starting from humble roots, eventually develop into incredibly deep and robust applications. In fact, now I use the homebrew applications more than the original Nintendo apps! They work better, have greater functionality and greater use. Many Wii users don't even realise these exist and purchase expensive hardware that don't do the job nearly as well.
There has been some debate as to the legality of these homebrew projects. Mainly by the big hardware manufacturers that dislike their systems being used for purposes other than they were initially intended. Nintendo has tried many times to take legal action against the creators of such software. In my view, homebrew is only as illegal as adding spoilers and rims to a car or upgrading a part in a computer. No copyrighted intellectual property is used and all the code is entirely original. If a user chooses to change their system, for whatever reason, the manufacturer should have no control over it.
This legal issue thankfully doesn't affect PC users. Open source projects have thrived for many years on this platform. Many users are unlikely to have even noticed that they are using these types of programs because they haven't researched their development. Even web novices use programs like Firefox or VLC player. I heard quite recently that for the first time ever, Firefox has become more frequently used than Internet Explorer.
For anyone that has ever used these browsers I'm sure they'll notice that Firefox is faster, more intuitive and just all around better, even though Microsoft employs a huge team of developers to work on their browser (who, by the way, are employed using the money you spent buying their Windows operating system). They still can't best a project that is available entirely for free.
With talk of Windows, it's worth mentioning that there are entirely free operating systems available too. For those that don't realise, every time a computer is purchased with Windows or Mac OS X pre-installed, a surcharge is added to cover the cost of operating system development. I recently built my own computer and since I already own a Windows 7 license key, I saved myself the £100+ surcharge that would be added if a bought a computer with an OS. Many don't realise they're paying this fee and assume that computers actually just cost that much. They don't. Parts are surprisingly cheap, it's software that is unnecessarily expensive.
Now I like Windows 7. In fact I love Windows 7. It's fast, simple and functional. It helps that I got the license on a student offer that only cost me £30. That's a bargain in my eyes. However, this very same license normally costs 4 times as much and there are actually better alternatives available for free.
Ubuntu is part of the Linux family of operating systems. It's available at no cost and for a long while it has been better than Windows and OS X. I used Windows XP for almost a decade because Vista was just an abomination. All these years, I used (and paid for) an OS that was inferior just because I had no idea that there was any alternative.
Ubuntu recently released version 10.04 and after a quick play around with it I know it's actually better than the Windows product I currently own. The only reasons it's not my main OS is that I've already paid for Windows 7. From now on, I'll almost certainly choose a Linux build over paying for an upgrade. I'd also probably advise anyone else to do the same. It takes a little getting used to, but it's designed with novice users in mind, so expect simplicity and streamlined functionality. All drivers are pre-installed, connecting to the internet is automated, programs and features can be un/installed with a click and, hell, it even integrates your social network sites directly into the OS.
Most people never learn this, of course, because Microsoft has deals with manufacturers to ensure that Windows is distributed on 90% of PCs before they even reach the consumer. A recent European Commission ruling judged that Microsoft was creating a monopoly of internet browsers by integrating Internet Explorer into Windows 7. By the same logic, I believe that Microsoft's control over manufacturers stifles competition in the OS market. Could we perhaps see an eventual ruling that prevents this happening? I can't imagine it will happen any time soon.
It does raise an important point though. Technology is developing at such a fast rate that it's difficult for legislation to catch up. In my experience, those currently in power greatly misunderstand technology and so conduct that is otherwise illegal in other forms of business are rarely noticed.
I'm currently in the process of buying a new phone. I have to admit that I'm rather excited about getting an Android phone. Android is an open source OS for mobile devices (i.e. mobile phones). With the increasing success of smart phones, it is becoming more clear that consumers are looking for devices with functionality similar to a PC. After all, like video games consoles, mobile phones are just specialised computers.
Applications (or 'apps') have become incredibly popular as flexible functionality becomes more important. Before, every single phone of the same model had the same features. We can now add apps that work within the phone's OS to add functionality that previously didn't exist. Apple has had incredible success with its iPhone but, in my view, it is still limited by the OS of the device itself. If a bug exists, the original OS developer is still needed to fix that bug. Android doesn't have this problem. In fact, because the source code is available online, anyone with sufficient skill can (in theory) legally create their own version of the OS and tweak it to their liking.
However, things aren't so hunky dory. Currently, your mobile service providers have the final say on what Android version can be installed on any smartphone. This is not the case for sim-free, factory unlocked versions, but it is true for any other phone. If your phone came with a sim card and has an Operator logo on the box, then you're out of luck. You'll have to wait for that version of the OS to be approved by your network. This can take months, even years. It's a pretty ridiculous system that allows the Service Providers to push their users into upgrading their phones more regularly by allowing bugs to persist. It's the equivalent of your computer manufacturer restricting your upgrade to the latest version of Windows, only to then turn around to you and say that they can sell you a new computer that does have the new software that you were entitled to get for free in the first place. There are no laws against this, so the system is easily exploited by those with know-how.
I've talked a lot about open source yielding better results - better software for the consumer - and that's all very well, but how do these people make any money? Community led projects are not owned by any individual and cannot be sold. What would happen if all software became open-source? Many of these 'enthusiasts' are actually programmers working for big software companies, who use their spare time to help support a project they really like.
At the moment, this is the big problem I see with Open Source. It's still reliant on large corporations to support the skilled individuals who then contribute to these projects. I can complain all I want about Microsoft and mobile phone service providers exploiting the system for profit, but if the law did change, wouldn't these companies make less money? Wouldn't there be less jobs for programmers working for Microsoft, Apple or Orange? Consequently, wouldn't there be less skilled people to actually work on these projects?
It's a valid argument. The restrictions on this technology allows more profit to be made, which is then reinvested into the software industry. If all software was open source, there would need to be a way for people to make money off it, without compromising or restricting the project. There needs to be a reason for people to be sufficiently interested in programming to make it their career, without worrying about financial difficulties.
Now I've quite clearly delved into the realm of economics. There's no way for this model to work without skilled programmers in large numbers. By its very nature, open source maximises the number and variety of individuals working on any project and therefore means that end products tend to be better than proprietary software. This success is dependant on the number and skill of the programmers involved. Affecting these two factors positively is important for the prosperity of this model.
Therefore job attractiveness is important. Money and job satisfaction are probably the two most important factors in making this job appealing. I can imagine that much of the reason open source is already so successful is that it's far more satisfying working in a community, producing a product that people love (even more than the ones that they have to pay for). However It's less straight-forward to make money from freeware.
As with any popular, in-demand product there is always a way. XBMC is a good example. XBMC (XBox Media Center) is an open source media player originally developed as homebrew for the XBox but then brought over to multiple platforms including Linux, Windows and Mac OS X. The program is similar to Windows Media Center (WMC) and allows users to browse through their media collections using a TV. Once again the free version is almost unequivocally better than the Windows version. Boxee is a program that was developed from the XBMC source code and took the program in a slightly different direction. The developers have used the basic elements of XBMC, but added proprietary (closed source) elements that are all their own original intellectual property.
Boxee itself is free, but the developers managed to negotiate a deal with hardware developer, D-Link (most well-known for their network adapters and routers). D-Link have designed a hardware kit (named the Boxee Box) that bears the Boxee logo and acts as a specialised platform for this software. Boxee are paid by D-Link for the closed source elements that they own, D-Link get money from selling their hardware and the consumer gets a great, cost-effective product. Boxee's revenue is still heavily dependent on XBMC so they have vested interest in contributing heavily to the original project. They also have to release Boxee for free on all other platforms because the license prevents them making profit from the XBMC elements. Everybody wins.
Whilst things may not work out so well in every case, it does show that hardware development is a great source of revenue for open source developers. HTC have been able to do exactly the same thing by slightly modifying the Android OS and selling hardware with their version shipped on it. No other hardware manufacturer can use that exact software because HTC own the bits they've modified, but the whole Android project benefits from HTC's success and development. So long as HTC is able to continually create great software and hardware, they will always be able to make a profit. Is this not a true example of a meritocracy? Isn't this why we value the idea of a free market in the first place?
Of course, hardware is not the only route for revenue. There are many other projects that get money from advertising, donations and many other methods. If you're still not convinced that it's possible then here's an entire article on how profit can be made.
On top of that, due to the nature of a community led project, non-programmer users of the program are invited to participate in discussion and development. I myself have submitted bug reports and enhancement ideas for programs I like and want to support. Project hosting sites like Google Code make this simple and straight forward. There's a very democratic approach to the whole process. Each individual has a say in what the final product will be and can give their expertise (however limited) to the project. Great with ideas? Suggest a new feature. Great with computers? Write a few lines of code. Great with design? Help develop a new user interface.
The whole system rewards input, even in small amounts. Large companies producing commercial software would have to out-source for all these little things and the whole process ends up being incredibly cost-inefficient. The older model encourages developers to do the bare minimum to cut costs and just get a product out so it can sell. Quality control isn't such an integral part of the model as it is with Open Source. Here only the best ideas are retained and anything disliked will be changed in future releases.
I did want to end on a bit of a big bang, so I saved the best 'til last. Whilst it may not be software, it's still the biggest community-led project in the world. It's also the most widely used and widely revered. Yup, that's right, Wikipedia. If you haven't used this site then, chances are, you're completely brain-dead. This project has revolutionised the way we access information on the internet. It is the single greatest collection of information available in human history. If that doesn't convince you that Open Source is an integral part of our future, then I don't know what will.
For those who are interested, here are a few examples of excellent open-source projects that served as the inspiration for much of this article:
Firefox,
Google Chrome (Chromium project),
VLC Media Player,
Media Player Classic,
Linux,
Android OS (mobile),
Chrome OS,
Quake (Quakes I, II and III arena),
Doom,
Wolfenstein 3D,
GIMP [lol] (save yourself £500 and download this freeware Photoshop-equivalent),
XBMC (A vastly improved alternative to Windows Media Center)
Wiibrew (wiki for all legal Wii homebrew applications)
Tuesday, 1 June 2010
The Matrix: A Retrospective
It's no exaggeration to say that this film helps define our generation. When it came out it was revolutionary. I rewatched it and I still think it's revolutionary.
The philosophical element is possibly the reason The Matrix stands out so clearly from others around it. This film changed the way people think about the world. We take it for granted how easily this film is used to help people think about existential concepts. The phrase, "y'know, like in The Matrix?" is commonplace. Ordinary.
However, it's also easy to read this and think that's the only reason this film is so great. After rewatching it, I've found greater appreciation for its story-telling and, more importantly, its style.
The Matrix is incredibly referential. Some influences are far more obvious than others. Most notably Cyber-punk and Kung-fu films. It's interesting that the Wachowski brothers have chosen such vastly different styles to form the overall aesthetic.
These elements seem to be fairly self-contained within individual locations. This is especially clear in the training scene where Morpheus fights Neo. The dark, grey, harsh asthetic of the 'real world' is juxtaposed against the fluid, airy wire-fights of the 'training world'. Ancient Chinese Zen clashes with futuristic Western dystopia - Crouching Tiger versus Alien.
'The Matrix', the training programs and the 'real world' all feel completely different. Each is clearly distinguished by its cinematography, character movement and music. The green filters used during scenes in 'The Matrix' world are iconic, becoming almost synonymous with this film.
There are other notable cinematic references. Much of the gun-oriented sequences are reminiscient of old-fashioned Spaghetti Westerns, most obviously in the final show-down with Agent Smith. There's a lot of mirrored imagery here that is very Sergio Leone.
There are a LOT of religious references too, mainly Christian, although some Buddhism and general Eastern philosophy too. To name a few: Zion, Judas Iscariot (Cypher), The Nebuchadnezzar, (Holy) Trinity, Neo rising from the dead and 'Spoon Boy'. Much of this seems incidental, but it's clear that the brothers have an interest in (and significant knowledge of) Christianity.
The most overt literary influence is Alice in Wonderland, which plays such a large part in the story. Neo follows the white rabbit, Morpheus asks him if he want to find out "how far the rabbit-hole goes" and Neo takes a pill in order to alter reality.
There's a lot of influence from classical literature too. The use of oracles and prophecies borrows from everything from Macbeth to Oedipus. There's also philosophy mixed in too. These elements are used as devices to explore the nature of destiny and free will. Neo is clearly a strong voice for Libertarianism, whilst Morpheus and The Oracle offer a more Compatibilist viewpoint.
However, simply listing everything that The Matrix has stolen from does not give the film-making duo the credit they deserve. Much of the content is entirely original. Who can forget the feeling when they first saw bullet-time, or the lobby-scene or even the crazy one-armed fight with Agent Smith at the film's climax? This was ground-breaking stuff!
All of these styles are layered over each other to form a hybrid that works exceptionally well. The Wachowski Brothers took influence from many other works and fused it with their own innovation and creativity to create one of the greatest and most influential films of our generation.
The philosophical element is possibly the reason The Matrix stands out so clearly from others around it. This film changed the way people think about the world. We take it for granted how easily this film is used to help people think about existential concepts. The phrase, "y'know, like in The Matrix?" is commonplace. Ordinary.
However, it's also easy to read this and think that's the only reason this film is so great. After rewatching it, I've found greater appreciation for its story-telling and, more importantly, its style.
The Matrix is incredibly referential. Some influences are far more obvious than others. Most notably Cyber-punk and Kung-fu films. It's interesting that the Wachowski brothers have chosen such vastly different styles to form the overall aesthetic.
These elements seem to be fairly self-contained within individual locations. This is especially clear in the training scene where Morpheus fights Neo. The dark, grey, harsh asthetic of the 'real world' is juxtaposed against the fluid, airy wire-fights of the 'training world'. Ancient Chinese Zen clashes with futuristic Western dystopia - Crouching Tiger versus Alien.
'The Matrix', the training programs and the 'real world' all feel completely different. Each is clearly distinguished by its cinematography, character movement and music. The green filters used during scenes in 'The Matrix' world are iconic, becoming almost synonymous with this film.
There are other notable cinematic references. Much of the gun-oriented sequences are reminiscient of old-fashioned Spaghetti Westerns, most obviously in the final show-down with Agent Smith. There's a lot of mirrored imagery here that is very Sergio Leone.
There are a LOT of religious references too, mainly Christian, although some Buddhism and general Eastern philosophy too. To name a few: Zion, Judas Iscariot (Cypher), The Nebuchadnezzar, (Holy) Trinity, Neo rising from the dead and 'Spoon Boy'. Much of this seems incidental, but it's clear that the brothers have an interest in (and significant knowledge of) Christianity.
The most overt literary influence is Alice in Wonderland, which plays such a large part in the story. Neo follows the white rabbit, Morpheus asks him if he want to find out "how far the rabbit-hole goes" and Neo takes a pill in order to alter reality.
There's a lot of influence from classical literature too. The use of oracles and prophecies borrows from everything from Macbeth to Oedipus. There's also philosophy mixed in too. These elements are used as devices to explore the nature of destiny and free will. Neo is clearly a strong voice for Libertarianism, whilst Morpheus and The Oracle offer a more Compatibilist viewpoint.
However, simply listing everything that The Matrix has stolen from does not give the film-making duo the credit they deserve. Much of the content is entirely original. Who can forget the feeling when they first saw bullet-time, or the lobby-scene or even the crazy one-armed fight with Agent Smith at the film's climax? This was ground-breaking stuff!
All of these styles are layered over each other to form a hybrid that works exceptionally well. The Wachowski Brothers took influence from many other works and fused it with their own innovation and creativity to create one of the greatest and most influential films of our generation.
Tuesday, 25 May 2010
Supernatural
I have a rule when it comes to TV programming. If something is available on ITV2, then it's just not worth watching. Every rule needs its exceptions though and for this one it's Supernatural.
The show initially appeared to fit neatly in the CW's lineup of glossy aspirational teen dramas (of which it is safe to say I am no fan). I long avoided the show on this basis. However, at some point or another I was browsing on TV.com and saw that Supernatural was the top rated show. I generally don't put too much faith in these online ratings, but I was surprised to see so many people enjoy a show I hadn't even given a second glance to.
I was intrigued and had nothing better to do, so I gave it a shot. I was impressed. The pilot was dark, mysterious and exciting. After a few follow-up episodes I thought the series would fizzle out, but it kept going strong. In fact, it seemed to just get better and better.
The format is unusual for an American series. First off, it's anthological, with very little connecting each episode. The cast consists of only two recurring characters. Two. This is no ensemble.
The brothers, Sam and Dean, are 'Hunters' travelling from back-water town to back-water town to rescue the townsfolk from various paranormal evils. They're 'heroes', but their work is often difficult and imperfect. They don't save everyone, they don't always do the right thing and they often end up questioning what they do.
It's a compelling fantasy drama, with interesting, multi-dimensional, human protagonists who travel around 'kicking ass'. They visit untraditional locales and tell the untold story of small-town America.
Somehow this programme has convinced me that rural America is kinda cool. I have fantasies of driving in their Chevy Impala, listening to rock n roll whilst on my way to some dive bar in Hicksville, USA. How do they make this cool?
The programme increases in complexity from season to season, getting better and better. Much of this is due to great guest stars and consistently innovative writing.
However, I've just begun watching the fifth (and final) season and am questioning my allegiance. Without giving away any spoilers, the premise for this season seems like it could be the most interesting by far. As of yet, however the episodes have been fairly unremarkable. I very much hope the show can find it's feet again because it could be the best season yet.
The show initially appeared to fit neatly in the CW's lineup of glossy aspirational teen dramas (of which it is safe to say I am no fan). I long avoided the show on this basis. However, at some point or another I was browsing on TV.com and saw that Supernatural was the top rated show. I generally don't put too much faith in these online ratings, but I was surprised to see so many people enjoy a show I hadn't even given a second glance to.
I was intrigued and had nothing better to do, so I gave it a shot. I was impressed. The pilot was dark, mysterious and exciting. After a few follow-up episodes I thought the series would fizzle out, but it kept going strong. In fact, it seemed to just get better and better.
The format is unusual for an American series. First off, it's anthological, with very little connecting each episode. The cast consists of only two recurring characters. Two. This is no ensemble.
The brothers, Sam and Dean, are 'Hunters' travelling from back-water town to back-water town to rescue the townsfolk from various paranormal evils. They're 'heroes', but their work is often difficult and imperfect. They don't save everyone, they don't always do the right thing and they often end up questioning what they do.
It's a compelling fantasy drama, with interesting, multi-dimensional, human protagonists who travel around 'kicking ass'. They visit untraditional locales and tell the untold story of small-town America.
Somehow this programme has convinced me that rural America is kinda cool. I have fantasies of driving in their Chevy Impala, listening to rock n roll whilst on my way to some dive bar in Hicksville, USA. How do they make this cool?
The programme increases in complexity from season to season, getting better and better. Much of this is due to great guest stars and consistently innovative writing.
However, I've just begun watching the fifth (and final) season and am questioning my allegiance. Without giving away any spoilers, the premise for this season seems like it could be the most interesting by far. As of yet, however the episodes have been fairly unremarkable. I very much hope the show can find it's feet again because it could be the best season yet.
Paranormal Activity
This film is scary. Shit scary. I like to think of myself as a fairly hardened horror fan, but I still nearly crapped my pants watching it. Throughout the film is a constant atmosphere of complete tension.
If you haven't heard anything about Paranormal Activity before, it's a horror film shot using the cinéma vérité style à la Blair Witch and Cloverfield. Rather than acting as a window through which the viewer observes, the camera is a device within the story itself. This technique has appeared more and more frequently in the horror genre and personally, I welcome it. It creates a far more immersive experience and allows the viewer to truly connect with the characters. This makes for far scarier films than the slashers currently saturating the market.
Much unlike slasher films, Paranormal Activity contains very little violence. The tension instead comes from the fear of violence. Much of the film is taken up by expositional dialogue, revealing much about the couple's relationship and history. They are not one-dimensional archetypes, but real people. Their reactions to the increasingly frightening events are similarly real and believable.
I found myself empathising with them entirely. I really cared. With most horror films, I can distance myself from the action and tell myself it's just a film. That was impossible here. I was scared out of my mind, but also compelled to keep watching. That is the mark of a great horror film.
If you haven't heard anything about Paranormal Activity before, it's a horror film shot using the cinéma vérité style à la Blair Witch and Cloverfield. Rather than acting as a window through which the viewer observes, the camera is a device within the story itself. This technique has appeared more and more frequently in the horror genre and personally, I welcome it. It creates a far more immersive experience and allows the viewer to truly connect with the characters. This makes for far scarier films than the slashers currently saturating the market.
Much unlike slasher films, Paranormal Activity contains very little violence. The tension instead comes from the fear of violence. Much of the film is taken up by expositional dialogue, revealing much about the couple's relationship and history. They are not one-dimensional archetypes, but real people. Their reactions to the increasingly frightening events are similarly real and believable.
I found myself empathising with them entirely. I really cared. With most horror films, I can distance myself from the action and tell myself it's just a film. That was impossible here. I was scared out of my mind, but also compelled to keep watching. That is the mark of a great horror film.
Saturday, 22 May 2010
African Oliphaunt
I've never been great with presents. If it's someone I know well, I'm ok, but even then I never know how far to go. I like to make the recipient happy, but not uncomfortable. Alright, maybe I just think too much about this stuff and over-analyse. But anyway, this time I thought I might do something a little special.
Having spent quite a lot of time over the past few months basically learning how to draw and create art, I now have a creative tool that I can put to good use. My sister's birthday was coming up and I thought it might be nice to paint (can I still call it that if I'm using a computer?) something and use it as a birthday card.
She likes elephants. They're her favourite animal. I can kind of draw animals so I thought that's a good start.
Here's the first sketch.
I then added the outline and coloured the eyes.
I started with shadowing and then realised I had gone way too dark, too early. I did some colour editing on that layer to enhance the midtones, so in later images those shadows aren't so obvious. I also added that grey wash.
Used a fairly low opacity brush for the shadows and played around with the layer opacity to get it the right colour. I also added a foreground layer for the grass. The grass brush on CS4 is awesome. I've tried creating custom brushes and it's hard to get the settings just right. It's nice to have something so useful that just works right off the bat.
I used a really large brush to do the blue sky and used the grass brush again to create more...grass. I also had to add a white underlay to the elephant because the blue background kept showing through. I did this manually but I'm sure there must be an easier way. If anyone reading has any photoshop experience and knows a better way, I'd appreciate the info.
[click the image for full res]
I was also going to include this message as the inlay, but I didn't get around to it. I'm a bit of a sucker for that messy-but-somehow-neat script.
Sarah, if you're reading, Happy Birthday. Hope you liked the card.
Having spent quite a lot of time over the past few months basically learning how to draw and create art, I now have a creative tool that I can put to good use. My sister's birthday was coming up and I thought it might be nice to paint (can I still call it that if I'm using a computer?) something and use it as a birthday card.
She likes elephants. They're her favourite animal. I can kind of draw animals so I thought that's a good start.
Here's the first sketch.
I then added the outline and coloured the eyes.
I started with shadowing and then realised I had gone way too dark, too early. I did some colour editing on that layer to enhance the midtones, so in later images those shadows aren't so obvious. I also added that grey wash.
Used a fairly low opacity brush for the shadows and played around with the layer opacity to get it the right colour. I also added a foreground layer for the grass. The grass brush on CS4 is awesome. I've tried creating custom brushes and it's hard to get the settings just right. It's nice to have something so useful that just works right off the bat.
I used a really large brush to do the blue sky and used the grass brush again to create more...grass. I also had to add a white underlay to the elephant because the blue background kept showing through. I did this manually but I'm sure there must be an easier way. If anyone reading has any photoshop experience and knows a better way, I'd appreciate the info.
[click the image for full res]
I was also going to include this message as the inlay, but I didn't get around to it. I'm a bit of a sucker for that messy-but-somehow-neat script.
Sarah, if you're reading, Happy Birthday. Hope you liked the card.
We Didn't Start the Flame War
I was really bored and ended up browsing through the youtube top-rated list. I haven't done this for quite some time. I was expecting to find funny cat videos, but instead I came across this lovely chap: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyNQ1zc-q74
[apologies, FB users, if the HTML code below doesn't function - it should work on my blogspot]
It was possibly quite naive of me, but I was a bit shocked after watching that. Not so much because of what was said, but more because of the response he received. Overwhelming support. The comments section below was littered with users applauding him and (as I said earlier) it was one of the top rated videos of the month.
I don't normally comment on videos myself - mainly because I'm watching videos of funny cats, so there's very little for me to say other than, "Oh that cat did something in a way that was incredibly funny and yet simultaneously cute. This truly is a wonderful time to be alive."
However, religion is a subject I feel quite passionate about and I thought now was the time to get in on the action and see what people say. After having spent some time at the arsehole of the internet I was well aware of flame wars. I was not keen on getting involved in one, but it has been interesting discussing this topic with strangers.
I've posted the comments I've made for two different videos and then posted the replies. The discussion is still ongoing so I might update this post when I receive something new.
==========================================
What I know about Islam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyNQ1zc-q74
I: This is one of the top rated videos on youtube this month. Find the statement about needing a peaceful society a bit hypocritical considering how his video is quite openly Islamophobic.
His argument fails in the same place as many others. An inability to distinguish between politics, religion and culture. This kind of backlash does no-one any favours. It only alienates peaceful Muslims living happily in this society
Caracalla23: @I But does Islam distinguish between religion, culture and politics.
I: @Caracalla23 Well that's just falling into the same trap. Do you mean British/American Muslims, Middle-Eastern Muslims, Islamic scholars or political figures in Islamic countries?
The answers would be different for each group. Moreover it would be different for each individual. No religion is one entity.
Caracalla23: @I So theres absolutely no conformity amongst Muslims? Every Muslim is an Island entire of himself? But surely there must be a large number of core beliefs amongst the 100s millions of Sunnis. (and those beliefs from an outsiders perspective are becoming increasingly narrow and conservative) If theres not then why call it Islam? Then why call it a religion?
I: @Caracalla23 Tbh, I'm not sure I fully understand your argument. I wasn't saying that there are no similarities, I just think that it's not fair to group Muslims all together. Some Muslims do have very conservative views, others are more open and progressive. Attacking 'Islam' is far too unspecific and general.
==========================================
God Bless Atheism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4mWiqkGy-Y
I: I find this man a terrible representative for atheism. The arguments he makes are packed full of rhetoric and emotion, but little substance. Religions are not 'evil'. That concept is an incredible oversimplification and implies that every follower of that religion is also 'evil'.
Attacking people's beliefs will in no way align them to your cause. These videos consist of needless provocation. Bashing religion gets you nowhere....
InfidelArmee: @I,"Religions are not 'evil' ". True. Religions are a lot of Dumbshit. By Dumbshits. For Dumbshits. Islam is NOT a Religion. Islam is a Totalitarian, Supremacist Ideology. Islam is Nazism. IslamoNazism.
I: @InfidelArmee Wikipedia search: Godwin's Law
InfidelArmee: @I I did. Your Point, Nazi?
robertangel30: @I Bashing religion gets you everywhere. Religious minded adults are lost for the most part, they must have an intellectual epiphany. The young minds who are undecided or weak in their faith are the ones who will be positively influenced by Pat.
I believe there is a youtube video that says "the internet is the place religions come to die." Very True indeed.
I: @robertangel30 I don't think there is much positive influence here. I can't see how atheism is any better than religion if people still use the same strong-armed tactics to 'recruit' more to their cause.
The simple fact is that what he says is all lies and hyperbole. I can't see how any of this is different from preaching. It's just as one-sided and narrow-minded.
richybinns @I Recruit? I knew I didn't believe in fairies long before I knew the word "ATHEIST"
How can being told to think for yourself be considered strong-arm? being told to believe or die better describes that tactic.
I: @richybinns I was referring to the post before me by robertangel30: "young minds who are undecided or weak in their faith are the ones who will be positively influenced"
You're right. Strong-arm probably wasn't the best term, but he does use a lot of rhetoric and much of what he says is unfounded. There are huge leaps of judgement made in writing off everything religion does as 'evil', cleverly ignoring any good it might do. It's a polemic argument and not a particularly strong one.
eddietaylor: @I There is nothing narrow minded about atheism.
All atheists have had to examine all the evidence ( I use that term loosely) and think it through independantly, and despite everything that we are taught or told from being small children, have arrived at the conclusion that god is bollocks. That is very different from being told that everything you see was made by an invisible man, and soaking it up like a sponge without any resistance. Now that IS narrow minded.
I: @eddietaylor I think you've missed my point a little. I don't think that atheism is in any way narrow-minded, but atheists can be. Using the word 'evil' to describe millions of people is just illogical to me. Not all people believe the same things or act the same way, regardless of religious/spiritual belief.
I'm an atheist myself, but I do find it frustrating when other atheists display such intolerance for religion.
eddietaylor: @I Point taken, I'm sorry I misunderstood you.
This intolerance from atheists is simply minute in comparison with the intolerance of muslims and christians TO atheists, and even that pales into insignificance when compared to their intolerance of each other. You and I are entitled to be frustrated, because reason is being clouded by ancient superstition. Also, freedom of speech creates animosity by default. People should come down from their own assholes and deal with that.
I: @eddietaylor Well you're probably right about that. I could see how blind faith leads to greater intolerance.
I suppose what I feel uncomfortable with is that Pat (man in video) had several videos that were in the top-rated this month. It's worrying to me that a viewpoint such as his is seen by many as a very good thing. It's also worrying that many religious people will see this and think this is what all atheist think, therefore increasing the intolerance of atheism you mentioned.
robertangel30: @I When you say that what Pat says "is all lies". You no longer have any any credibility. Please point out one factual lie. And please remember that exageration is not a lie.
I: @robertangel30 Well yes you're entirely right. I was exaggerating myself there. He uses very heavy rhetoric to twist arguments in his favour and rarely makes adequate (and often crucial) distinctions. He uses many examples (such as the Pope protecting sex-offenders) to justify why ALL of religion is bad. Plenty of bad things have been done by religious people and plenty done by non-religious people. This is just an extreme generalisation. It's hard to listen to such an unbalanced viewpoint.
robertangel30: @I Very nice. Reasonalbe retort. We come from very different premises. Pat and I know the all religions are false. You believe in yours. Thus you can never understand his points. You have what I like to prefer as a mind bump. You can never and will never get past it. Our premises guide us.
I: @robertangel30 I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, but I'm also an atheist. I think that's why I find it so hard to hear. It might be quite arrogant but I think I get his point, but I don't like how extreme it is. I don't think atheism is the answer to the world's problems. I don't believe that religion is the cause for all these bad things and I don't think things would be all that different if religion just went away.
==========================================
Looking back this seems like a very accurate representation of the world of online discussion. There's some agreement, LOTS of disagreement and some blatant trolling too.
[apologies, FB users, if the HTML code below doesn't function - it should work on my blogspot]
It was possibly quite naive of me, but I was a bit shocked after watching that. Not so much because of what was said, but more because of the response he received. Overwhelming support. The comments section below was littered with users applauding him and (as I said earlier) it was one of the top rated videos of the month.
I don't normally comment on videos myself - mainly because I'm watching videos of funny cats, so there's very little for me to say other than, "Oh that cat did something in a way that was incredibly funny and yet simultaneously cute. This truly is a wonderful time to be alive."
However, religion is a subject I feel quite passionate about and I thought now was the time to get in on the action and see what people say. After having spent some time at the arsehole of the internet I was well aware of flame wars. I was not keen on getting involved in one, but it has been interesting discussing this topic with strangers.
I've posted the comments I've made for two different videos and then posted the replies. The discussion is still ongoing so I might update this post when I receive something new.
==========================================
What I know about Islam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyNQ1zc-q74
I: This is one of the top rated videos on youtube this month. Find the statement about needing a peaceful society a bit hypocritical considering how his video is quite openly Islamophobic.
His argument fails in the same place as many others. An inability to distinguish between politics, religion and culture. This kind of backlash does no-one any favours. It only alienates peaceful Muslims living happily in this society
Caracalla23: @I But does Islam distinguish between religion, culture and politics.
I: @Caracalla23 Well that's just falling into the same trap. Do you mean British/American Muslims, Middle-Eastern Muslims, Islamic scholars or political figures in Islamic countries?
The answers would be different for each group. Moreover it would be different for each individual. No religion is one entity.
Caracalla23: @I So theres absolutely no conformity amongst Muslims? Every Muslim is an Island entire of himself? But surely there must be a large number of core beliefs amongst the 100s millions of Sunnis. (and those beliefs from an outsiders perspective are becoming increasingly narrow and conservative) If theres not then why call it Islam? Then why call it a religion?
I: @Caracalla23 Tbh, I'm not sure I fully understand your argument. I wasn't saying that there are no similarities, I just think that it's not fair to group Muslims all together. Some Muslims do have very conservative views, others are more open and progressive. Attacking 'Islam' is far too unspecific and general.
==========================================
God Bless Atheism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4mWiqkGy-Y
I: I find this man a terrible representative for atheism. The arguments he makes are packed full of rhetoric and emotion, but little substance. Religions are not 'evil'. That concept is an incredible oversimplification and implies that every follower of that religion is also 'evil'.
Attacking people's beliefs will in no way align them to your cause. These videos consist of needless provocation. Bashing religion gets you nowhere....
InfidelArmee: @I,"Religions are not 'evil' ". True. Religions are a lot of Dumbshit. By Dumbshits. For Dumbshits. Islam is NOT a Religion. Islam is a Totalitarian, Supremacist Ideology. Islam is Nazism. IslamoNazism.
I: @InfidelArmee Wikipedia search: Godwin's Law
InfidelArmee: @I I did. Your Point, Nazi?
robertangel30: @I Bashing religion gets you everywhere. Religious minded adults are lost for the most part, they must have an intellectual epiphany. The young minds who are undecided or weak in their faith are the ones who will be positively influenced by Pat.
I believe there is a youtube video that says "the internet is the place religions come to die." Very True indeed.
I: @robertangel30 I don't think there is much positive influence here. I can't see how atheism is any better than religion if people still use the same strong-armed tactics to 'recruit' more to their cause.
The simple fact is that what he says is all lies and hyperbole. I can't see how any of this is different from preaching. It's just as one-sided and narrow-minded.
richybinns @I Recruit? I knew I didn't believe in fairies long before I knew the word "ATHEIST"
How can being told to think for yourself be considered strong-arm? being told to believe or die better describes that tactic.
I: @richybinns I was referring to the post before me by robertangel30: "young minds who are undecided or weak in their faith are the ones who will be positively influenced"
You're right. Strong-arm probably wasn't the best term, but he does use a lot of rhetoric and much of what he says is unfounded. There are huge leaps of judgement made in writing off everything religion does as 'evil', cleverly ignoring any good it might do. It's a polemic argument and not a particularly strong one.
eddietaylor: @I There is nothing narrow minded about atheism.
All atheists have had to examine all the evidence ( I use that term loosely) and think it through independantly, and despite everything that we are taught or told from being small children, have arrived at the conclusion that god is bollocks. That is very different from being told that everything you see was made by an invisible man, and soaking it up like a sponge without any resistance. Now that IS narrow minded.
I: @eddietaylor I think you've missed my point a little. I don't think that atheism is in any way narrow-minded, but atheists can be. Using the word 'evil' to describe millions of people is just illogical to me. Not all people believe the same things or act the same way, regardless of religious/spiritual belief.
I'm an atheist myself, but I do find it frustrating when other atheists display such intolerance for religion.
eddietaylor: @I Point taken, I'm sorry I misunderstood you.
This intolerance from atheists is simply minute in comparison with the intolerance of muslims and christians TO atheists, and even that pales into insignificance when compared to their intolerance of each other. You and I are entitled to be frustrated, because reason is being clouded by ancient superstition. Also, freedom of speech creates animosity by default. People should come down from their own assholes and deal with that.
I: @eddietaylor Well you're probably right about that. I could see how blind faith leads to greater intolerance.
I suppose what I feel uncomfortable with is that Pat (man in video) had several videos that were in the top-rated this month. It's worrying to me that a viewpoint such as his is seen by many as a very good thing. It's also worrying that many religious people will see this and think this is what all atheist think, therefore increasing the intolerance of atheism you mentioned.
robertangel30: @I When you say that what Pat says "is all lies". You no longer have any any credibility. Please point out one factual lie. And please remember that exageration is not a lie.
I: @robertangel30 Well yes you're entirely right. I was exaggerating myself there. He uses very heavy rhetoric to twist arguments in his favour and rarely makes adequate (and often crucial) distinctions. He uses many examples (such as the Pope protecting sex-offenders) to justify why ALL of religion is bad. Plenty of bad things have been done by religious people and plenty done by non-religious people. This is just an extreme generalisation. It's hard to listen to such an unbalanced viewpoint.
robertangel30: @I Very nice. Reasonalbe retort. We come from very different premises. Pat and I know the all religions are false. You believe in yours. Thus you can never understand his points. You have what I like to prefer as a mind bump. You can never and will never get past it. Our premises guide us.
I: @robertangel30 I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, but I'm also an atheist. I think that's why I find it so hard to hear. It might be quite arrogant but I think I get his point, but I don't like how extreme it is. I don't think atheism is the answer to the world's problems. I don't believe that religion is the cause for all these bad things and I don't think things would be all that different if religion just went away.
==========================================
Looking back this seems like a very accurate representation of the world of online discussion. There's some agreement, LOTS of disagreement and some blatant trolling too.
Friday, 21 May 2010
Do How Photoshop I?
I had some more free time recently so I thought I would try practice shooping because I suck at photoshop. I think I'm ok at drawing using a tablet so I've managed to create decent images, but then I've ruined them every time I tried to add colour. Digital painting, it seems, requires skills I do not possess.
Trying not to let this crush me too much, I went back to basics and just watched scores of youtube tutorials. After an embarassingly long period of time, I managed to create my first passable painting.
Yup that's right, folks - a ball. Couldn't really get much simpler than that. However, it did teach me a lot about how the program actually works and the importance of layering. I also learnt the importance of keyboard short-cuts. These drastically speed up your work.
I learnt a lot, but it's frustrating not being able to create what you envisage. On this next painting I tried to be far more ambitious with the complexity and range of techniques I used.
First, a basic sketch. I decided on Samurai Jack. He's a simple, bold character and the artwork in that program was just so stunning. He felt like an appropriate choice.
Next using paths I created an outline. I've never used this tool before so it was a little hard to get used to, but it's just perfect for creating smooth lines.
Used the gradient tool here to create these...gradients. A very simple effect but adds depth and some shadowing to the image.
Finally I created a background using brushwork and colour overlays. This was probably the most complex part of the image. Many layers of varying opacities and effects are used to make the fiery red tones. [click on the image to view full res]
Pretty happy with the end result anyway. It's nothing incredible but it looks decent and, more importantly, I've learnt a lot on the way.
Final point. If you haven't watched Samurai Jack, just do. Incredible animation and style. It's one of the best (if not the best) Western animations about.
Trying not to let this crush me too much, I went back to basics and just watched scores of youtube tutorials. After an embarassingly long period of time, I managed to create my first passable painting.
Yup that's right, folks - a ball. Couldn't really get much simpler than that. However, it did teach me a lot about how the program actually works and the importance of layering. I also learnt the importance of keyboard short-cuts. These drastically speed up your work.
I learnt a lot, but it's frustrating not being able to create what you envisage. On this next painting I tried to be far more ambitious with the complexity and range of techniques I used.
First, a basic sketch. I decided on Samurai Jack. He's a simple, bold character and the artwork in that program was just so stunning. He felt like an appropriate choice.
Next using paths I created an outline. I've never used this tool before so it was a little hard to get used to, but it's just perfect for creating smooth lines.
Used the gradient tool here to create these...gradients. A very simple effect but adds depth and some shadowing to the image.
Finally I created a background using brushwork and colour overlays. This was probably the most complex part of the image. Many layers of varying opacities and effects are used to make the fiery red tones. [click on the image to view full res]
Pretty happy with the end result anyway. It's nothing incredible but it looks decent and, more importantly, I've learnt a lot on the way.
Final point. If you haven't watched Samurai Jack, just do. Incredible animation and style. It's one of the best (if not the best) Western animations about.
Tuesday, 11 May 2010
Bradshaw vs. Havers
Taking any excuse to talk about the lighter side of politics, has anyone noticed that Ben Bradshaw has this whole sexy Nigel Havers thing going on....?
Bradshaw
Havers
I realise more and more that there are a lot of shouldnt-but-woulds in the world of British politics. My short-list would probably include Clegg, David Milliband and Yvette Cooper (has this whole MILF thing going on). Well they do say politics is show business for ugly people.....
If you have any other suggestions, comment below.
Bradshaw
Havers
I realise more and more that there are a lot of shouldnt-but-woulds in the world of British politics. My short-list would probably include Clegg, David Milliband and Yvette Cooper (has this whole MILF thing going on). Well they do say politics is show business for ugly people.....
If you have any other suggestions, comment below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)