Fierce & fiery

My blog output has shrunken these last weeks, as the exams are drawing nearer. I'm very busy studying; but tonight I thought I should see a movie. Did I pick a good one? Well... read on.

I heard rumours about a new fantasy movie, and I figured I ought to see it. I'm a fan of fantasy and science fiction; not to the extent that I would dress up in a klingon suit and recite Hamlet, but here and there I like a good science fiction/fantasy book or movie. I don't really consider fantasy movies/books as an art form in the sense of art bringing some deeper insight into the meaning of life. They can be very complex, beautifully written (as in the beauty of the laguage used), and they take you somewhere else; everytime I read a fantasy book or see a movie I'm somewhere else; not only that - I'm in another time also... I'm back in my childhood, experiencing a fairytale. Mayhap it is exactly this what's making me enjoy fantasy - real word is sometimes just to real for me, and sometimes I need a break from reality.

This is what I was expecting when I popped Eragon on my computer. But what happened is as follows: I did get transported to another place. One where I was up to my knees in bull-shit.

Yes, that might seem very harsh at first... But,... No, it's quite adequate. This movie really is bad. I will not elaborate on the story here; every interested party can check the movie itself. Or better yet - don't check it. You will waste two precious hours of your life you could invest better in having a headache.

But every statement has a why, that I understand. What is so bad about the movie? It certainly isn't the effects - they are good (not on par with Lord of the rings, but still); but every fantasy movie has to have good effects if it has any pretension to be called a fantasy movie. The story (though not vital in this genre) has left much to be desired. Let's look at the time frame first; it happens only in three days. In these three (3!) days, that is 72 hours, our hero turns from a farm boy to a professional warrior and wizard. Haloa? Even God took a 6 day sabbatical to create the universe, and he was all-powerful. It all just seemed to easy... the elements that keep the story flowing were missing - depiction of fear, despair, danger. Yes, they were present, but not in such a way as to influence the viewers to live and feel as part of the story.

And dragons - big, cold lizards spewing fire at will. Not exactly the first choice when it comes to ideal, housebroken companions. In Eragon they are depicted as warm, friendly (even motherly) figures. Somehow this just seems implausible to me. Yes, true, this is fantasy... but what we experience in our imagination is tightly connected to our existence in the real world. It is very hard to imagine a whole new world completely different than ours, maybe even impossible. And I, for myself, can't imagine to ever pet the cold skin of reptiles.

I could go on, but I choose not to: In short - the narrative just has isn't convincing; the adjective I'd use is "ludicrous". But let's move on - the characters. At best they seemed one-dimensional, at worst just simply plain. Creating the dynamic in a movie are the relationships between characters; these relationships have to be evident, or at least hinted at. The characters in Eragon simply feel unrelated even though they are all part of the same space-time continuum. Everyone has it's own story and problems, but they have hardly any effect on other characters or the narrative. I just didn't feel any social dynamics; it's like looking at a group of people talking aloud without talking together; there is no question - response, or statement - response, situation. Just noise, made of individual human voices.

Every movie has to have comic suspense-dischargers. But unluckily the authors's idea of sarcasm is limited to insipid and boring situation humor. There is only one type of joke, and it wasn't funny even the first time it appeared.

My recommendation? Stear clear. This movie lacks all the magic a good fantasy story needs; it won't take you places; it won't show you things. You won't feel enchanted. Kolatkar

PVC nation

Deep in the shadows of the Oaken shelf lies a black token, black as the night. It's power of black magic is immense, held in check just by a container of simple cardboard. It's power can be unleashed only on the misty, turning Table mountain. There it is taken from its protection; it seems utterly black. But once it is held against the light, it explodes in all the colors of the rainbow, thus giving a glimpse of its brilliance. One unleashes its power in a special ritual, called the ritual of Hei-Phi. It is performed by the magician SME. The black token is placed on the ground on top of the mountain; there it has to be spun at a precise rotation. He (the magician) must hold the diamond needle of Dyna Vector in his outstretched hand; He slowly drops it towards the black token. And when the needle touches the black token, the power is unleashed. Its power is so great one can do all sorts of devilry with it; even deliver subliminal messages to the poor, unsuspecting youth.

Jokes aside - I believe everyone knows what I'm talking about - it's the humble, old vinyl (polyvinyl chloride) record. Old? Yes. Forgotten? Indeed... Not. I for myself must say I'm on a vinyl trip. I bought a record player and started buying records a few months ago. I have an urge to buy new records (or used ones). My hands are always shaking when I hold a new specimen in my hands. I am exploding of expectancy when I wait for the surreally slow needle to drop into the grooves. And then - heaven - wonderful music starts to fill the room. Aahhh...

Anyway, the reason for my writing this post is an article I read on the internet (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9598796). Therein it states that the sales of vinyl records has gone up ten percent in the USA only. Halloa! Seems there are other like me. Vinyl is making its comeback from the caves of forgetfullnes (history).

Who buys those artifacts, you ask. DJs instantly come to mind. But guess again. As it is, more and more new releases by well known (and not so well known) musicians like Coldplay, Beck, Norah Jones etc. are being pressed on vinyl.

Why are they being bought? This is a better question, especially in this day of modern technological marvels like CDs and MP3s. The interviewee offered two explanations; one is quality, the second one is the complete lack of copy protection on vinyl discs.

As to quality - for me this is not debatable; all theoretical mumbo-jumbo aside - vinyl just sounds better to me. True, if the vinyl is not in perfect condition there is noise and there are clicks. But what are you listening to when playing a record (or CD or MP3 for that matter) - the noise or the music? OK, admittedly this holds true only to a certain extent; if there is to much noise, the music simply isn't audible. But even CDs can be damaged...

As for the copy protection... my friend claims this argument can not hold water. Copy protection simply isn't a factor to a majority of buyers (after all - only a small percentage of CDs is copy protected; and the knowledge of DRM is simply not rooted in the consciousnes of the average person). No one would buy expensive hi-fi equipment to bypass copy protection that really isn't a problem. He claims that the existence of copy protection cannot be a reason for a growth in sales of vinyl records.

Can he be right? I don't think so. First of all we must define the circle of buyers of music that would eventually buy vinyl records. I'd say they are people who care about their music (and the quality thereof); they already own a turntable, or have bought one (maybe even a cheap USB one). And - most important - they BUY their music.

In this group there are two important sub-groups. Audiophiles made an impact on sales because they prefer the sound and quality of vinyl records. The other important group I will call the copy-protection haters. When buying MP3 one sees that DRM really is an obstacle (there really are real life restrictions, not just vague rumours of gossip); there I see it quite plausible that one would buy vinyl to bypass copy protection. But what about CDs? They are easy to copy, even if they are copy protected. They are more handy, less prone to damage. Yes. That may be true; there is no apparent reason to prefer vinyl over CDs just because of copy-protection. But I see a certain type of person crystalizing. The "red-blooded copy-protection hater". He hates every aspect of copy protection for no particular reason, or so many reasons even he lost track of all of them. The bottom line is - he will not buy media with copy-protection no matter what (seen that before? - check the Brittanica under "Microsoft-hater"). And there are many red blooded copy-protection haters out there. Just check a random forum on technology, or music, or hi-fi, whatever. You will find them.

Taking into consideration this sort of person I can believe it is quite plausible sales grew because of copy-protection of other media. Not all the ten percent, but still... enough. Yes indeed - I see no downside to that. It's only in my benefit if people start buying more vinyl records (whatever the reason), because this means more will be pressed.

So... you're still reading this? What for? Run. Run as if your life depended on it. Run to the nearest store. AND BUY SOME VINYL!!! Kolatkar

Kamikaze part deux

Reading my post of tuesday I find that I ignored the first rule of rational decision-making and thought, namely sleep. Yes, serious issues are always best dealt in the morning, after a sound sleep. I'm not really impulsive, but I guess I got carried away yesterday. Am I taking back what I said in the previous post? No, I still believe that kamikaze flights are a lunatic idea. But as to the end-of-the-world scenarios I proposed - well, we aren't quite there yet, and an officer asking questions isn't a sure sign of pandemonium either.

So... I intend to do a rational analysys of why I believe the idea of kamikaze warfare is a bad one. Devoid of feelings and bias? No; these are all parts of me, and they co-shape my thoughts and actions. But I'll try to keep it in the realm of the understandable and relevant.
I'll start with the pro's - why is kamikaze warfare viable?

• an airplane (being of a substantial size and mass) has a huge destructive force
  
• a pilot is able to asses the situation more accurately then a computer (deciding upon which information from the battlefield is important and which not)
  
• combining the two one gets a weapon that is most likely to destroy any important target of a reasonable size
  
• history shows that such attacks are fairly effective (check the wikipedia article on kamikaze fighters)
  

Ok, I'll admit a kamikaze pilot and his airplane are a formidable weapon; not opponent, mind you - just a weapon.


Now, is there something to oppose the idea of using kamikaze fighters? Indeed, there is.

• it's not for the budget-conscious (fighter jets and the schooling of pilots cost amounts of money we can hardly imagine; apart from that I'd like to know how the military chiefs intend to sell the idea of destroying airplanes worth millions of dollars on every mission to the buying public)
  
• if we choose to believe the theory of the army being in the service of weapons manufacturers, we can only imagine they feel like experiencing christmas every day; this is costing the taxpayer money which could be used more reasonable
  
• terrorist don't use war ships; I wonder, then, if it's sensible to use a waterhose to blow out a candle or an airplane to eradicate a solitary car
  
• bombing technology is very advanced today; I may be overdoing it a bit when I say that they can bomb a sandwich from your hand, but it is not that far fetched
  
• humans have an instinct for self-preservation; would there be enough new pilots to keep up a fleet? Is it even reasonable to expect pilots wouldn't resist such orders?
  
• lest but not least - the moral justification of such attacks
  

We will ignore the moral justification for wars (of for the war on terrorism for that matter) at this point, and just look into kamikaze flights. The Japanese employed kamikaze pilots only as an act of desperation - they were loosing the war, that was apparent to all but the most obtuse. The war against terrorist is far from being lost, so from this viewpoint there is no moral justification - we can hardly claim we are defending our homeland and countrymen from certain death.

But the gist of my argument lies in the fact that human life is disregarded here. Such disregard has no justification whatsoever.

I am quite aware that war is a dangerous venture, and lives are at stake everyday. Nonetheless - everything has to be done to protect the lives of the soldiers taking part in the action. They opted to defend the homeland, and, if necessary, part with their lives if there is no other option. But that means they will fight to save their country AND survive themselves; this stems from our survival instinct, or call it a natural right, whatever - such an absolute decision is in the sphere of the individual. That individual being the soldier he can be ordered on a very dangerous mission where the objective is to fight and come back alive (even if this fails or is not expected; the difference is that dying is no an integral part of this mission); but a decision to make the ultimate sacrifice for his country is his own.

Long post, I know. But desperate times seek desperate measures. Kolatkar

Kamikaze

I was mildly amused today when I read a certain article. Check it out here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6521311.stm

For those who choose not to click that link: apparently a high-ranging RAF officer decided to asses the ground for a new venue in air-warfare. He asked RAF-pilots if they are willing to fly kamikaze missions. He wanted to know, if they are ready to give the ultimate sacrifice and fly an airplane straight into the enemy. Who is the enemy? The terrorists, of course. Sacrifice his life for what? The war on terrorism, of course.

Haloa there! Mildly amused, you say? You might be right there - mildly amused may not be the right word. Certainly I must say deeply distressed down to the core of my very being. I just ask myself: what has become of us? What happened to our society? The officer claimed such orders would never be issued, but how can we even contemplate to use such drastic measures? Our way of life seemed to be considered safe; apparently not any more - there is talk about terrorists and imminent danger everywhere. Everyone is scared into oblivion by the news, so in this light it is no wonder our military leaders (seeing ghosts of their own) tend to search for new warfare tactics. But such drastic measures? How dare we even contemplate dehumanization of pilots in such a way as to turn them into bombs? In an age where all thoughts should be directed to the future, a future without warfare, we (or better they; I completely disagree with such actions) turn back and try to revive concepts that should lie forever in tomes of history, never to be forgotten, but also never to be brough to life again. These are ideas, propagated in a time much different than ours (one should at least think so); where value of all human life was not held in such high regard. The belief that it was the time and place that brough about such atrocities as had happened in world war II is utterly wrong. It is the people that live in every time and place.

One can only imagine what will be next? Is there going to surface a government official asking if the idea of concentration camps for terrorist is viable? Oh, hang on there: there already is such a place, and there is no indication that it will be closed. War-time courts, ignoring habeas corpus rights? Yes, we have them too. And what an irony: they are being revived in the one country whose major export articles are democracy and human rights.

We are coerced into dropping - in by one - the basic principles on which we based our coexistence in society. We are throwing or way of life out of the window, thus entering a society of distrust and unjustice, because of some ghosts that are shown to us on television. Instead of expanding our peaceful coexistence ever farther out we are systematically disassembling it and make it impossible. I just wonder where it takes us, being that many human rights we tend to respect are no longer to be respected. What will be the next step? More Lebensraum?  kolatkar