I've Seen It All Before

So I saw District 9 last night, and for a while I struggled with whether I liked it or not. Waffled would be a better term as I liked it, then didn't like it, then liked it again. This post is full of SPOILERS so if you haven't seen it, don't read the rest of this post.

I don't like the "shaky-cam" craze that's been going around. Frankly, it makes me motion sick, and really detracts from the movie. The style can help bring people into the moment of the film, and getting the right things on camera while making it look random has to be rather complicated. The style breaks half way through from there being a cameraman behind the shaky-cam that the actors talk to and interact with, to just a shaky camera during private moments, but I can see how that is necessary to tell the story. I just get way too sick to enjoy any of the cinematography.

Putting my eminent puking aside, the movie was exciting and entertaining at the surface level, which is the only point of some types of movies (*cough Transformers). However, I tend to expect a little more from my serious science fiction in general and Peter Jackson specifically. So after the movie was over and the theatre had stopped spinning, I looked back on the movie in my head and was quite disappointed with what I found.

I couldn't think of anything in the movie I hadn't seen before. Big floating saucer-like mother ship? Seems familiar. Bug like aliens? Too many to name. Big war machine robots? Again, too many to name. Big bad private corporations doing secretly evil things? /yawn. Private security forces answerable to no one? Hand in hand with the previous one. Even the slums, riots, gang violence, and forced migration all tasted like things we see every day.

I was expecting to see a thoughtful, in-depth geopolitical screenplay about what impact aliens would have on the world stage. Turns out, that's not what Jackson had in mind. Instead we get a very small, biased view of what was going on, and that frustrated me. It was only later I discovered that what I was expecting, and wanting, wasn't new either. I wanted a Star Trek, or a Mass Effect.

So with all that in mind, and quite a bit of help from my girlfriend, I tried to find out what the point of the movie was beyond its entertainment value (of which there is plenty). And I think the point is, none of it looks new. We've seen all this before. Just because it's aliens being oppressed and misunderstood doesn't mean things will be any different. The movie is commenting on the fact that even if there WERE space aliens, we as a race and a culture probably wouldn't treat them any better or different than anyone else we don't like or don't want around. Pretty grim, but I think that's the message I got out of this movie.

There are a few things you have to take on faith, and since this is a film, and not a documentary, that's perfectly fine. The first is that I doubt the world powers would let South Africa handle the first ever immigrants from another world. And I doubt that control over their assets, technology, and health would be handed over to a private corporation. I don't know whether there'd be a slum or not, but if they were here long enough, without being blended into the general population, it seems quite likely.

Bottom line is, I liked this movie, and I think most of you will too. If you can get past the motion-sickness, some of the shots are really quite great, and it does a nice job of blending live action with CGI believably. Go see it, and then tell me what you think.
-Ty

Pic via Teaser-Trailer

Fallout 3 as a Life Commentary?

I've recently finished my play through of Fallout 3, and am now continuing my 2nd play through of Mass Effect. I know, its a little late, but I take forever to play games, especially while going to school. You may see from my "top 5" list that Mass Effect is number 1, and that Fallout 3 is not even ranked. The top 5 list is written from the perspective of how much I enjoyed playing a game and not necessarily how good the game is.

Some people, like my good friend and author of Adge's Rambles, play pseudo-sandbox games like Fallout 3 by allowing themselves to be someone completely different than who they are in real life. Using such games to fully explore their "alter ego" or approach situations with a solution that they would never choose in the real world. Sandbox games are designed for such purposes, to allow the player to explore all sorts of actions and situations without regard for real-world consequences.

As much as I may try, I am incapable of playing in the truest form of the sandbox. I can not bring myself to make decisions contrary to what I would make if I were in that situation for real. I get too involved in a game, so much so that the consequences in the virtual world are almost as important to me as the consequences of the real world. I even feel guilt for doing something bad or contrary to my personality. I think this is the reason I like Mass Effect, and do not like Fallout 3.

When I do try an make decisions that I wouldn't normally make, it feels like I've removed myself from the game. All of a sudden I don't care as much as about my character or the world in which I am playing and it detracts from the story. For example, in my first play through of Mass Effect, I was presented with a tactical choice. One team mate was stationed at one objective, and another at a second objective. I chose to sacrifice the team mate at the objective that I felt was not as tactically important to my mission. When the mission was over, I was not pleased with my choice in sacrifice because the member who died was a vital part of my team, and I would have had to play the rest of the game without the team mate that I found extremely valuable. So I went back to a save game before the decision and made the other choice. As soon as I did that, I regretted it. I felt I had cheated the game. The whole point of Mass Effect is that your decisions influence game play and story throughout the remainder of the game, and I had neutered that. Even now, on my second play through I am conflicted because now I know what will happen in that decision, and I can never be as involved in it as I was the first time around.

The reason I didn't like Fallout 3 is not because I didn't play sandbox style, but because of the choices I was forced to make. It's a post-apocalyptic world where its every man for himself. The game put my character in positions where there was no clean answer. I was forced, on more than one occasion, to make decisions that I felt were morally wrong and conflicting in order to survive or achieve some greater objective. It left a bad taste in my mouth because it means that if I were really in this situation, I would have made the same decision. It means if I am ever really that down on my luck, I would rather make the tough choice than die for my principles. Not very heroic I know. It is this simple realization that made my play through of Fallout 3 less than enjoyable. And it is this very same fact that I think makes Fallout 3 a great game. It showed me a side of myself that I had never faced before, one that I don't like, and am a little ashamed of. It has shown me a small slice of my own humanity and that is quite astounding for a video game.

You may say that I just get too involved, and that games are supposed to be fun and nothing more, but I would reply that is a short-sighted view of the possibilities of the medium. A method of storytelling that allows direct interaction in the world is the truest form of self exploration. If you let it, it will teach you things about yourself that you never knew. All this is pretty heavy for a video game review, but that's what I got out of the game. Even though I didn't like Fallout 3, I would have to say it is one of the better games I've played. Whether it's better than Mass Effect...well, I wouldn't go that far.
-Ty

Normandy pic via Bioware
Brotherhood Knight pic via someone's blog
Kill shot pic via TGR.com

The JWST

This next post is not quite as heavy as the last one: more of a housekeeping thing really. Of those of you who voted, two of you got the correct answer. It was the James-Webb Space Telescope. The picture was of the thermal shielding designed to keep sun off the optics and radiate heat away from the (nearly) absolute zero imaging core.

To learn more about the JWST and its systems and mission, visit JWST/NASA.

The new image is up, again, a nerdy theme. Take a vote if you know what it is. Good hunting.
-Ty

JWST image courtesy of NASA.

So, there's this thing...

So, there's this topic I've been mulling over for a while now. The discrimination and harassment officer came to give a lecture to us TA's at our weekly meeting. The thing is, its kind of a sensitive topic, and I really don't want to ruffle any one's feathers. On the other hand, if I don't ask, I don't learn, so please try to keep an open mind and realize that I am not trying to offend. Each paragraph covers a different issue I am struggling with, and opinions/insights on any or all of them would be helpful. Here goes.

The ombudsperson, who's gender will remain ambiguous for the sake of my point, and whom I will refer to as Sam(-antha or -uel), came in to speak about discrimination in the student environment. Sam started with an introduction about race, and race stereotypes, then gender and gender stereotypes. There was quite a bit of statistical data to back up Sam's claims but it was clear that these were issues of personal relevance rather than pure conclusions from the data.

The claim that really surprised me, and one that Sam enforced particularly vehemently was the distinction between girl, woman, and lady. I have never paid any attention to the difference these labels imply. In fact, I would have even said they are synonymous. Sam took great exception to this fact, stating that a girl, is a female human shy of age 18, a woman is a female human aged more than 18 years, and lady is a class distinction and social assumption. I tried asking questions, and any time I said girl, Sam fiercely interrupted me and would not let me continue until I had said woman, at which point, more often than not, I forgot what I was asking. My professor raised his hand at one point with a reply to Sam taking exception to the term lady, stating that lady was a compliment, synonymous with gentlemen. Sam replied by asking how a lady was expected to behave, and they argued back and forth for a while before Sam conceded that my professor was just from a different era. My professor is ancient. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that he had witnessed the colonization of the western United States. And Sam is quite old, all grey hair at the least, but not at retirement just yet. My question is, in this day and age, with reasonable young adults such as myself and my readers, is this still a valid concern? I've always used, guys/girls, dudes/lady-dudes, bi*ches/c*cksuckers, whatever...

The second issue that I found surprising was the need for "women only" manufacturing classes. The reasoning behind these classes is that when in a class of dominantly male students, the females tend not to take initiative and therefore don't learn the machines as well as a guy would. In order to address my issue with these special classes, lets take an example: genderless people (which is the ideal in an educational environment). Student A and B go into a shop class, and student B takes hold of the machines, makes the part, and does the work, while student A stands behind B and watches. Then when both tested, student B gets a pass, and student A fails. Why? Because student B did the work. Student B took the initiative to actively learn while student A did not. So the grade seems fair? Or should we make a class where only student A can attend, and make sure student A gets the education that he/she was unwilling to apply him/herself toward? Perhaps this is the method that is used in high school, but college is voluntary, only students who want to be there pay that much money to go. If student A doesn't want to learn, fine, right? But what if student A is a girl, and student B is a guy? now all of a sudden student A should be given extra opportunities to learn? should be given "women only" classes? That tastes a little like "special privileges" doesn't it? And isn't giving special privileges to women a recognition, even a validation, of their need for such treatment? Isn't a "women only" class simply underlining the fact that people think they can't do as well and so should be treated differently? Perhaps there is another metric I'm missing here. And when I asked Sam if there was, the answer is that the school is trying to raise the number of women in attendance in the engineering program. Which I also disagree with, because if you make special compensations to raise the statistics in one group, that's equivalent to padding your data, which I find ironic for the school of engineering and applied science.

Last is very similar to the previous issue, except that instead of gender, it involves race. Being half Asian, but not looking it, gives me the unique perspective of seeing both sides. I'm treated as middle-class white-America by my peers and friends, yet I am a minority, especially here in Colorado. I visited the multicultural center once, and have never gone back. I was treated with a little bit of scorn because I don't actually look Asian. So here is this middle-class white guy coming into the center looking for some help. Needless to say, not the warmest welcome one would expect to receive. My issue with this is the same as my issue with gender, and again, I suspect it arises from ignorance about all the intricacies of the issue.

The conclusion that I have come to is that compensation and special treatment are not effective means of breaking down sexual and racial barriers in an institution. In fact, I would posit that it causes the opposite of the desired effect by drawing real, tangible, boundaries between the different race and gender groups. Perhaps it makes the numbers look better, but what should we be more concerned with, attendance numbers, or segregationist thought?

The unfortunate result of all this is that I've now begun to notice. Notice the fact that some of my student teams only have 1 girl in them, notice the teams that have girls as the team leader, or notice when a girl is doing active work in the machine shop. Notice when an Asian is doing the writing, notice when a black student is giving the presentation. And worst of all, once or twice, the thought "wow, good for them" fluttered across my mind. Where once I wouldn't have noticed, I now distinguish, where once I wouldn't have cared, I now feel the differences. I once was blind, but now I see, and that is definitely not a good thing.
-Ty

first image courtesy of Wikimedia

Fullmetal Alchemist

It's that time again!

Time to name the answer to my title-bar quiz and post a new image to be guessed at.

For those of you who voted, 5 of 7 of you got the correct answer. It is indeed an Alchemic Trasmutation Circle which comes from one of my favorite anime series: Fullmetal Alchemist (FMA).

There are several different transmutation circles the characters use to manipulate the world in various ways. This particular circle is quite significant in the series in that it is used to seal a homunculus. I won't go into more detail than that because if you haven't seen the series I wouldn't want to ruin it.

FMA is an excellent blend of beautiful anime, with humor, and a storyline to melt your brain. One of my favorite elements of the show is the character interaction. By the end of the 14 disk series you get such a feeling of family and connection to all the characters because they all have a connection to each-other. It was so popular as a manga and anime in Japan, that it has been translated into English extremely well. So much so that I would recommend watching it in English! I know, I know, blasphemy, but seriously, they did such a good job that the subtitles just don't do it justice.

If you live in the Boulder area, I'd be happy to lend you my copy, or I'm sure you can rent it from Netflix if that's more your thing.

Now, onto the new picture! Take a vote if you think you know where it comes from. Again, its just a snippet from a larger image, and it will most likely have a nerdy influence.

Good Luck!
-Ty

pic via someone's Friendster profile

A Slightly Greener Ski Season

As you may or may not know, I try, where possible, to be "green." This means that I recycle, use a personal cup at Starbucks, buy eco-conscious products and clothing, and try my hardest to get good gas mileage.

It's a terrible shame that ski racks cause so much aerodynamic drag when you're driving at relatively high speeds (40+ mph). Your car feels sluggish and your gas mileage tanks (pun totally intended). One way to help that is to buy a fairing. It eliminates the area between your ski rack and the top of the car, thus keeping your top profile continuous, and reducing drag. I won't go into all the nerdy details, but they really help.

I've been meaning to get a ski-rack fairing for quite some time now, its just been a matter of money. I had a birthday recently and got an excellent present from my father in the form of a check. Which I used a rather large chunk of at REI to buy the fairing that was made for my ski rack. Much to my dismay, and not much to my surprise, it didn't fit. I seem to have a non-standard cross bar for my car, which gives me no end of trouble. So now disgusted not only with the product I bought, but the outrageous price I paid for it, I took it back.

Then while I was in class this afternoon, I got a great idea to just build my own! The university has tons of scrap materials, and they'll let you use the machine shop any time its open. So I took an hour this afternoon and fashioned my own with some rudimentary measurements of my rack. The results of my labor and dumpster diving are...


Amazingly, it worked on the first try. Any of you who know me, know that I can hardly ever get anything right the first time. I tried it out on the highway and there was no rattling or buzzing or anything! I coated the bottom edge in cloth (hockey) tape so that it wouldn't scratch my roof.

I paid $3.60 for raw materials (instead of the $80 REI wanted), spent an enjoyable hour in the machine shop, and came out with an easy way to make my car more efficient. Not only did I stop that annoying whistling sound that the rack makes when there are no skis in it, I get to show a little nerd pride with all the stickers.
-Ty

You'll also notice I'm saving water by keeping my car absolutely filthy!

Professors

I am now a few weeks into my Master's career at CU Boulder, and I have begun to notice several differences between the masters program and the bachelors program. The classes are smaller, the work is more difficult, there is quite a bit less supervision, and the most striking thing is that students get the chance to actually meet and interact with the professors on a regular basis.

This has given me a chance to see the teaching styles and personalities of my professors, and compare them to one another. Even after only 4 weeks, I can easily decide which professors I like and which ones I do not. But less obvious is deciding if my reasons for liking or disliking them means that they are a good or bad professor.

For the sake of example, we'll call one professor A and the other B. I didn't really like professor A as an undergraduate, he taught a class that was wholly uninteresting to me and I had a little trouble understanding him. Where as professor B taught my favorite subject and while he talked strangely, was not difficult to understand. After taking graduate classes from each professor, I have come to realize that I liked/disliked each professor more because of the subject they taught than because of the type of teacher/person they were. I never went to office hours as an undergrad, but my friends always told me that professor A was very nice and helpful, while they said professor B was sort of hard to get a hold of.

Since being a graduate student, I have had nothing but good experiences with professor A. He IS helpful, and patient, and genuinely seems to want to listen to your questions and answer them. With professor B however, I have gone to his office on many occasions, some with prior arrangement and some without. In both cases, he had someone else in his office, or was not even there. One occasion he was chatting with the department's AA for 20 minutes of my hour with him while I sat in the hallway waiting. He even said to me on one occasion, that he would not help me, because I am a graduate student and he wouldn't hold my hand. Which I would expect if I went in there and said, "do this homework for me." But I had gone in wanting him to clarify his lecture because I had no idea what was happening.

Each professor's attitude toward me has greatly influenced the method in which I learn for the class. In professor A's case, I email him asking my question. Without fail, I get a helpful (if sometimes vague, which is fine) answer back within the hour. In the same situation with professor B, I rarely ever get an email, so I am forced to go to his office hours, where he tells me he won't help. I got through the last few assignments by going to one of his graduate students and asking them if they had any source material that would help, and I went home and read it.

I think each professor's style can be broken down into one of two categories: Teach Yourself, or Learn by Asking. It's easy for me to pick my preferred method, and I presume my readers can guess it just by the tone of this post so far, but I vastly prefer the latter option. I pay exuberant amounts of money to have interaction and instruction from intelligent individuals who's job it is to instruct me in the complexities of our field. If I wanted to teach myself, I could just go to the library and read the material there for free. It is much easier to learn when the knowledgeable individual answers questions, and leads the student to the correct conclusion. That way, both the student and the professor know the student is on the right track. In the Teach Yourself method, how is the student ever to know if he or she has drawn the wrong conclusion at any of the million steps it takes to learn a subject matter?

While my preference is clear, does either method mean that the professor who employs them is a bad or good teacher? Having the students be actively engaged in their learning does seem to be an effective method. And you do learn quite a bit by teaching, so perhaps having students learn on their own, and then teach others is an effective method. But it begs the question, what do you need a teacher for? And it begins to feel a little like the blind leading the stupid. Perhaps the solution to this problem in the Teach Yourself method is to provide light supervision and direction to make sure the students are learning the correct things on their own. But this is a very difficult thing to do, and most professors aren't very good at it.

I used to think that research professors made terrible teachers, but it seems to be that anyone can be a good teacher as long as they give thought to the learning that their students are doing. Therefore it seems perfectly plausible to have a good research professor, who is also a good teacher (as in the case of professor A). Unfortunately, as in the case of professor B, it is equally plausible to have a professor utilize the Teach Yourself method (while not my favorite, a proven method) to avoid active participation in his student's learning.
-Ty

Clearly, Post-Transition Life Has Been Busy

If only indicated by the fact that I haven't posted in a while, things have been quite busy since I quit my job and started grad school (see previous posts). I also apologize for the scattered nature of this post, I need a little while to get back into the swing of blogging.

I'll try and give a status update for the things that were left hanging in the last few posts, but I don't want to talk too long about my personal life because I suspect most of my readers don't care. And next post will be more fun I promise.

So It's the 3rd week of class. I have had 1 killer assignment and the rest is still sort of picking up. I have yet to pay any bills as a student (because it isn't Feb 1st yet) but I suspect this first round will go pretty smoothly.

Some good news, I got a TA-ship, and through a program called Earn/Learn, am making grad-level stipend! You might ask why this is special since I'm a grad student, but its quite an opportunity because all the regular positions were filled last fall. So I don't get my school paid for, but the ~$300/mo should go a long way toward maintaining my style of living.

The internship fair is this week, and I'm pretty optimistic. The people from Ball Aerospace seemed pretty excited to have me apply as an intern, so with any luck I'll have something to do (and bring in money) this summer.

I suspect the nature of my posts will start to change now that I am a student again. I don't have time to read as much news as I used to, and I predict that my posts will take a turn away from political. But I just wanted to take this opportunity to say how wonderful it is to have an administration that appears to value the founding principles that used to make this country great!

All in all, things are looking up right now.
I think the only downside to school is that I'll have to install Vista on my mac.
-Ty

pic via Southerngent