Merry Xboxmas (War Is Over)
Posted on | January 4, 2008 at 11:22 pm | 5 Comments
Comes the news today that Warner Bros, which has been distributing their HiDef movies in both Blu-ray and HD DVD formats, is dropping HD DVD and focusing on Blu-ray exclusively. This was apparently a surprise to some, but not to others. This decision has spawned all sorts of pronouncements of doom for the HD DVD format, like this one. I guess I’m glad that I didn’t go out and buy an HD DVD player when they were momentarily very cheap before Christmas. And I’m still committed to buying a PlayStation 3 partly because of the Blu-ray player, although the accident has put the kibosh on any spending plans for now. But it looks like I was going to make the right decision. Another factor in my decision is that I recently discovered the PS3 (the 80GB version, at least) will play SACD discs, and I have a lot of those. Too bad it won’t do DVD-Audio too, but at least most DVD-Audio discs also have their surround mixes in Dolby Digital 5.1, playable on regular DVD players, and surround is really more important to me than the Advanced Resolution aspect. So I could do away with my SACD/DVD-Audio player, which I may not have room for after the PS3 comes along. But I digress.
I still think the whole HiDef DVD thing is pretty pointless, even if I ultimately buy into the technology. HiDef DVDs will not have as long a product life as even DVDs. Something else will come along soon which is better – probably digital downloads. Netflix is already starting up a new movie delivery system that uses a set-top box and the Internet. Once discs are obsolete for rentals, how long until they are obsolete for purchase? I suppose some diehard collectors will still want their hard media, but will that be a big enough market to profit from? And couldn’t those collectors just make their physical media from the downloads? Or be happy with their collections stored on their home computer?
Technology changes too fast these days. I miss my 8-track tapes and rotary phone.
Jogged Today: No.
Today’s Weight: 163.2 lbs
Lunch Yesterday: Homemade ham sandwich.
Pet Peeve of the Day: Season finales in January. C’mon producers, settle that strike!
Latre.
A Tall Order
Posted on | January 3, 2008 at 7:05 pm | 6 Comments
My New Year’s resolutions:
- Sell my comic book collection.
- Eat less and exercise more.
- Keep in better touch with friends.
- House repairs and remodels, including replacing some appliances and finishing the basement.
- Rip all my CDs to the computer.
- Read more books and play more video games.
- Learn a new skill or technology at work.
- Take a trip to a beach with the gf.
- Avoid driving into things.
Actually, I’ll be happy/lucky if I accomplish any two of those…
Jogged Today: Nope.
Today’s Weight: 163.4 lbs
Lunch Yesterday: Reuben sandwich at Govnr’s Park.
Pet Peeve of the Day: My rental car, for the next three weeks at least, is a white Chevy Cobalt. After tooling around in a Prius, and in an Acura RSX before that, this is a like a toy car. It seems very plastic-y and wimpy and fragile. I don’t understand why people can call a Prius a “mangina” when there’s things like this on the road. And of course there’s none of the amenities, like power locks or windows. There is a CD player, but no iPod dock or satellite radio. But what can I expect to get when the insurance company is paying $16/day? Guess I’ll just have to live it with. I’m frightened about driving it on the snow and ice.
Latre.
Fading Spaces
Posted on | January 2, 2008 at 11:07 pm | 1 Comment
As I talked about in this post, I recently replaced my older Denon receiver with a new Onkyo TX-SR605 one in my home theater. I also finally moved the A/V components to the stand underneath the television set. No more Tower O’ Components next to the television, which frees up even more space in the living room. So here’s a pic of the new setup:
(Compare it to the picture in this entry, and also here.) I think it’s going to work out pretty well. The components fit nicely in the space under the television. However, I didn’t really have room for the Xbox, so it’s sitting on the floor off to the right side where you can’t see it real well in this picture. But it was sitting on the floor, under the tower, in the old setup as well. I also need to do something about the rat’s nest of visible cables, but that’s a project for another day.
I’m still really liking the Onkyo receiver. It sounds good and the automated speaker calibration (using Audyssey) really makes the initial setup easy. And I like how the volume goes from 0 to 99 (or whatever) instead of -50 to 50 (or whatever) like the Denon did. Using negative numbers for volume gets confusing.
Jogged Today: Still haven’t started running again. The streets and sidewalks are still icy in spots. Hopefully soon, since we’re actually getting some higher temps and melting lately.
Today’s Weight: 164 lbs
Lunch Yesterday: None.
Pet Peeve of the Day: My own internal overreaction/panic, thinking that my refrigerator had stopped working. Thankfully it was okay, but I sure got all nerved up. That’s all I need right now is for something else to break.
Sorry, that’s all I’ve got for today. It’s late and I’m tired.
Latre.
Blatant Hucksterism In My Edible Prophesy Containers
Posted on | January 1, 2008 at 3:20 pm | 2 Comments
Happy New Year!
And what do we do with a new year? We make prophecies about it. So let’s go to the Fortune Cookie, shall we? Here’s the one I got yesterday from Pad Thai:
Let’s take this one line at a time:
Cooking is easy.
Debatable. I went through my cooking phase, and yes, sometimes it was easy. But a lot of times it was hard. The worst part is chopping up all those vegetables.
Tasting good is hard.
No, I would say tasting good is easy, especially if it’s bear or a cougar tasting me. Tasting well is hard.
That’s why you call take out.
So, basically, this is saying that even though cooking is easy, it’s hard to cook something that tastes good, and so you should call take out? Hmmm, seems to me like someone is trying to push their delivery service. They might as well just include a coupon in the cookie.
And what does this say about the new year? Absolutely nothing, except maybe that embedded advertising will be getting even more out of hand in 2008. I’m crushed.
Jogged Today: Nope.
Today’s Weight: 163.8 lbs
Lunch Yesterday: Garlic Pepper Chicken at Pad Thai.
Pet Peeve of the Day: eMusic was temporarily offline yesterday, and my monthly downloads expire tomorrow. Luckily I was able get in today and do my downloads. I wonder if they’ll extend the deadline for those who expired yesterday? Probably not.
Latre.
Zeus, Redefined
Posted on | December 31, 2007 at 4:00 pm | 8 Comments
I’ve closed off the God Poll. I figure everyone who was going to vote has done so by now. The results were spread out pretty evenly. Out of a total of 18 responses, they fell like this:
Which answer below most closely matches your beliefs about the existence of a supreme intelligence?
- (4 votes, 22%) I believe in a personal God, one who in addition to having created the universe, takes an interest in individuals, hears and answers prayers, is concerned with sins and transgressions, and passes judgement.
- (4 votes, 22%) I believe in a God who created the universe, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe, one who does not intervene in human affairs.
- (5 votes, 28%)I do not believe in a God per se, except as a metaphoric name for the forces and laws that bind the universe together.
- (5 votes, 28%)I do not believe in any kind of God.
What prompted all this? I’ve been reading The God Delusion (now in paperback) by biologist Richard Dawkins (famously satirized in this hilarious anti-atheist tenth season two-part South Park episode). The categories I included (theist, deist, agnostic?, atheist) basically come from the book, although Dawkins uses a 7-milestone scale at one point. I’m not quite done with it yet, but the book is very interesting. It’s preaching to the choir and Dawkins’ tone does come off a bit too heavy-handed at times, which may scare off potential converts (but is at least honest). A lot of thought and research went into the book and it does have some humor. I like how it tackles everything from a scientific viewpoint (and explains why that’s a perfectly valid thing to do, despite the objections of the religious). I’m even learning some things about biology and evolution that I didn’t know. I’m really enjoying it.
It surprised me that so many people voted for #3. To quote 2fs, in the comments to that post:
I’d sorta argue the last two are synonymous… in that when people say “God” they usually don’t mean a metaphor. To turn that around: if you say “I believe in God – but all I mean by that is that there are forces and laws that bind the universe together,” well, who doesn’t believe in those? Any non-believers in gravity out there? I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn for you to jump off of… I guess my real point is: start defining “God” like that, and you’re no longer really talking about any sort of God that fits a reasonable definition: you’re just holding on to the notion of God without any obligations attendant thereto. It’s a bit chickenshit, in other words: such a person is afraid to let go of the concept, even though it’s nothing but an empty shell at that point.
He summed up my feelings on that matter very well; this view matches Dawkins’ opinion as well. I consider #3 and #4 to be the same thing, but left #3 in there anyway to see how many people couldn’t totally let go. (Of course, some of the people who voted for #3 might have been closer to #2 than to #4, but I doubt it.) I’d be really interested to hear in the comments from people who voted for #3 and why they didn’t vote for #4 instead. Actually, I’m interested in hearing from anyone who voted and why they voted the way they did, but I’ll understand if you don’t want to go into it in a public forum.
But at any rate, it’s clear the non-believers comprise a greater core of my readership (i.e. friends) than the believers, and that didn’t really surprise me. I know who one or two of the believers are, but I’m not sure I know who the rest of the believers are. Not that it really matters, but I’m curious. I voted for #4, which I’m sure surprised no one. If it turns out there is a God after all, I’m counting on him/her/it as having a sense of humor (but hopefully not irony). As DJ Smallberries used to say “I can always recant on my deathbed, just to be safe”.
Jogged Today: No.
Today’s Weight: 163.4 lbs
Lunch Yesterday: None
Pet Peeve of the Day: Not being able to buy a PlayStation 3 because I have to spend the money on the insurance deductible. Wahhh!
Latre.
Never Did Give Nothin’
Posted on | December 30, 2007 at 9:39 pm | 1 Comment
During my vacation, I finally got around to watching the SciFi Channel original miniseries Tin Man. The series is billed as a “bold reimagining” of the Wizard of Oz and the credits say it is based on The Wonderful Wizard of Oz book by L. Frank Baum. I think I was hoping for some sort of deconstruction, but it was more of an original story that happened to use some of the same elements from the source material. Although, confusingly and unnecessarily, there’s a single scene in the final part which strongly hints that the events of the original movie/book happened and that this story is some sort of sequel. It’s also unclear why it’s called Tin Man, since the titular character is not really the main character or the focus of the story.
The heroine “DG” is played by wide-eyed movie actress Zooey Deschanel (or maybe by Pushing Daises actress Anna Friel; I can never tell them apart). Alan Cumming is the half-brained Glitch, Neal McDonough is the Tin Man, and Raoul Trujillo is the furry Raw. Richard Dreyfuss, cementing his downward career slide, is the Mystic Man, who is the Wizard substitute. There’s even a Toto, of sorts, who’s a shape-changer. Kathleen Robertson plays the villainous sorceress Azkadellia; much critical attention has been focused on her heaving bosom (which is substantial) and the flying monkey-bats that emerge from it.
My biggest beef with the series, besides it being somewhat dull, predictable and cliché-ridden, is that it never really decided just what it wanted to be. Was it a reinterpretation or a sequel? Was it science fiction or fantasy? It takes place in a land called “The Outer Zone”, which everyone kept referring to as “The O.Z.”, and that made me think I was watching the CW. It’s filled with weird machines that call to mind the steampunk subgenre of SF, and parts of the O.Z. look not too different from our world. And yet there’s also magical elements that bring forth every fantasy cliché imaginable. The thrust of the story is the search for the Emerald of the Eclipse, which Azkadellia needs in order to bring darkness to the land for all eternity or something. Why this would be a desirable thing is never fully explained. It’s all pretty rote and there are few surprises along the way. By the time “the Seeker” shows up and kidnaps DG, she’s the last one to realize that he’s her father, which the audience had guessed a few commercial breaks ago. And when DG finally confronts the evil Azkadellia (whom it turns out is her sister) during the attempted execution of her evil plan, you know exactly what she’s going to do to defeat her. There’s little suspense.
I think they should’ve left the fantasy elements out of it altogether and just tried to do a straight science fiction intrepretation. And though there was some good light-hearted acting here and there (especially with Cumming and Deschanel), the whole affair was rather humorless and plodding. And very padded-out.
So why did I sit through all six hours of it? Because the main male villain was the awesome Callum Keith Rennie, who has appeared in almost every genre show ever (usually as a villain), and whom I always recognize as “that guy”. He’s exactly one week younger than me. The dude needs his own fan club.
Now I’m just waiting for the SciFi Channel version of The Sound Of Music.
Jogged Today: Not yet!
Today’s Weight: 164.8 lbs
Lunch Yesterday: None
Pet Peeve of the Day: The lack of credits and other packaging materials with downloaded digital albums.
Latre.
« newer entries — older entries »