Consulting

I think I’ve decided that my job can effectively be summed up as the following:

“Here - here’s some stuff we’ve barely explained to you. Go figure out how to do it perfectly.”

I’m hoping some day I actually know what’s going on around here. Until then, I guess I’m glad people are so forgiving about my being perpetually clueless.

Dr. Horrible

For god’s sake, go watch it now.

http://drhorrible.com/

It’s only up until Sunday at midnight, so HURRY!

UPDATE:

Too late. It’s gone. Buy the DVD…

Musings on Work

How funny would it be to see someone on a Segway get mugged?

… For the person watching, obviously. Not the person getting mugged.

And what is with the prevalence of “reach out to” as a substitute for “contact” or “call” or “e-mail”?

Tech Petting Zoo

So I’ve gotten a lot of questions regarding the tech petting zoo. I’m not sure how much of this is proprietary info, so I’ll try to avoid going into too much detail…

Basically, there’s a center at my firm’s HQ which is solely dedicated to state-of-the art as an art form. They update it quarterly so that the absolute latest gadgets and new technologies are there for employees to try out. For instance, they have one of the new iPods. They have one of those tables Microsoft showed off last year with a fully-touch interface. They also have other, less notorious technologies like adaptive multidirectional/monodirectional sensors.

Basically, it’s a whole room of awesome.

Incidentally, I got my first assignment today. I can’t really talk about orientation, etc… But I’m liking this firm. A lot. Here’s hoping I still like it when I actually get work to do.

Quick thought… Babylon 5 poses a powerful quandry to its audience. On the one hand, there are the Vorlons - bastions of order, embodied by the question, “Who are you?”; and the Shadows - sowers of chaos, who wish only to know, “What do you want?”

To the Vorlons, who one is cannot be answered by titles and affiliations, but only by truly understanding one’s place in the universe. That’s right, the only acceptable answer is, “I am a cog in the machine, a p

Boy - they wouldn’t be happy with the Japanese. Last I checked, it’s standard practice in Japanese culture to define oneself by organizations and affiliations rather than personal characteristics… Some champions of order the Vorlons turn out to be…

Real Life

Work has begun. Real Life has set in. My thoughts for the day:

I now possess:

• 1 Messenger Bag
• 2 Standard Backpacks
• 1 Targus Backpack
• 1 Targus Laptop Bag
• 1 Leather Business Shoulder-Bag
• 1 (Firm-Issued) Thinkpad Business Shoulder-Bag

I’m beginning to understand how Alli accumulates so many bags… Though she definitely does it intentionally.

Also, for all you Hoyas out there: I apparently ride an Abe’s Transportation Bus to and from work

Also - we have a Tech Petting Zoo - how awesome is that?

Hellboy II and Other

I saw Hellboy II a little later than I usually do. Dylan and I discovered that the Metro shuts down at midnight on weekdays in DC - didn’t cause problems when I lived in Georgetown, but it certainly hampers any sort of mid-week nightlife if I’m anywhere that doesn’t have a movie theatre within walking distance!

So we went Friday. Barely made the showing, in fact, which resulted in our being stuck up at the very front. My neck is still sore. Was it worth it? Hell yeah.

This is not the same Hellboy as the first. Gone is the focus on super-secret supernatural badassery (mostly because Hellboy reveals himself to the press early on); but with that facade gone, the door is opened to a whole new identity crisis for our hero. He finds himself hated and feared by humans, rather than revered. Gee - raise your hand if you didn’t see THAT coming! Enter the bad guy: Prince Nuada, last scion of the “elves” (modeled after the Tuatha de Danann of Gaelic fame). He’s passionate, but ultimately not all that menacing on screen, prefering instead to dispatch nastier beasties to do his bidding. He DOES, however, prove to be quite a schemer - putting Hellboy, for instance, in the position of killing the last Forest Elemental, a being of great beauty and grace, just to torture Hellboy’s conscience a little.

The weakness of the main villain, however, lets the movie focus on the development of our heroes. We’ve lost Meyers, but gained Johann Krauss - a medium composed entirely of ectoplasm. Cool beans, right? Despite the vast potential for screw-ups, Del Toro actually manages to make the character believable; and even with his shorter screen time, we see the character evolve to become part of the team in a thoroughly satisfying way.

In fact, the whole movie is thoroughly satisfying. There is one scene in particular - around half-way through the movie - where Hellboy and Abe drink, and muse on life and love. It’s moving in its natural power, choreographed like a well-written symphony, all to the unlikely tune of “Can’t Smile Without You” (sung by Barry Manilow). It’s quite possibly one of my favorite scenes of all time.

For all that, however, the movie fails to truly wow. It meanders from plot point to plot point with very little tangible conflict; just one witty quip and fantastic monster after another. It’s a pleasure to watch, but hardly world-shaking. I recommend it to any fan of folk tales, lore, and the supernatural; as well as to anyone who just likes to watch a fun action flick; but don’t go in expecting anything profound. The first movie was probably better for that.

On the blog… For those of you who don’t know, tomorrow is my last day of freedom before I’m plunged into the “real world”. I’m sure it’ll go by quickly and without celebration: after all, I have to be in bed by 9 PM if I hope to get to orientation on time and still get a decent night’s sleep. That sucks, but I guess sacrifices must be made…

I expect the first week or so will be busy, and that this blog will suffer. I’ll write when I can, though - you know, for those of you who read it…

The cultural case for moral relativism, a.k.a Sci-Fi geek-fest time

Earlier I posted my argument in defense of moral relativism. At the time, I was lacking in a strong example to illustrate my point. Tonight, I found one.

For those of you who don’t watch Babylon 5, I suggest you go check out this website and this website for background on the episode “Believers”.

The episode is essentially presenting a Cold Equations scenario. Cold Equations was an episode of the Twilight Zone which was described by J. Michael Straczynski in one of the links above as follows:

There is a wonderful short story, which we adapted for Twilight Zone, called “The Cold Equations,” where a small shuttle is going from point A to point B. There is enough fuel for the shuttle, and one pilot, and no more. The ship is bringing medicine to save 500 colonists. A young girl has stowed away on the ship to see her brother. She’s discovered. If the pilot does nothing, the ship won’t arrive, and he and the girl will die, and the colonists will die. If he sacrifices himself, she won’t be able/won’t know how to guide the ship to its destination. The only way out is to ask her to enter the airlock so he can space her and continue the mission. And that’s what happens. You can’t argue with math.

The episode, similarly, handles the theme of impossible choices. In the episode, a young alien boy is brought to MedLab with a serious condition curable by a relatively simple operation. He belongs, however, to a religion that believes that any puncture of the chest cavity will result in the loss of the soul. Dr. Steven Franklin, a moral objectivist in the grand tradition of many fictional doctors, is firm in his belief that life is a higher concern than any other, and petitions Commander Sinclair to issue an order to operate against the parents’ wishes. After some pretty serious soul-searching, Sinclair decides that he cannot allow Franklin to violate the parents’ wishes. “Who are we,” he asks, “to decide whose beliefs are right?”

Franklin disobeys Sinclair’s order and saves the boy’s life, only to arrive moments to late to stop the boy’s parents from killing the boy, who they now see as a soulless abomination. Ironically, the Wikipedia article has its analysis all wrong - Straczynski discusses the episode’s meaning in the second link above, and has very different things to say. According to him, the point of the episode is much the same as “Cold Equations” - sometimes there is no right or wrong. Sometimes right or wrong is defined by your point of view, and the only “correct” decision is to allow others to govern their own fate as they see fit, whether or not it conflicts with your beliefs.

Franklin shines in this episode as a character that the viewers cannot help but sympathize with: after all, we all want desperately to believe that saving the boy’s life is the right decision. The sheer horror Franklin experiences when he learns of the boy’s ultimate fate is gut-wrenching to watch and mirrors the reaction any of us would have in a similar circumstance. Even worse, however, is his realization that his actions have forced the boy’s parents to commit an act far more abhorrent to his belief system than if he had allowing the boy to die.

For all our differing cultures, languages, and backgrounds, all humans do share some things in common; what will it be like when we’re faced with beings whose code of beliefs is so alien to us that we can no longer see the echo of our own values in their decisions? Will we have the courage to let them decide their own fate, or will we, like Franklin, be forced to learn the hard way that the indiscriminate application of our values has consequences we cannot possibly foresee?

Hancock

After walking out of Hancock, I had a fierce desire to say… Something… About it. To be honest, though, my feelings are mixed.

I saw Hancock on the 2nd - arguably a day before it came out - and as I left, the crowd was clapping. They liked it that much.

I’ll say this for Hancock - it’s going to make someone a lot of money. Regardless of the art of the film, it’s a movie that is easy to enjoy. Will Smith gives a powerful performance as a hero who’s not so much an archetypal anti-hero as a man in need of a hug. Hancock’s transformation from a rude, alcoholic, anti-social “asshole” (uh-oh!) to a suave, considerate protector is believable and even enjoyable to watch.

Sadly, that is NOT what this movie is about. The director (or the writers?)’s attempt to cover not only his protagonists’ growth as a hero, but also his elaborate backstory and the accompanying angst and conflicting love interests that ensue feel like a little too much for one movie. Ultimately, it’s a movie that isn’t sure if it’s serious or comic. My understanding is that the original intent was for Hancock to be a dark comedy - this seems to have been largely misplaced over the unusually-long period of time this movie spent in limbo before being made. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the powerful performances given by Charlize Theron and Jason Bateman. Theron’s raw emotion and power make her role (which I won’t spoil for y’all!) believable and tragic. Bateman serves as the perfect ever-optimistic comic counterpoint to Hancock’s cynicism and begrudging sense of duty. Neither, however, really invades the others’ role, giving the rather odd impression of Hancock being involved in two movies at once, each telling a slightly different story.

I’m not sure if this effect is the fault of changing directions over intervening years, or simply of a director’s failure to properly balance two dominant plot threads, but it detracts from the film’s believability (and probably critical acceptance). Apart from that one gripe, though, the movie is a pleasure to watch and does a great job of peaking the viewer’s interest in Hancock’s origin and purpose. Definitely recommended.