A message from Optimus Prime

STEFAN IS ON HOLIDAYS FROM SATURDAY

HIS BRAIN IS ALREADY TURNING GREY AND PREPARING TO PASS ON THE MATRIX OF LEADERSHIP

HE APOLOGISES FOR THE LACK OF POSTS, BUT NOT FOR WANTING IT SO BAD HE CAN TASTE IT, OR FOR HAVING THE TOUCH, HAVING THE POWER, YEAH.

HE ALSO APOLOGISES FOR RELENTLESS, IMPENETRABLE REFERENCES TO TRANSFORMERS: THE ANIMATED MOVIE

Notebook skyline

Pictured above is my notebook skyline, which is slowly growing to occupy my entire desk at work.

I had originally constructed a double-thickness notebook tower, with the hope that it would one day reach the ceiling. I imagined myself wedging in that final notebook, yelling "look at all the words I have recorded! Ha ha ha!". This seemed like something that would be impressive for some reason.
Sadly, the tower crashed to the floor one night while I wasn't here, apparently sending the staff that were present into a 'was that the ceiling collapsing?' induced panic.
Cue a day of me picking up scattered notebooks amongst 'did a plane hit it?' gags.
But I could rebuild it! Now it's a gentle skyline, which is slowly evolving from suburbia into metropolis. When it is done I will hang Heroclix figures all over it and it will form an awesome diorama. Shortly thereafter I will likely be sent home on compassionate leave, unable to stop saying 'thwip' and 'snikt'.

FYI: Awesome Diorama is totally the name of my new pop/punk fusion band.

Best movie ever?

This is a blurry picture of the DVD cover of the film "Tunnel Rats",
which Kyle pointed me towards.

The tagline?
"In war ... there is no peace".

That's real.

Blogged from the hip

The view from the city.

Photo by the awesome Grant Neufeld. It is unknown if he wielded the bat.

Tonight most of Australia will turn on their televisions and watch ONE HD, a 24-hour digital sports channel, for the first time.
It's the first of a package of channels that Australia's free-to-air providers are putting together under the brand of Freeview.
They've formed Freeview, a not-for-profit company, to promote digital television and encourage Australians to buy into it. There will be TVs with Freeview stamped on them to make it easy.
Thing is, Broken Hill will not get ONE HD tonight, and is unlikely to receive any of the new channels in the foreseeable future, because it's a commercial venture, and our provider - Southern Cross GTS/BKN - can't afford to provide it.
There's a broad issue here - Australia is a wide and disparate land, and companies and Governments have proved time and again that they just don't know how to cope with it. More importantly, they don't care. Voters, viewers and wallets are concentrated in capital cities, so that's where the money flows.
Of course it's harder to provide for regional areas, but we're here, we always have been, and we can't sit in the too-hard basket forever.
Broken Hill will inevitably have a slow rate of digital television take-up because of this, and that fact could easily be stripped of context and used to justify future lack of infrastructure.
The take-up will be low because there is nothing substantial to watch here that cannot be received via an analogue set.
People will only switch to digital when there's something on it they want to watch. Why spend thousands on a new television for the slim reward of improved clarity? If all the shows are on digital, people will buy digital.
Although it's an obvious point, it's one that has been overlooked by the Freeview group itself. Despite promising 15 new channels, only the aptly-named ONE is ready to go at launch.
Given that the Government originally wanted analogue TV switched off entirely by the end of last year, that's pretty poor. It's unsurprising though, given that Australia's commercial networks have dragged their feet for years, trying to outlaw the internet, TiVo and any other digital bogeymen rather than face the reality that their business model may need to change.Freeview, interestingly, will not allow for the skipping of advertisements, a feature of TiVo and similar systems overseas. Freeview is way for commercial networks to make Australian viewers switch to digital on their terms. Given that, it's perplexing that so little effort has been put into the launch. Although for an audience that has for years suffered through a lack of homegrown programs and years-long waits for shows from overseas, being treated badly is probably nothing new at all.

Five things we put up with

1. When we make a phone call we later pay for it. When we buy pre-paid phone credit, however, we allow the seller to tell us we have to use it within a short period of time. If we do not make the call in time, we have paid for nothing.

2. When our bank account balance drops to -$0.02 for one day, our bank charges us $30. It does not cost the bank $30 to lend us two cents for one day, and this most often happens due to murky direct debit systems we did not personally design.

3. When we see inequities occur in our small corner of the world, we often keep quiet to prevent bad feelings washing onto us. To speak out is to attract negative attention, and eliminate ourselves from being part of the team, or a particular social circle.

4. When we spend $100 on a video game, we spend the first two hours painfully unlocking the weapons, characters, maps, songs or costumes that we wish to use, that we have already paid for.

5. When inequities befall an entire community, we do not mobilise and attempt all we can to reverse it, or present its reoccurrence. This is hardly surprising, given the nest of smaller inequities that exist, but it is saddening.

Terrifying window display

As Broken Hill's annual race meeting shindig approaches, local
businesses are creating window displays to celebrate.

The one pictured above, albeit in blurry fashion, includes white,
featureless faces racing each over using tiny, wiry legs protruding from
their necks.

It is terrifying. I see it every time I close my eyes.

Blogged from the hip.

Next week's headlines.

Hey, Department for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, I mentioned you! Bwa ha ha ha ha!

Now, tell the Senator that censoring the internet is a fool's errand.

Apparently this is a hair product. God help us all.

Blogged from the hip

Dammit, we're all screwed

I was going to write another massive rant about how the Government's desire to impose a mandatory filter on the Internet for every Australian user is going to ruin everyone's lives except paedophiles.

But then I realised that would mean I had two posts in a week that used the word paedophile in them.

Oops, too late.

Anyway, this week the super secret list of banned websites may have been leaked. Even if it wasn't, the Government wants whoever is responsible arrested, because they want to punish people for linking to sites on the list while never telling anybody what is on the list.

This is, of course, crazy developing world craziness.

So instead of a substantial post, I'll just ask you to turn your monitor off for a few minutes to get a feel for how fun the internet will be if this crap happens.

Have a good weekend!

Dollhouse - the first four

So I sat down and watched the first four episodes of Dollhouse.

Dollhouse is the new TV show from Joss Whedon. It is about a covert facility in which 'actives' wander around with erased brains. When they have a mission to go on, their minds are imprinted with the personality and skills tailored to do the job, which may be a bank heist, hostage negotiation or the perfect date. It stars Eliza Dushku as Echo, one of the operatives who appears to approach self-awareness within her supposedly blank state of being.

In the interest of full disclosure I should say I am a huge Whedon fan, counting Buffy, Angel and Firefly amongst my all-time favourite shows. As such, I was incapable on a genetic level of avoiding this show.

But the show has received a lukewarm reaction from bloggers and reviewers. Stories of rewrites abound. Rumours of Whedon's discontent persist. Dushku is on record saying we should hang in there until episode six, where she believes it gets good.
So despite my interest, weeks went by before I finally pressed play.

My initial impression, having sat down and watched all four in a row? I liked it.

It's spotty, and did not immediately grab me as the greatest thing ever, but neither did Firefly or Angel. Buffy did, but I encountered that mid-way through season 2. If I'd started at the start, I would not have been so instantly enamoured.

The main problem with the show is that the central concept brings up questions that are not immediately answered. Why is the Dollhouse necessary? Are these women prostitutes? Is that not icky? Who would use this facility? Is it good or bad?
I think if I had watched these episodes week-to-week these questions would've seriously impacted my enjoyment of the show, and I'll admit to thumbing through a magazine during the first two episodes, but almost all these wrinkles were ironed out by the end of my marathon. The show had enough momentum to keep me engaged until I was in.

And despite that, it's a really fun show. There's some inventive use of the central concept that goes beyond the 'same plot every week' that it initially implies.

I'll certainly keep watching. I would've anyway, of course, so I'm genuinely happy to say I enjoyed the show. I'm particularly interested to see episode six.

Apparently, only paedophiles like Animal Crossing

Are these men fishermen, or horrible criminals? HOW WOULD YOU KNOW? Photo by Mr Beck.

My friend D'Arcy pointed me towards this article today:

Wii Gamers Vulnerable to Crime

Within, one of those crazy interweb protection groups - in Missouri - says that there is 'no reason for an adult to own the game Animal Crossing .... except for paedophiles!!'

DUN DUN DUN!

Now, the obvious gag for me here is to mention that there is a long and celebrated history of Animal Crossing playing in my household, which did not begin until all residents were over 18.

I should also mention that I'm somewhat proud to call my house a paedophile-free zone.

Seriously though, this article points out a serious, recurring problem in the ongoing 'the internet is turning our children's minds into guns that shoot pornography and attract predators' debate.

The group in question has a valid point - video games that allow online chat provide an avenue for unsavoury contact, and parents should be aware of it.

It is in detailing such a thing that the problem arises though, these people have decided to police a culture they know little about.

See, this one time I caught a fish in animal crossing and I gave it to a raccoon and he was all like 'dude I love this fish can I put it in my museum' and I was like 'sure' and he was like 'rad'. Leen has an entire suite of furniture that looks like eggs. Must we now suffer accusatory glances at our point of purchase from people that, assuming there is no adult-style fun to be had within, decide that we must be waving our egg-chairs out into the digital stream, hoping to snag a clueless child?

See, the appeal of Animal Crossing is that it is chilled out, cute as hell and relaxing. You get to hang out, garden and do stuff for people. It's like going about everyday tasks when you're too lazy to do them for real or when you're pissed off that your neighbours aren't awesome cat people.

This may not be your thing, but is it a natural assumption that it is no-one's thing? No.

I sometimes wish that I could host a slumber party where people could come over and watch "Hancock" so they could pass out on a fold-out couch bed from too much Hancock-derived excitement and then I could fold up the couch with them in it and then fire the couch out of a cannon into an oncoming bus and then put the resulting bus-couch-Hancock-fan wreckage into a catapult and fire it into the sun. I do not do this, as part of me recognises that some people enjoyed the film as they are different to me. I will not, in the foreseeable future, spread an online press release claiming that they are paedophiles.

This has echoes of the entire 'censor the internet' debate, which always betrays a lack of understanding on behalf of the campaigners ["the intersnets be pipes and we gonna turn off the porno tap"] . These things do not work, and would never be proposed by someone who actually used the internet.

Also, Animal Crossing is one of the few games I have played in recent times where I have not been expected to shoot something in the face until it is dead.

The whole 'adults would never play this game' argument really breaks down when you consider the games that adults do play. It's hard not to see it as a message that violence is the be all and end all.

"Only creeps play the game where you catch bugs because all the well-adjusted people are shooting pedestrians in the knees or running them over with cars or blowing up aliens or putting chainsaws through skulls or being eaten by zombies.

"Yours, etc, Missouri, thinking of your children because you won't."





I also found FUCK YEAH SHARKS today, and it is the greatest. It may have influenced my writing.

ROBBED

My friend Danny was eliminated from So You Think You Can Dance Australia last night.

He was robbed! 

Really, he was totally awesome, and should be prouder than the Mayor of Proudsville for his efforts.

ROBBED!

Violence

I remember when the film Fight Club released, there was quite a bit of controversy surrounding its depiction of violence. Many seemed to believe that the events depicted on screen - a group of men fighting each other to reinvigorate their masculine selves - glorified violence.

I was perplexed at the time. If there's on thing that movie manages to portray well, it's that being punched by another person hurts like hell.
Unlike, say, every other movie ever, no-one in fight club banters throughout a fight while ignoring their sucking chest wound and the sword through their spleen. Guys just get punched a few times and then fall down. I thought it was shockingly realistic and the opposite of glorification.

I think that's what Watchmen needed. The message of the film - that these people are neither super nor heroes - is muddied by their fighting ability. When Night Owl and Silk Spectre infiltrate the prison they're dynamic and awesome. Slow motion accentuates their abilities and they destroy all comers. I would've liked to have seen them take a few heavy hits along the way at least.

I am increasingly fascinated by the seeming dissonance between Watchmen as a film and the audience's expectations going in. While it's interesting for me, it's somewhat disappointing to think of the people who may have enjoyed it but would have stayed away, expecting tights and capes and kung fu. Of course, there's enough of that in there to fill a trailer, which is probably the root of the issue right there.

Geek truth

Found this great statement from Massayrm on Aint it Cool News:

"As much as we might try to pretend otherwise, we (geeks) are nothing but a group of hyper-consumers who love to over-intellectualize our media and define ourselves with our fandom."

Spot on!

I am digging the endless discussion of Watchmen easily as much as the movie itself. I have spent many a winter night with nothing but a bottle of red wine and a spirited discussion of Wolverine's backstory to keep me warm.

As mentioned in my Twitter feed, I've been mulling over a way to express my belief that the Swan Hatch in LOST is a succinct metaphor for western society's laws. It will go something like this:

Electromagnetic anomaly = the human spirit. Untamed, random, pushed down and ignored.
The button = repeated, empty gesture that is sad in its desperate attempt to impose order on something uncontrollable by such a flawed system.
The rundown nature of the hatch, which is abandoned by Dharma = our system of bureaucracy. Broken and pointless, aged to the point of antiquity, with piles of broken pieces along the side of the road. We keep pushing the button.
Turning the key = the hypothetical leap of faith that may free us from all the pointless pain.

I'm not there yet, but I'm enjoying the process of mulling it over.

See? Me = geek. Over-intellectualisation FTW!

Apologies

It comes to my attention that the participants of some form of business workshop were forced to view this blog last night.

As far as I understand, business owners are seeking insight into the internet. If any of those people visit these digital shores again, I would like to apologise on behalf of whoever gave you the impression that this place is in any way informative or educational.

I would like to further apologise for subjecting to you to the then-current post, a wittily constructed piece about my cat, written as I had no ideas but a small picture of my cat.

If you are going to give the internet a go, however, here's some stuff:

* Update regularly. Alternatively, create something timelessly simplistic.
* Stay away from flashing lights, even if they include the large word 'bargain', which I understand is difficult to ignore.
* Have the words "contact us" appear on your home page. These words should link to a page that includes an email address and phone number. An email form alone is entirely unacceptable.
* Before creating a website from scratch, chat to someone who has used the internet at least one time.
* Visit icanhascheezburger.com, experience the sort of thing the internet is primarily used for, and realise it may be prudent to just give it a miss entirely.

Cat people, dog people.

I love my cat.

This seems to strike some people as strange, especially 'dog people'. I use this term as it would appear that one must be either a 'dog person' or a 'cat person'. This is used to imply which domesticated animal one would rather live with. With the sole exception of late-night horror movies produced for the price of a can of Coca-Cola, it does not imply that you are a human/feline or human/canine hybrid.

It is widely believed that dogs inspire love much more than cats. I can understand this, given a cat's ability to be in a truly horrible mood.

However, it appears to me - in my unashamedly biased fashion - that cat people tend to feel compassion for dogs more readily than if the opposite is true. Dog owners would likely claim this as evidence that dogs are better, their love cracking through even the hardened carapace of a cat person's heart. I contend that instead we, the cat people, are better.

When someone does not like cats, they make no effort to conceal this fact. If someone is in my home and is approached by my cat they will readily scream their distaste, yelling at her to leave or even threatening harm. It is not uncommon for people to joke about murdering cats. I could never imagine making the same comments about dogs.

See, the dog has better PR. It is 'man's best friend'. To insult a person's dog is to insult their ally or child. Much as I have always resisted the urge to punt another person's child over a low fence, have I resisted the urge to ask them to keep their dog's gigantic nose out of my mouth.

But cats? Nope. People are fine insulting cats. And despite the feline's poor PR allowing the image of a 'cat person' to become a desperate, lonely old lady, I freely admit that my cat is a beloved member of my family. So when someone mentions their desire to kill a cat, or much worse my cat, I cannot help but take it in the same context as if someone were to say 'people with glasses are smelly idiots that I enjoy stabbing to death in their tiny, withered brains'.

Of course, this is not a conscious choice, and whether someone prefers dogs or cats is up to them and their own business.

Myself, I cannot help but respect cats. Sometimes my cat Mo Mo will desire attention and sometimes she will wish to murder anyone who attempts to look in her direction. Her moods refuse to take mine into account. She is her own person, and I like that.

Dogs love you no matter what. Due to my lack of self-confidence I thus assume that it must be an act, a lifelong confidence scam to win my trust. One day the dogs will laugh at my expense and hideous features.

Making paper dungeons

Yep. That's how I roll.

Watchmen: A Review

Back in the sixties a few people decided to fight crime dressed in colourful costumes. Everything was going well until a real superman arrived on American soil. In the 1980s that superman has changed the world in significant ways - winning the Vietnam war is a noticeable divergence - but a nuclear arms race still threatens Armageddon. The heroes of yesterday have now been outlawed, and these masked vigilantes are mostly either retired or insane. When one of them is murdered, however, the rest may have to band together to find the culprit, as the countdown to nuclear destruction inches closer towards midnight.

Watchmen is dense and complex - although inevitably shallower than the book from which it is derived - and it is entertaining.
Strangely, I'm comfortable saying that I enjoyed the film, and am keen to view it again, despite not yet having rendered a verdict on whether the movie really works.

As a fan of the graphic novel, there were a few questions I couldn't help taking in to the cinema with me:
If the adaptation keeping with the spirit of the work?
Will changes to the story pull me out of the story?
Does it work as a standalone film?
Is the movie good?
I always envy people who can see something like this with a fresh set of eyes, as they only have to consider the last question, which is clearly the most important.
At present my answers to the above are: somewhat, no, I don't know and yes.

Given my present state of mind, I'm just going to throw out my thoughts and hope they solidify in the future. Apologies for the sloppy structure.

1. The actor playing Rorschach was really, really good. It's a tough character and he excelled. He's the spine of the film and a failure here would've really hurt the movie, but this succeeded in adding to my view of the character as it had been written. Top notch. My one complaint was the occasional shade of grey in his mask, which undercuts its metaphorical meaning.

2. The opening credits, unique to the film, were magnificent. The somewhat static images conveyed a lot of information in an excellent manner, and got a lot of world building out of the way. More importantly, they were gorgeous. Their only problem is that the film never again rivals their excellence.

3. Dr Manhattan worked well on screen, which was an obvious concern given that he's a naked, blue God. I always imagined him as speaking in the booming, authoritative voice of a God, but this was better. His plaintive, almost depressingly disinterested tone really drove the point home. And it is confronting to stare at his flaccid penis throughout the film, but it's about time straight dudes like myself were made to be comfortable about that after decades of explicitly bare women, especially within the same film. Speaking of which ...

4. The sex scene in this is unexpectedly explicit. Myself and the two other guys who watched it all commented that it took us out of the story in a 'whoa, this is crazy' fashion. I may have been reacting to the family behind us that had decided to bring their ten-year-old children along. That was a mistake on their behalf - this is not a children's film.

5. The film maintains the book's narrative, but loses a lot of texture. Most notably absent are the 'man on the street' characters. With their disappearance we lose some insight into their world, and their increasing hopelessness as Armageddon approaches is missed, as is the tension it provides.

6. This film is dense. I cannot objectively say whether a newcomer could find everything on the first viewing. Of course, the comic is the same, but people expecting an easy film may be frustrated. Watchmen will reward repeat viewings. I feel like everything you need is in here somewhere.

7. The film is hard. Of the three of us who saw it, only one of us knew nothing of the story going in. He seemed to expect a superhero film, and was disappointed that it never arrived, and found the story slight. He wanted Rorschach to have super powers and thought Ozymandias would be immortal. He wanted to know who the villains were when there where none. I wonder if the film will overcome this clash of expectations, but doubt this is a failing of the film itself.

8. Silk Spectre failed to make any impression, which was a shame, reducing her to an off-the-shelf hot heroine. She never needed saving though, and was no more flawed than the men, which is nice.

9. The film is gory. There is no holding back from blood and violence, which is good. Strangely, the gore of the ending has been almost entirely removed, taking violence from the place wherein it would have the most impact.

10. The ending has been changed drastically from the book. I understand and the change makes sense, but the execution is a little disappointing. This ending is more clinical and ends up losing a lot of impact. The message is basically the same, but it didn't sit in my stomach the same way. When the creator of the endgame atrocity says "I have made myself feel every death", I noticed that I hadn't like I had in the book.

11. With the few exceptions above, I am fine with the story changes and omissions.

12. You lose a few layers. The commentary on the superhero genre is less obvious when not in their native medium. But the elements that survive add up to saying a lot about Batman and Superman. They're the heroes that have lived longest on screen, so I don't know if it was intentionally magnified or if my brain just picked it out.
If you split Batman in half you get crazed vigilante Rorschach and do-gooder gadget guy Night Owl. If you split Superman you get Dr Manhattan - all-powerful and unable to relate to us - and Ozymandias, who is the pinnacle of achievement that can play us like a cheap fiddle. We are shown how unsettling and terrible these people would be.
With all that you still get the central deconstruction of the superhero form, a story that shows that it cannot work. I like that.

13. It is deeply satisfying to see a film like this made. The superheroes that may attract an audience are window dressing, no character is easy and the message is difficult. It's violent and explicit and there do not appear to be any compromises on that front.

14. Above all, the movie entertained me. I liked it. It was good. I would be deeply interested to hear from someone who has seen the movie without having read the book, as that is a viewpoint I cannot have.

FOR YOUR HOME AND THE MOON!!

Blogged from the hip

Saturday Morning Watchmen

The following video is amazing.

All who disagree are mistaken.

Worst. Headline. Ever.

Blogged from the hip

Watchmen: Going in

I already own a Watchman graphic novel and the Absolute Edition. I probably do not need any more paraphernalia, despite its omnipresence. Photo by Steve Rhodes.

I am terribly eager to see the Watchmen film, despite having no idea whether I will enjoy it or not. Through a strange turn of fate, I will be in a position to watch it tomorrow in Mildura. I generally don't put too much thought into when films are released, as those dates bear little resemblance to when I get to see them here in Broken Hill. I've also drifted away from downloading films, as they either punch a hole in my download limit or provide an experience akin to staring at a rorschach blot.

See what I did there?

Anyway, I thought I'd record my thoughts on the film before seeing it, as these types of things tend to evaporate upon viewing.

Adaptions are always tricky. It's hard to divorce your feelings from the source material. If things are dramatically changed you can have a negative view before the first frame. If they are painstaking recreations then the whole thing can feel unnecessary enough to blunt your interest.

So where does that put my headspace as I prepare to - and I'm totally going to use this gag - watch the Watchmen?

Strangely unaffected.

Watchmen is widely regarded as the greatest comic book of all time. These days, of course, it's the greatest 'graphic novel' of all time, which apparently sounds less embarrassing.

Despite the part of myself that refuses to see movies purely because someone else said they were good, I have to give the title to Watchmen, it's totally the greatest.

I probably only read Watchmen about five years ago. I mentioned recently that I consider it a truly great work of art because I thought about it for about a year after reading. It gave me a lot of material to chew on.

Recently I've been listening to Comic Geek Speak's Watchmen episodes, where they spend about an hour and a half deconstructing each issue. Now, I've read Watchmen three times, picking up new information each time, and I've thought about it a lot. Even so, there's been dozens of things pointed out to me in those episodes that I'd never picked up on. The book is stuffed full of meaning on multiple levels.

So I love Watchmen, blah blah blah.

I was trying to enunciate to a friend last night why, given my love of the source material, I was not concerned about potential film awfulness.

The best I could come up with is this:

When someone adapts a work I love and the adaption is bad, then it makes me angry. I think that anger probably stems from a desire to somehow defend the original work.

For example, when the Legion of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie turned out to be worse than dying in a vomit hurricane, I was angry because I felt the book had been slighted. I was angry on behalf of the book, in the same way I would be angry on behalf of a friend who had been insulted. Additionally, I was angry at the thought that would-be readers would never find the book, turned off by a movie that had rendered their eyeballs inert with its destructive power.

But for some reason I feel Watchmen is big enough that, well, it doesn't need my help. A bad adaption does not hurt a book, but this book is good enough, and a big enough deal, that it will be found regardless.

It's refreshing really. Freed from the book in my brain, I'm quite comfortable to head in with an open mind, my fanboy armor left at the door.

Back soon with thoughts that are actually influenced by having seen the film.

This week brought to you by Playstation 3

The above photo provided by Goulao. It depicts something I've been doing in the mirror every night this week. Hadouken!

I would like to formally apologise for forsaking my blog this week to instead play Street Fighter IV and Resistance II and rewatch two seasons of LOST.

There, I said it. I've been getting my sloth on.

I would also like to say that this PS3 that has been sitting under my television since Christmas is actually pretty awesome when you use the damn thing.

We watched LOST season 4 on Blu-Ray and it was startling. Having previously seen it via .avi video files there was a sharp rise in quality. While the island really comes alive with that much definition, it can be distracting to yell "I can see all of Jack's beard hairs" or notice that some of the actresses are wearing make-up despite being 100 days into island isolation.

My favourite part of this Blu-Ray deal? The 'season play' feature. Stick in the first disk and it plays all the episodes, then prompts you for the next disk. When you put that in it immediately starts the next episode. If you stop in the middle of an episode and remove the disk to say, Tiger Knee Ryu a few times, you can put the disk in and it will remember where you were. Granted, it's one of those features I would never have noticed I was missing, but it is nice nonetheless.

And Street Fighter IV? Great. It's really just Street Fighter II with shinier graphics. Because of that it smells like my childhood and I love it. I initially thought it was a solid rental but I think I would recommend it for purchase if fighters are your bag. It's quick to pick up but there's depth hiding below the surface. Focus moves and the like skew the game a little bit away from the combo-centric approach which came to prominence at exactly the same time I lost interest.

I've been having a lot of fun with Sagat, as his Tiger Knee move can hit people approaching you from ground or air, knocks them back a long way, and sounds ridiculous. I mean, the dude screams "tiger knee!" as he flies through the air. I've felt fear in regards to tigers, but not centered on the leg joints. Also he only has one eye, and we dudes with poor depth perception have to stick together.

Resistance II was a lot of fun if not a little nondescript. It's a first person shooter and that's about it. The one unique feature is that you can play in online skirmishes that include 60 players, and that's a lot of fun. Two teams of 30 compete to capture and hold objectives as they are dynamically spawned by the game. Fun.

I don't have a headset for the PS3 and I doubt I'll get one as it's nice playing with people you don't have to listen to.

And LOST this week was insane and great. I was wondering aloud today why my interest in Battlestar Gallactica had suddenly faded so close to the finish line. I suspect it hasn't really, but that LOST has so occupied my imagination to such an extent that there is no room left other for other stories.

Lockdown

The above photo - excellent and evocative as it is - courtesy of ph0t0

Status of media digestion: Better than ever before, now that I can stream video files of any stripe to the box under my TV. Marvelous. Not-to-distant-future marvelous.

Status of LOST Season 4: Legally downloaded via the iTunes online music store. Infested with DRM.

Status of DRM: The innocuous acronym of Digital Rights Management, DRM is code embedded into media files to control the way they can be used. It was rightfully called "copyright protection" before an industry-employed PR representative apparently got a hold of it.

Status of migraine: Unlike every other video file in my house, the DRM-encrusted insult that is LOST Season 4 can only be watched on my computer. If I try to stream it to the PS3 I legally bought using software that was free so I can watch it on the TV I bought with real non-chocolate money, it does not work. This is frustrating.

Status of the moral of this story: Do not buy anything involving DRM at any time. It is designed to protect the interests of everyone but the customer, and cannot protect against every possible way in which a file can be stolen or used unethically without making it in some way incompatible with the customer's needs. That is to say, if you buy something with DRM, you are not getting what you pay for, such as watching a video on the things in your house. Avoid.

Status of the 'status of' device used to lend post an air of officialness despite becoming increasingly unsuitable as said post progressed: Ill-conceived.

This is Sparta!

This post? This one right here?

This is post number 301.

Despite the fact that I missed the 300 milestone, I'm allowing myself to bask in some pride.
Thank you to everyone who has read this thing, I honestly appreciate it.
Especially you!

In other news that is interesting to me and also me, this is my first post created on an iphone. In a somehat related note, these few words have taken roughly 45 minutes to write. That's more a thumb issue than a phone issue though, and I can honestly that this thingbos great, representing one of those immediate and startling leaps on technology that you read about but never seem to experience. If only I could convince Leen to swap this marvelous phone for my suddenly unimpressove one.

So yes, thanks for reading.

And I'm still waiting for my hoverboard. Lousy future.