Thank You For Smoking

Just saw Thank You For Smoking in a packed theatre at the University 6 (which is no longer showing Sir! No Sir! (reviews). Nooooo, I missed it). Awesome movie. I usually skip on what actually happens in a movie when I write a review, because I find spoilers of any kind to be anathema (unless I hate it, because then, I don't care), but I'll try to run through the basics. It's about a guy who defends the smoking industry. Yep, that's about it. The basics. That should suffice. Go see it to find out more.

The movie itself tackles a relatively serious subject, while remaining light enough to keep the comedy upbeat. The reviewer at the Washington Post thought the movie needed more satire, but I thought it was at just the right level. Too much, and I think the movie would have lost its happy sunshine mood, which is so well balanced with the "death and destruction" topic.

Anyway, I felt it was far more successful than other satirical works from before, say, Office Space. I know there's a number of fans here of that movie, but I personally hated it. Being a prior fan of good Dilbert, OS felt like the watered down hillbilly version. So, maybe that's how the reviewer at the WP feels, having read the TYFS novel, which I haven't.

Other than the writing, Smoking in general was well-crafted. The acting was good, the cinematography was good, blah blah blah. I'll just end it with a quote from Ebert:

"Here is a satire both savage and elegant, a dagger instead of a shotgun. Thank You for Smoking targets the pro-smoking lobby with a dark appreciation of human nature."

Level 12 Boss: Amoeba Simulator

Since I haven't lately been able to find much to write about , I think I'll just do little bits of articles related to gaming and other geek stuff for now. I'll try to find links to games and stuff so you guys can be as unproductive at work as you want. Let's set up some kind of schedule. Say, three times a week. How's that sound? Is that OK? Three times a week? Monday ... Wednesday ... Sunday?

Something Awful recently did a post on some independent freeware games. In particular, I found Flow to be delightfully addicting. The basic premise is that you're a microscopic organism and you eat your way to the top of the food chain. Now before you say anything, its a lot like how Will Wright's Spore starts out, but its just not as grand in scale. All in all, the game plays like Pac Man on steroids. You swim around and eat things while other bigger things try to eat you. You can try to eat the big things, but its best not to try until you've at least gotten a little bigger. After you get to the last "level" (eating little red and blue creatures move you up or down in the levels of ... "liquid") and beat the last "boss" type creature, you start over as another creature with different attributes. I think you repeat that a few times (I'm not too sure since I had to stop playing because I was at work). Its amazingly addictive and refreshingly fun.

Why can't there be more games like this?

SKS

Ron's Great Idea

Ron wanted me to put this Blogger Hack to list the most recent comments. In theory, it's a good idea. But alas, it's ugly. There's nothing I can do about how long the list is. It just lists all the comments for all the posts that appear on the front page. Plus, it doesn't even list them in order by time, but by post. Please respond with your comments and/or grievances.

Edit: After a headache and reading the complaints, I took it down.

Select Method for Download: UPS Ground (3-5 Days)

Bands Cheap Trick and the Allman Brothers are suing Sony Music over a dispute about royalties from internet song downloads from services such as iTunes.

Apparently, Sony was deducting 20% from the artists' royalties for packaging and 15% for breakage- fees that exist for CD sales. Reading more into the article and on /. posts, this 15% fee for breakage is from the old days of shellac records, where a large number of the records would arrive broken after shipment. So apparently it's a long history of screwing over the artist.

In fact with all these fees, the article states that Cheap Trick gets 4.5 cents from every 99-cent iTunes sale.

I have to say that this kind of bullshit is one of the reasons why *cough* some people *cough* feel little guilt downloading music. If one were to download a Cheap Trick album right now, they'd be screwing Cheap Trick out of 45 cents. Sony (and Apple I suppose) are losing $9.50. If they download the album, realize they like the band and then go to a show, the artist probably nets more money in the end than from purchasing the cd on iTunes and not going to a show because you don't like it. Doing things this way also has the nice benefit of ensuring that crappy music doesn't get so much business. Then again, Ticketmaster is just as bastardly as Sony. Either way you go, the artists are getting screwed.

Plagiarism

Alright, I thought the Harvard thread was big enough to warrant its own post. If you can't tell, I don't tolerate plagiarism of any sort. I guess you can say, I was influenced by UCI's policy on plagiarism. Plagiarism, according to UCI Academic Senate Policies on Academic Honesty:

Plagiarism is intellectual theft. It means use of the intellectual creations of another without proper attribution. Plagiarism may take two main forms, which are clearly related:

1. To steal or pass off as one's own the ideas or words, images, or other creative works of another.
2. To use a creative production without crediting the source, even if only minimal information is available to identify it for citation.

Credit must be given for every direct quotation, for paraphrasing or summarizing a work (in whole, or in part, in one's own words), and for information which is not common knowledge.

It's a stringent policy that leaves no room for any amount of plagiarism, even if it's one sentence.

Kaavya Viswanathan clearly plagiarized a few passages within an entire book and I find that reprehensible. However, some people took offense that Kumar called Miss Viswanathan a fucking idiot and questioned her Harvard acceptance because of a few mere counts of plagiarism. Now I don't know what Kumar was thinking, but I definitely know where he's coming from. Plagiarism is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, taboos in academia. And it takes a lot of guts and idiocy to plagiarize a few mundane passages and hide it in your book because you can't take 10 minutes to think up your own mundane passages.

Now I'm definitely sure that Kumar was using hyperbole when he questioned Miss Viswanathan's intelligence. I don't doubt she's a bright woman with a successful future ahead of her. Yes, she wrote most of that book from her own head and that's quite an achievement. But again, with all that talent and Harvard education, she still took the time to copy a few boring passages almost word for word. As Ron said, "she's a smart person that fucked up big time."

Sure, it was only a few passages and I can see why some people will forgive her. Some people don't take plagiarism as seriously as others do. For a lot of people, it depends on the extent and to what degree. She didn't take it straight word for word, nor did she steal the plot of the book. So it's not that bad, they would argue. But from what I was taught during my undergraduate years at UCI, any degree or extent of plagiarism is not tolerated. I still believe that and it's something I will instill in my students in the future.

I think it also stems from the fact that I don't like cheaters. I worked damn hard on my papers and projects. I used a lot of other people's ideas as basis for my own ideas and arguments, but I cited all of that to other authors. I respect other people's work. I respect it enough to footnote every idea not my own. And it would piss me off if I knew some classmate didn't do his/her own work and passed in a paper that was plagiarized--even if it was only a few sentences. Nor would I like it if people stole my work and not credit me.

As for the idea of influence in art, I understand that completely. I'm a musician myself and I love studying 20th century classical and the progression of influence from one composer to another. However, influence and plagiarism are different. On some occasions, there is a undefined line between the two. But like the Supreme Court's definition of pornography, I know it when I see it. Or in the case of music, I know plagiarism when I hear it. Of course, if the composer or writer of the piece got permission and/or cited the work as not his/her own, it's not plagiarism.

However, in other realms of art, using other works is quite acceptable and even encouraged. It seems that people in that artform generally accept the practice. I don't know much about Tony's example of electronic music, but I do know it's a common practice in jazz. That is, there's a catalog of songs and themes that everybody knows and uses as groundwork for solos and variations. Still, there is an extent where copyrights are in effect and most of today's jazz composers still take intellectual theft seriously.

Also, artists and composers don't have to copyright their work. Some choose to make their work public domain (or "open source," if you will). If that's the case, then good for them. It's their work and they can do whatever they want with it. But I don't think the original author in the Harvard case authorized her work to be taken at free will.

Bottomline is plagiarism is intellectual theft. It's difficult to comprehend or define intellectual property sometimes. But copying words and sentence structure isn't too abstract. Yes, Miss Viswanathan didn't copy a lot compared to the rest of her book, but she could have saved herself from a lot of trouble if she only put in 10 extra minutes of work.

Poor 'Roo

Lol this is so sad.

*Edit*
Might as well cram in more pointless stuff while it's still on top.

http://happy-fun-time.youaremighty.com

I was gonna do each one of us a few days ago, but I figured most people have already seen it...and I got lazy. There's a ton of us, and I don't know everyone's real name. Plus it wouldn't allow more complex stuff like "Parthepan.and.the.LTTE.youaremighty.com."

Help This Guy Out

LINK

So How'd You Get Into Harvard?

Because clearly, you're a fucking idiot.

AHAHAHA

What's the Gun Filled With?

Super Soaker Oozinator - Online Product Video

Got this from Collegehumor.com. Hilariously sick.

Gizoogle

Today I discovered a wondrous new tool entitled Gizoogle.

As an O.G., I find this a priceless translation utility. Also good for extended laughs.


Here's how HFT appears in gizoogle


peace.

Anaheim's Great Idea

The Blotter - Blog Archive -Making Anaheim Even More Glamorous

Anaheim wants to install a "Walk of Stars." Like Hollywood's Walk of Fame, it'll pay tribute to local celebrities and personalities. I don't have a problem with this, but I do have a problem with Anaheim's LA vs. OC hypocrisy. The city literally spent millions....millions...of dollars fighting the Angels baseball team change to the Los Angeles prefix. Many Orange County citizens felt passionate about the Angels' name change, citing county pride and hate for their northern neighbors. But now, Anaheim wants to sell the "Orange County identity" by copying Hollywood's idea? They couldn't think of their own idea--one that is uniquely Orange County?

I guess that's how it goes. Leaders of Orange County can never seem to find an original idea. Lately, they've been trying really hard to take advantage of the OC craze (thanks, FOX and MTV). During the New Year's concert at the Orange County Fairgrounds, they dropped an orange-shaped ball for the countdown. New York called: they want their idea back. Even the Angels weren't an Orange County idea--they started in LA (hence, the name Angels). Now the Mighty Ducks...the professional hockey team named after a kids' movie. There's something we can hoist above our heads with pride.

I could complain some more, but I actually do have a good idea. It's not an original idea, but a good one: an Orange County music festival. The indie music scene in Orange County is genuine and constantly ignored by local leaders (probably because rock bands stir up the youthful, rebellious blood too much). Some of the best known bands of my generation came out of Orange County: No Doubt, The Offspring, Rage Against the Machine, Save Ferris, Bad Religion, and more. I don't doubt there's plenty more bands trying to come out of the OC woodwork right now. Probably have it at the OC Fairgrounds, or the new great park they're trying to build in Irvine. Thousands will come in from all over California and it'll feature local howngrown talent. Now that's Orange County.

Movie: Brick

(edited by David: removed autoplaying embedded trailer and replaced it with links)
um... i disabled the autoplay. - k
For some reason, I couldn't disable the autoplay even after html editting and refreshing. -David



Let's get together and watch Brick. It is a film noir (crazy detective/crime/mystery artsy movie, maybe like Memento?) that won at Sundance.

A modern-day Southern California neighborhood and high school. There, student Brendan Frye’s (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) piercing intelligence spares no one. His ex-girlfriend, Emily (Emilie de Ravin of Lost), reaches out to him unexpectedly and then vanishes.

Click here to download WMV trailer
Quicktime trailer (Apple website)

playing:
In California: SANTA MONICA - Broadway SM Santa Monica, CA W SAN FERNANDO VALLEY - AMC Promenade 16 Woodland Hills, CA SAN FERNANDO VALLEY - Galleria 16 Sherman Oaks, CA PASADENA - Paseo Stadium 14 Pasadena, CA SOUTH BAY - Manhattan Village 6 Manhattan Beach, CA LONG BEACH - UA Long Beach 6 Long Beach, CA BREA - Brea Stadium 22 Brea, CA LAGUNA NIGUEL - Manns Rancho Niguel 8 Laguna Niguel, CA SAN DIEGO - SILVER Ken San Diego, CA

Rush Limbaugh: "Earth is Indestructible"

Robert RoyBritt at LiveScience Journal has posted a blog about a response Rush Limbaugh made to a previous LiveScience article entitled "Top 10 Ways to destroy the Earth."

From the article:

"He found LiveScience’s Top 10 Ways to Destroy Earth and, after reading much of the presentation (hurl our planet into a black hole, blow it up with antimatter, and other pretty difficult schemes), rightly concludes that it’s virtually impossible for us to annihilate this world. He goes on to say that this is reason enough to go ahead driving your SUV and running your air conditioner, because you can’t destroy the planet by your actions."

Truly astounding. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I'd say at best he's only being about 25% facetious. It strikes me that he's essentially saying "go ahead and destroy your body as you see fit, because it's virtually impossible that you'll die in a plane crash." With his recent drug problems maybe that's exactly what he believes.

Kekexili

Decided to write a review since David is going to write one on Silent Hill. I'm guessing his will go into much greater depth than mine though, since I'm kind of collecting my thoughts on the fly.

So I saw Kekexili today. Very good movie. My friend found it a bit depressing, but still good. I'm not even sure if I should bother with a synopsis, because, on paper, it sounds lame, but I should anyway: It's about a volunteer group of Tibetans who defend endangered Tibetan antelopes against armed poachers in the crazy Tibetan steppes and mountains. And it's subtitled, spoken in Tibetan and various Chinese dialects (derivations of Mandarin from what I could tell).

Yeah, like I said, it doesn't sound that interesting. Despite that, it was still very good, mainly because of the camera work, audio, and honest presentation, I think. For all I knew, I was watching a bunch of lies, but the presentation itself was honest. I almost want to call it a fictional historical documentary, but then that gives it a possible negative association with documentaries (no there's no narrator), so instead, I just want to call it "very honest." Everyone is poor, the antagonists are dirty and unkempt, and life is hard. But that's not the focus of the movie. And maybe that's why it was extra cool. It didn't really have an agenda, which I think is rare with fictional works. It just presented the people in the story, and everything else was background: the culture, the poverty, the poachers, etc. It was like looking at snapshots of reality, and it almost gave me the sense of actually being there. It immediately brought back memories of me visiting the natives of Taiwan.

Anyway, with all the recycled Hollywood shit being pumped out these days, I've been drawn to more indie flicks. Shit like Poseidon, Silent Hill, Scary Movie 4 etc. Omg Poseidon. Wtf? That looks so retarded. It's not even out yet and the Simpsons have already lampooned it. I'm being unfair though. I *suppose* it could be good, somehow. But yeah, I read an article by some major film industry guy...I can't recall his damn name. Oh, yeah, I think it was George Lucas actually, ironically. Anyway he was predicting the end of big budget Hollywood movies in favor of smaller indie movies. I didn't really believe it at the time, but with all this crap coming out lately, maybe he's on to something.

Sure, I'll admit lots of indie movies are crap, but so far every single one I've watched, excellent or mediocre, has incited more thought than their Hollywood counterparts. There's one out now called..."One." That looks interesting, but I think it might be the successor to "What the #$*! Do We Know!?", in which case the sequel automatically gets -500 points from what Damon's told me about "What the bleep."

Damn, David finished his review first. Ok, must wrap, rambling. Uh...as good or better than Brokeback, in my opinion, in terms of raw value. They're very different story-wise, so take that into consideration. Can't think of what else I've seen lately. Whatever.

Silent Hill: Mindnumbingly Absurd

KC and Sean invited me to watch Silent Hill. Since I wasn't doing anything interesting on Monday night and somewhat interested by the trailer I've seen, I decided to go. I've would seen it earlier, but I read bad reviews. So with that knowledge, I went in with low expectations and was hoping for semi-decent suspense/horror movie.

Silent Hill was the worst movie I have ever seen. I don't watch that many movies every year. Like everyone else, I've seen my share of bad movies, such as Mortal Kombat: Annihilation, Double Team, and Bring It On. But this one takes the cake. Never have I seen such an elaborate failure in storytelling in my life. Not for a single moment did I care about the characters in this movie.

The majority of the movie involves a wild goose chase, when Rose Da Silva (Radha Mitchell) loses her mentally unstable daughter, Sharon (Jodelle Ferland), in the West Virginia ghosttown of Silent Hill. Rose is assisted by an attractive police officer, Cybil Bennet (Laurie Holden). While Rose and the cop go through a myriad of "frightening" encounters with computer generated ghosts and goblins, the father played by Sean Bean, searches the town with another cop.

Here lies the heart of the problem with the movie. You watch the father go through a peaceful, unoccupied Silent Hill--no ghosts, no goblins, no creepy townspeople. Meanwhile, the two women are being terrorized in the same exact city. What's happening? Are they in two separate universes? Is the mother dreaming this? Or is the father just dreaming all of this? I gave the movie the benefit of the doubt and hoped it would explain everything at the end (M. Night/The Sixth Sense style). Unfortunately, it never explained anything. Rather, the ending just made everything more confusing. The ending might as well be the director, Christophe Gans, walking up to you, dropping his trousers, and relieving himself on your face. Yes, it was that horrible.

Between all this back and forth with separate realities were moments of horror, if you can call it that. Apparently, the director and producers of this POS movie defined horror as unnecessary gruesome deaths caused by CGI ghouls. I really didn't care about all this blood and guts action because there was no point to it. I just sat there thinking, "These ghosts, why must they fight?" The women are constantly caught in a dead end with these ghouls. Just when you think they're doomed, the screen will turn black and everything is back to normal. Despite all that terror they experienced, the women continue to act like nothing happened and will go on exploring more haunted buildings. This happened at least 3 times. By the third bluff, I just gave up and mentally withdrew from the movie. It was unbelievable.

After the movie, KC and Sean said you had to play the video game of the same title in order to understand the movie. But it shouldn't be like that. I paid $8.50 to be entertained by what's in front of me. I shouldn't have to go through some prerequisite in order to get my money's worth. If this movie was good, it should have compelled me to play the game. Instead, it made me think if this is what the game is like, then it's the worst game (and the worst plot for a game) ever.

Bananas...the Atheist's Nightmare

CollegeHumor Movie: Kirk Cameron, some guy, and a banana explain why you should believe in god. (Movie is good, website NSFW)

There's a lot of things conveniently shaped for oral consumption, but I don't think Christians approve of all of them.

Conan O'Brien the Barbarian

http://www.onemorelevel.com/games.php?game=229

CONAN SMASH!

l33t

so apparently, 0.9999.... (zero point nine repeating to infinity) equals one.

since repeating number sequences are essentially that sequence put over 9's in a fraction (ie, 0.1111.... = 1/9, or 0.123123123... = 123/999), so 9/9 = 1.

did that make any sense?

it boggles my mind.

(Insert Post Title Here) Brought To You By Mongolian Cow Sour Yogurt

LINK

Good article, I enjoyed it, still don't know what to think. Except that maybe The Great Firewall is actually some sentient being with a billion invisible arms, controlling everything. And by posting this, I have chopped off one arm. Or something like that.