A blog about the road that led us to where we are. And where we are going.

Thursday 31 March 2011

Comfort Vs The Atheist Experience

This would seem to be an interesting debate since whichever side you lean towards seems to think their side won the debate. I really can’t see how anyone in their right mind could consider this debate to have been a victory for Comfort though, Christians really need to put forward some better apologists than this.

Sunday 27 March 2011

Nuclear Industry Propaganda

Whilst the cluster-fuk(ushima) continues, the nuclear industry demonstrates once more that the thing that melts down worst when it comes to nuclear accidents is the truth. The governing body of the nuclear industry – the IAEA is subject to regulatory capture i.e. the body designed to provide oversight is more or less run by the industry that it is designed to be objective about. This leads to problems when it comes to truth so the table below offers a translation between what they say and what they actually mean.

What they say What they mean
Not Serious Serious
Serious Catastrophic
Catastrophic End of the world
4000 deaths 1 million deaths
No long term consequences Multiple long term consequences
Not proven to have long term effects We don't know
Never been proven to have long term effects We still don't know
Excess Moisture Radioactive water leaking at the rate of 1 gallon per minute
Stay Indoors Air not safe to breathe
Evacuation Zone You won't be able to live here again
Voluntary Evacuation We strongly recommend you run away
Leak Plenty of toxic shit in the environment
Explosion This isn't really supposed to happen
Fire Neither is this
Partial Meltdown Meltdown
Fuel Rods overheating Meltdown
Containment Vessel Intact Cracked and Leaking
Reactor Core Damaged We may have to bury it
We're going to flood it with seawater What the hell else are we going to do?
We're going to drop water on it from helicopters We really don't have a clue what to do
Elevated levels of radiation These guys will get cancer
Radiation Exposure Acute Radiation Sickness
This will never happen again Until the next time it does
Cheapest source of energy Minimum $250 billion dollar clean-up bill if we have a bad accident
Most environmentally friendly source of energy After every other source of energy
No long term effects on Belarus Pretty much destroyed their entire country
Cancer rates amongst liquidators only went up a few percent They're aren't many of them left alive
Chernobyl wasn't as bad as people imagine Less than 20% of children born healthy in Ukraine and Belarus
Some places have high background radiation Having iodine-131 accumulate in your thyroid must therefore be a good thing
International Nuclear Event Scale We needed a scale to determine how expensive accidents were going to be
New reactors are safe We don't know yet how these could go wrong
No statistical increase in cancer rates We can probably cover this up
The radiation they’re being exposed to is only the equivalent of one X-Ray or CT scan We don't need to mention that you have a choice about being exposed to an X-Ray or CT Scan and that they do cause cancer
The bombs at Hiroshima / Nagasaki didn't cause any harmful genetic effects They did but we're going to lie about it anyway
Nuclear power doesn't kill as many people as coal / oil etc. It kills a lot more people, it just does it more slowly and they can't definitely say it was us
You can trust us Definitely don't do that for fuck's sake

The Films of Christopher Nolan

ff_darknight6Figured it was high time I wrote an article about this guy since he has to date achieved something that no other Hollywood director has ever achieved – that achievement being never having made a single bad film. So far. And that in itself is pretty impressive because all good directors seem to have a misfire at some point. Whenever a director like this comes along they earn themselves a fairly large fan base, and also a large following of people who hate them just to stand out from the crowd. The Nolan hating crowd will revile me for being a Nolan fanboy but I honestly think his films are spectacular and as I’ve said before appreciation of art is an individual quality. Rarely is it that a director can tell a story in such a way that it captivates and fascinates an audience especially when the story is something as mundane as Batman. In this case most people would agree that Nolan’s films are as good as I say. So here are his films from start to finish, there aren’t many but they’re all noteworthy.

Following (1998)

following_dvdThis was one of the last Nolan films I got round to watching before the release of Inception. I wasn’t expecting much from it because the movie was made on a budget of $6000 so why would I? The only other half decent film I can think of that was made on a comparable budget is Primer and the cinematography of that film wasn’t great at all. I was wrong. Not only is the film very watchable but it’s also very gripping and puts most $100 million dollar movies to shame. The film basically follows a young writer – Bill who follows people through the streets of London out of curiosity, to see who they are, what they do and where they go. Then one day a man he’s following turns the tables on him and asks why. The man – Cobb turns out to be a professional burglar and invites Bill to come with him as he burgles people’s homes. The plot gets considerably more complex though as Cobb has an ulterior motive and use for Bill that the young writer is unaware of. The psychology, manipulation and sharp dialogue make this. The film like all of Nolan’s uses sharp cuts from scene to scene and doesn’t tell the story in chronological order meaning the viewer has to concentrate on what’s going on and piece the puzzle together themselves. Ultimately the film ties up very well and builds to a spectacular ending. For its budget, this is truly a masterpiece. IMDB Rating: 7.7

Memento (2000)

Memento-Banners-memento-742251_760_338

Studio bosses must have loved following because they gave Nolan much more money to play with his next film as well as a few big name stars (Carrie-Anne Moss, Guy Pearce, Joe Pantoliano). On a $1 million budget, Nolan directed what is arguably one of the best and most artistic films in the history of cinema. The film centres on amnesiac Leonard (Guy Pearce) who suffers from a rare memory condition which prevents him from forming new memories. The last thing he does remember is the murder of his wife and throughout the film seeks justice and vengeance for that act regardless of the fact that even if he achieves his goal he will be unable to remember it. He does this through a system of notes, tattoos and mementos that let him know how his investigation is progressing. The film proceeds as a good old fashioned film noir-type mystery thriller that builds to an intriguing and ingeniously tragic ending (which is actually the beginning). But it’s still more than this, this film isn’t the average popcorn flick – the viewer has to pay close attention to clues and complex plot otherwise it’s doubtful they will understand the film at all. The viewer is cleverly placed in identical shoes to Leonard as the whole film is presented chronologically backward i.e. it starts at the end and works its way back to the beginning so the viewer has no more clue as to what’s actually going on than the protagonist the film is about. So for the movie goer who expects big bangs and stupid dialogue, look elsewhere because this film isn’t for you. For the movie goer who is open-minded and likes to exercise the old grey matter a little – this film is definitely for you. Add to this the solid performances of the actors, the haunting soundtrack and the at times profound dialogue, it’s not difficult to see why this film is so great. Nolan’s best. IMDB Rating: 8.7 (Top 250: 29)

Insomnia (2002)

insomniaOk so this was Nolan's weakest film by far but in no way could it ever be considered a bad one. Essentially this film is a psychological crime thriller set in eternal daylight near the arctic circle. It stars Al Pacino as Dormer, a detective brought in from Los Angeles to help solve the murder of a high school student in rural Alaska. During the course of the investigation he becomes disoriented in the fog and accidentally shoots and kills his long time partner. After this fact it is revealed that Dormer is being investigated by Internal Affairs back home for corruption and that his partner was planning to fully cooperate with the authorities. So Dormer finds himself attempting to cover his tracks whilst the murderer he is seeking has witnessed the crime and his now attempting to blackmail him. As the film progresses Dormer finds himself being driven gradually insane by the lack of nightfall and sleep, delirium and hallucination soon start making it difficult for him to distinguish fantasy from reality, fact from fiction and most importantly morality from immorality. The feel of the film is one of tense disquiet and is set amidst the backdrop of a beautifully gloomy arctic wilderness. Stars Al Pacino, Robin Williams and Hilary Swank. A great film. IMDB Rating: 7.2

Batman Begins (2005)

batman_beginsI’ve never been a massive fan of films based on comic books. I mean I tend to enjoy them but they’re never especially good films, at least they weren’t until this one. By the time Nolan got round to doing this one, the studios must have thought the sun shined out of his arse because they gave him more big names in the cast list than you can shake a stick at (Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Katie Holmes, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, Cillian Murphy, Rutger Hauer, Ken Watanabe). After the original Tim Burton Batman films I really wasn’t expecting much other than a good yarn but somehow this film was just in a league of its own. Somehow the very two dimensional character of Batman is given considerable depth and even real life plausibility. Everyone knows the story of Batman – the caped crusader but not like this they don’t. This film explains the rise of Batman, the motivations and psychological scarring that led Bruce Wain to become Batman. It explains the training and mastery of ancient martial arts that allow him to become seemingly invincible. Of course it’s not all dialogue and plot though the plot is interesting, it’s a great action film as well. The visual effects throughout the film are very impressive especially the hallucinogen scenes which are very well done. The pace is perfect as well, it starts out relatively slowly but builds to a thunderous action packed climax. It’s about as perfect as a film based on a comic book can be or so you’d think. Nolan followed this up with the Dark Knight which was better still. IMDB Rating: 8.3 (Top 250: 113)

The Prestige (2005)

prestige_ver2The Prestige was another film of Nolan's that really hit the bullseye. Set in Victorian era England, the film depicts the rivalry between two competing magicians whose lives gradually become consumed by their hatred for one another, so much so that it eventually destroys everything that either one cares about. In typical Nolan fashion, the film is told chronologically out of sequence and jumps about in time and place but as usual it works perfectly in creating the appropriate level of suspense and intrigue. It's hard to classify this film as any particular genre as it seems to straggle the line between mystery, fantasy, drama and sci-fi - yes sci-fi.  It could be said without a doubt that Nolan has a proclivity for warped narratives and this film is no exception as it twists and turns in every direction ultimately building to a very unexpected ending (unless you have an exception eye for detail). It features an ensemble cast and stars Michael Caine, Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman, Scarlett Johansson amongst others. It even stars David Bowie as Nikola Tesla – the ‘real life wizard’ as the film puts it. My biggest gripe with this one - there would seem to be rather a large plot hole in this film [Spoilers] – When Hugh Jackman gets hold of the copying machine, why the hell doesn’t he just use it once and then do the trick the same way as Borden rather than killing himself every time he does the trick. Er… whatever it was a good film anyway. IMDB Rating 8.4 (Top 250: 73)

The Dark Knight (2008)

darkknightThis was pretty much the most hyped movie of the year so naturally I wasn’t even remotely interested in watching it. Until it came out that is. The reviews from the critics were resoundingly positive and indicated that this was one of the rare occasions in movie history when a film actually lived up to and even surpassed the hype. Hollywood blockbusters aren’t generally supposed to make you think, they’re supposed to be straight forward action movies without plot or depth. The Dark Knight differs in this respect because whilst it could be considered a straight forward action movie, it also has plot and depth. The film continually twists and turns in every direction presenting moral and ethical dilemmas all over the place which Batman as the icon of justice in Gotham is constantly unsure of how to deal with. The film also introduces Batman’s nemesis – the Joker played by Heath Ledger. But Ledger’s Joker is a far cry from Nicholson’s Joker in the decidedly average Burton vision of Batman. Ledger’s Joker is arguably one of the most sinister and evil movie villains of all time. He’s corrupt, insane, psychotic, terrifying and down right psychologically disturbing. And this is really what you want from a movie villain where it’s a black and white, good vs evil sort of story. The Joker’s character in this film is absolute, no backstory, no reason, no rhyme, he’s just evil for the sake of it or as Michael Caine puts it in the film “Some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.” Once the film kicks off, it’s pretty much action and drama for two hours straight, not one scene feels superfluous and the film never feels slow. Lends itself well to repeat watchability. Stars Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, Cillian Murphy, Nestor Carbonell and Eric Roberts. IMDB Rating 8.9 (Top 250: 10)

Inception (2010)

InceptionI would have to say that this film was the best film released during 2010. It wasn’t the best one I watched last year as I’d been scouring the IMDB Top 250 for new greats – 12 Angry Men and It’s a Wonderful Life spring to mind but it was the best film released. And by a country mile. After a string of box office hits Nolan was awarded the most coveted prize a Hollywood director can attain – the do what the hell you like cheque. With that cheque Nolan crafted yet another triumph of cinema. The film has all the ingredients of an amazing summer blockbuster. It’s fairly cerebral – much more so that your average blockbuster, layered with complexity, for at least an hour of the film there are four different storylines taking place simultaneously (although not in a way that is confusing) and finally the film just oozes tension. The combination of Hans Zimmer’s impressive score and the constant action sequences for the last hour of the film just ratchets the tension up to boiling point and keeps you there on the edge of your seat until the end of the movie. So what is this blockbuster actually about? Dreams and the nature of reality. The protagonist is Dom Cobb, a man exiled from his home country for a crime he didn’t commit. Condemned to wander the world he works as an extractor – a type of corporate saboteur whose job it is to enter people’s minds and steal ideas from their dreams whilst they’re asleep. But then the head of a powerful corporation offers him a way home if instead of stealing an idea, he can plant one – something much harder to do as the subject can ‘always trace the genesis of an idea’. To give away any more of the plot would spoil the film although in fairness the plot is complex and fairly open ended. People will debate for a long time some of the finer details of this film especially the ending which had the entire audience gasp in bemusement. It is difficult to really classify this film. It feels like a mishmash of a few different films. The easiest way to describe it would be a cross between the Matrix and the Bourne Identity although it seems to bear similarity to a few other films I’ve seen such as the Thirteenth Floor and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. The film even borrows some of the ambiguity of Memento as well as introducing the main character as a tortured soul who at the end arguably chooses to believe a lie so they can find their own happiness. Inception is one of the finer films to have been released in the last few years and deserves to be watched by anyone who loves an action blockbuster which keeps you thinking afterwards. Stars Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe, Cillian Murphy, Tom Berenger, Marion Cotillard and Michael Caine. IMDB Rating 8.9 (Top 250: 8)

glb_oscars_feature_inception_header

Nuclear Reactors Completely Safe Unless Something Bad Happens

WASHINGTON—Responding to the ongoing nuclear crisis in Japan, officials from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission sought Thursday to reassure nervous Americans that U.S. reactors were 100 percent safe and posed absolutely no threat to the public health as long as no unforeseeable system failure or sudden accident were to occur. "With the advanced safeguards we have in place, the nuclear facilities in this country could never, ever become a danger like those in Japan, unless our generators malfunctioned in an unexpected yet catastrophic manner, causing the fuel rods to melt down," said NRC chairman Gregory Jaczko, insisting that nuclear power remained a clean, harmless energy source that could only lead to disaster if events were to unfold in the exact same way they did in Japan, or in a number of other terrifying and totally plausible scenarios that have taken place since the 1950s. "When you consider all of our backup cooling processes, containment vessels, and contingency plans, you realize that, barring the fact that all of those safety measures could be wiped away in an instant by a natural disaster or electrical error, our reactors are indestructible." Jaczko added that U.S. nuclear power plants were also completely guarded against any and all terrorist attacks, except those no one could have predicted.

Source: http://www.theonion.com/articles/nuclear-energy-advocates-insist-us-reactors-comple,19740/

Are white people racially oppressed?

Friday 25 March 2011

March iPod Playlist

DJ Tiesto - Beautiful things

The Sun's Gone Dim and The Sky's Black - Johann Johannsson

DJ Sammy - L'bby Haba

The language is Tigrinya, a Semitic language related to Arabic, Hebrew, and Amharic, spoken in Ethiopia and Eritrea.

L'bby haba (Open your heart)
Yefkee'reka (I love you)
L'bby haba l'bby haba (Open your heart)
Yefkee'reka (I love you)
Hailee l'bby (The power of the heart)
selam haba (Gives you peace)
L'bby haba (Open your heart)
Fekree alo (There is love)
Hailee l'bby (The power of the heart)
Selam haba (Gives you peace)

Anna Nalick Breathe (2 A.M.)(Blake Jarrell Remix)

Haris C Feat Anthya - Tonight (Original Mix)

John O' Callaghan feat. Lo-Fi Sugar - Never Fade Away (Album Version)

Suncatcher - Good Morning (Original Mix)

Robert Nickson - Maybe Next Time (Original Mix)

Thursday 24 March 2011

Battle: Los Angeles (2011)

poster_battle_los_angeles6I got chance to watch this special effects bonanza a couple of days ago. There’s no plot really, the film is essentially a Saving Private Ryan-esque take on the alien invasion movie. From start to finish the film follows a group of marines attempting to battle their way out of Los Angeles under the direction of Staff Sergeant Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart), a man who they don’t entirely trust because he got some of his men killed during the Iraq conflict although as the film progresses he predictably wins their confidence. It’s more violent than Starship Troopers and has a plot less interesting than Lost in Translation which is quite an accomplishment on both fronts. It isn’t a good film particularly but as popcorn flicks go I suppose it’s an enjoyable yarn. Basically it was just an excuse to blow the shit out of Los Angeles and echoes other alien invasion films such as District 9 and Independence Day in this respect (although in no way was it as good as either). Since this is the second alien invasion movie released in the last year I suspect it will also be twinned with Skyline although I’ve yet to see that film so can’t say for certain how similar they are. If you get chance give it a watch but you won’t be missing much if you never see it. Stars Aaron Eckhart, Michelle Rodriguez and Bridget Moynahan.

real-eyes

PC05

Alternative Nuclear Energy

FlowerNukeIn my last article I expressed doubts over the viability of nuclear energy to provide a stop gap measure in securing us a future with safe energy. Maybe I was too hasty. Nuclear technology exists which does provide a viable and 'safe' alternative. I use the word safe cautiously here because make no mistake this shit will still melt your skin off and cause you to puke and shit yourself to death if you come in contact with it. But this is the case with nuclear energy anyway. The main difference with the alternative source of nuclear energy - Molten Salt Reactors is that they're unlikely to explode and ejaculate copious amounts of toxic shit into the atmosphere. And this would seem to be kind of an important advantage.

Molten Salt Reactors rely on a different principle to modern nuclear reactors in that the fuel's already molten so that in itself precludes the possibility of a meltdown. But they have another advantage - they don't have to use transuranic elements such as Uranium or Plutonium for fuel. MSRs can use Thorium as part of their fuel cycle and the advantage of using this is it doesn't spontaneously fission - it needs a catalyst. So when you switch the damn thing off you don't need to wait several months for it to actually be off, it's off. The fail-safe mechanism in these reactors is one that doesn't need to be controlled by humans. If the reactor gets too hot, a plug in the base of the core melts and the molten fuel leaves the containment vessel and drops into a holding area. Once the molten fuel is separated from the catalyst - fission ceases. Essentially the reactors save themselves. These reactors also operate at normal atmospheric pressure which eliminates the possibility of a pressure explosion such as at Chernobyl or very nearly at Fukushima.

AP1000SimulatedNightAdd to this other advantages such as the fact these reactors can be used to burn up long lived radioactive waste and in themselves produce dramatically less radioactive waste (between 10 - 10,000 times less). The fact that Thorium is cheaper and far more abundant than Uranium then it would really seem to be a no brainer to use these instead. Unfortunately the technology isn't quite ready for practical application. The reason this technology wasn't developed in the first place is because it didn't provide us with an easy way to kill several hundred million people in the space of a few hours which is obviously a capability which we as a species simply couldn't live without. Traditional reactor design led the way because as a by-product it enabled the development of nuclear weapons. Using a Thorium fuel cycle makes it difficult to develop nuclear weapons because as well as them not being produced in sufficient quantities, it's difficult to chemically separate the generated isotopes of Uranium. It's still possible of course but wouldn't be an economically sound way of building an atom bomb. There are also good technical reasons why U-233 has never been used in atom bombs. And Plutonium production – forget it.

So maybe if the nuclear industry really wants a renaissance, they should follow China’s lead in developing this technology. Perhaps people would be more amenable to having an energy source that doesn’t cause total pandemonium when it goes wrong. It won’t be astronomically expensive to develop either. Just a thought. 

Saturday 19 March 2011

The Death of a Nuclear Future?

chernobylWe were once promised faithfully that it would never happen again yet for some reason, quarter of a century later here we are up the same creek without a paddle. What events do I refer to? Chernobyl of course and its new baby brother – Fukushima Dai-ichi.

The facts coming out of Japan have so far been scarce from the initial denial of any kind of meltdown to the gradual admission of a partial meltdown to the admission of a partial meltdown in three reactors, to the admission they have no ability to cool the fuel whatsoever. This much was already obvious long before they admitted it for several reasons - the detection of radiometric caesium and iodine in the atmosphere indicated that radioactive material had escaped the containment vessel. The explosions were also a dead give away - the presence of hydrogen alone indicated that the zirconium casing around the fuel rods had begun to melt because they had to be hot enough to strip oxygen atoms from the steam inside the reactor through dissociation. This is what caused the hydrogen build-up in the upper part of the reactor building leading to the subsequent explosions. Initially TEPCO chose to lie about these things, either that or worse – they didn’t have a clue. One thing is so far certain – we aren’t being told the whole story. And as with all nuclear accidents it will likely take an age before we finally know the truth.

3559-770276The media have in recent days been criticized for showing ‘disproportionate coverage’ of the disaster unfolding at Fukushima Dai-ichi. Especially amidst the backdrop of a humanitarian tragedy that totally eclipses it in scale. I disagree with that consensus. People across the world have been deeply worried that this could be a repeat of Chernobyl and the world in general has been spooked by the very thought of the prospect. Indeed in recent days its ghost has come back to haunt us once more. The Chernobyl disaster was ultimately a hundred times worse than the recent Earthquake in Japan. It wasn’t just a disaster either, it was a nightmare. Let's be fair about this as well - nightmare isn't even a strong enough word to describe that event. For as long as the human race exists, people will continue to pay the price for that disaster and even after we’re long gone – nature will continue to pay that price in our absence. Even though Chernobyl can only be directly connected to the deaths of 31 people due to the initial criticality event, the consequences were catastrophic. Vast tracts of land across the Ukraine and Belarus were rendered uninhabitable. Hundreds of thousands of people had to be forcibly relocated. Cities across the Ukraine and Belarus were reduced to ghost towns. Radioactive fallout contaminated land across most of Europe and the northern hemisphere. But it continues to get worse. Of the 800,000 liquidators sent into to clean up the disaster, around 100,000 are now dead with another 100,000 permanently disabled. The fallout has been responsible for innumerable health problems in the affected populations and not just from cancers, from intestinal problems, circulation problems, respiratory problems, endocrine problems and autoimmune diseases. Many of the people suffering will ultimately die from exposure to the fallout, numbers now estimated to be over a million people since 1986. The economic cost of the disaster alone is in the realm of at least several hundred billion dollars. Then we have the the massive number of birth defects and stillborn children. The deep psychological scarring of its victims. The 200,000 women forced to have abortions. The farmland deemed unfit to grow produce. The mass slaughter of irradiated livestock. The pollution of the water table in affected areas. The list just goes on and on and on. The accident at Chernobyl didn’t just kill people, it destroyed their souls.

N0006501300184511448ASo 25 years later had we really learned anything. It turns out not. The entire world was gearing up for a nuclear renaissance, the horrors of Chernobyl having faded sufficiently from the public consciousness. With the threat of global warming, our dependence on middle-eastern oil imports, safe nuclear power was supposed to be our salvation and now the dream lies in ruins. Governments were convinced that nuclear energy was somehow now safer than it had been in that much simpler time only a generation ago. Then all of a sudden events in Japan threw a massive spanner into the works. Now granted it was on the part of the Japanese an act of extreme stupidity to not only build one of these reactors on seismically active ground but also near a stretch of coastline guaranteed to be hit by tsunamis. Their hubris and faith in technology has bitten them hard. But it was a faith shared by the rest of the world. We have been repeatedly assured by our governments over the years that it could never happen again, that reactor design in the west is much safer, that meltdowns cannot happen now. That is correct apparently, until they do. So now the pro-nuclear lobby has naturally got to change its tune a little and point out that in Britain we’re not on a fault line. That’s correct so therefore it’s safe, I mean it’s not like there are any other threats to our country that would see a nuclear reactor as being a good target now is it? Not like terrorism for instance.

chernobylfukashimaOne of the reasons this accident has the world on edge is because it is so reminiscent of Chernobyl. The parallels are obvious. Granted I doubt the radiological release from the plant will be anything close but the rest of it has the same modus operandi. The evacuations, the radiation warnings, the exclusion zone, the explosions, the fires, the panic, even the pictures of the damaged reactor buildings look the same. The initial surge in radiation was detected hundreds of miles away from the Fukushima site, similarly the first clue that the Soviet Union had a serious nuclear problem came from Sweden. After the Chernobyl accident, the Soviet authorities went into a state of denial. Currently the Japanese authorities are in a state of denial. Initially the Soviet government lied about the seriousness of the Chernobyl incident, the Japanese authorities are currently lying about the seriousness of the Fukushima incident. I think I may be doing the Japanese a disservice here though, they are dealing with the problem a hundred times better than the Soviet Union dealt with Chernobyl. The Japanese at least admitted they had a serious problem and began evacuating straight away unlike the Soviets who tried at first to make-believe that nothing was wrong. That’s not to pour scorn on the bravery of the Soviets who originally dealt with Chernobyl, each one of them tried to rectify the situation knowing with absolute certainty they were going to die. In the same vain and before the eyes of the world the faceless Fukushima 50 has been used to personify the disaster in Japan – giving us a real life fairy-tale to believe in as they embark on a suicide mission to fight their own nuclear nightmare against insurmountable odds. That sounds sickeningly pretentious but I like it, it’s poetic. These men took on the mission to cool the reactors knowing full well it could mean their lives and in doing so they have won the admiration of the world.

Ultimately the problem with nuclear energy is it's a lethally toxic technology. It wasn’t developed as a technology of peace, it was developed as a weapon of war that has since been adapted for peaceful purposes. In so doing so we created our own metaphorical Frankenstein and when this stuff goes wrong it goes very badly wrong – people will pay the price… forever. We’re kind of like children playing with fire and every now again we will get burnt. In order for us to fully utilise this technology we should really need to be assured that it's 100% safe but as the events at Fukushima illustrate, no matter how many safety measures, false assurances and propaganda we are given, there is no such thing. Pro-nuclear activists will nevertheless continue to insist this technology is safe. Let me give them a clue, it isn't and it never will be. The spin they’ve tried to put on this event has been interesting – spin like ‘things are under control’ and ‘the radiation is not a threat’. The problem I 01_Pripyathave here is do they seriously believe that anyone will ever believe that explosions and fires anywhere near the vicinity of a nuclear reactor is an acceptable state of affairs? The question as to whether this technology is safe has already been answered, it was answered at Windscale, it was answered at Three Mile Island, it was answered at Chernobyl and now it has been answered at Fukushima. But this isn’t the question that really needs to be asked is it? Because surely by now we know the answer. The question here isn't a question of whether we should use nuclear energy as it is a question of whether it's worth the price we could potentially pay. Without nuclear we can likely kiss goodbye to the electronic utopia we've built for ourselves because there simply isn’t another alternative. Our technological civilisation is built on a thirst for energy that can’t be quenched any other way. Renewable energy will never cover the void and oil as well as not lasting forever comes mainly from countries we simply cannot trust. The latter comes with massive environmental problems of its own. People could I suppose sacrifice the luxuries but no government on Earth is going to make that call and I can’t see the world turning back to candlelight somehow so regardless of the political fallout from Fukushima, nuclear is here to stay. As an added bonus we’ll get plenty of reassurance from governments that they’ve run numerous tests on our reactors and that nothing can possibly go wrong with them. Which is obviously quite comforting until you realise that man made disasters don’t occur because of what we thought of, they occur mainly because of what we didn’t think of. If we get away with one calamity every twenty years which seems to be the going rate, we may only be due two more before more practical power sources are developed. As to where and when those calamities strike we leave that to chance.

nuclear-fusionThis incident has at the very least highlighted the desperate need for openness, honesty and transparency in the wake of a nuclear accident. The public need to know exactly where they stand so they can make informed decisions. This obviously can’t happen if a private company is trying to protect its own financial interests. Perhaps the IAEA will reach some sort of agreement about this in the coming months. If the nuclear beast is here to stay, we deserve the right to know when we’ve got to run away from it. My own preference would be this... invest heavily in nuclear fusion. No matter how expensive it is, ultimately it buys us an alternative. Convincing people that it’s safe is going to be tricky given how tarnished the word nuclear has become but sooner or later we really need to crack this problem because a safe sustainable future depends on it. For the size of the economic hit the world would have to take if we ever had to evacuate a city the size of Tokyo, this seems to me to be a more acceptable gamble. For the cost of one Chernobyl, we could have had a limitless clean environmentally friendly energy source. But alas it’s not like humans to exercise that kind of foresight.

Quality

cheating

Doom 3

Doom3_009I finally managed to complete this game after owning it for several years and must say it’s a damn good yarn. Essentially it’s a first person shooter science fiction horror. Plot? I didn’t really notice one to be honest but it is there. What the game lacks in storyline it more than makes up for in gameplay and is ultimately more or less a simple reimagining of the classic DOS game Doom. The game features all the same monsters from the original (along with many more) and although the plot of the original eludes me, I’d have to say it’s more or less the same. You start out as a marine on a routine assignment working for the UAC on Mars in the 22nd century and due to the experiments they’ve been conducting, Hell invades the base with the eventual objective of making it to Earth. Your job as a marine is to stop Satan and his minions from completing their mission of invading Earth – that’s it. From start to finish the game is basically running round shooting monsters, demons and zombies. Thus it’s arguably features more gratuitous violence than the original which had parents outraged back in the early nineties. It’s deeply immersive and and the tone of the game sucks you in like any decent video game should, the dark lighting and spooky atmosphere set by the soundtrack keeps you on edge and frequently makes you jump when monsters and demons jump out at you from some unseen corner. The game features all the same weapons from the original including the BFG. doom3It also features a weapon called the soul cube which I think the game would be impossible without. I didn’t immediately realise this was a weapon and tried playing a level of the game without it. The lack of health power ups was making things extremely difficult until I realised the soul cube would kill an enemy every so often and replenish your health with theirs. This made it pretty much a flier approaching the end of the game. The boss stages during every part of the game are very difficult and usually take at least several attempts to get past. At times I was kind of wondering if it was even possible to get past some of them at all but eventually all of them do go down. This game would have been slightly more fun to play if it didn’t cause my laptop to badly overheat, so much so in fact that I had to manually cool it with an icepack from the freezer. That’s not really a fault of the game though, more one of my crap laptop. This is a decent game and I think it would make a wicked multiplayer if I knew enough people with machines capable of running it. Something for the future here.

Wednesday 9 March 2011

The Rise of Anonymous

anony3I was thinking about writing a legends article for this group because in many ways they are, however I reserved judgement this time because they don’t quite fit the bill. In fact they don’t really fit into any category because their motivations… aren’t individual ones. The only people who haven’t heard of this group by now probably have little understanding of the Internet and indeed the virtual world in general. So  for those readers I’ll try and introduce the idea of exactly who or what anonymous is.

Anon_PayBack_AnonymousArtwork_topAnonymous is arguably the world’s first ever superconsciousness, a gestalt entity comprised of hackers and cyber activists from around the world. The entity has no leadership, no evident direction  or intent but nevertheless acts with a high degree of unison when trying to achieve certain indescript goals. They are in a way an example of an anarchic, digitized global brain and act as a cohesive entity in much the same way a flock of birds acts as a cohesive entity. And this is interesting because they are an example of a true anarchy that actually works. The name “Anonymous” has since become used as a mass noun to describe the group. This name arose from the image posting boards of sites like 4chan and 7chan whereby every poster on those boards is not required to register and so posts under the moniker anonymous.

They have been described by the media in various ways – most notably as hackers on steroids and cyber terrorists treating the Internet as though it were a real life video game and their prowess is certainly powerful in this arena. Through their collective actions, anonymous-thumbthe organisation has now become powerful enough to shake governments or at the very least be a major pain in the ass. For instance during the 2010 – 2011 Tunisian protests, Anonymous assisted the Tunisian people by delivering DDoS attacks against 8 Tunisian websites taking them offline. Anonymous then proceeded to attack Egyptian government websites during the Egyptian Revolution of 2011. The group is currently involved in on-going operations  in Libya and Iran and aims to prevent those countries from censoring information from the Internet as well as disrupting government misinformation. I pointed that the Internet was a crucial factor in my  earlier article about the Middle-East. Anonymous are an instrumental part of that factor. The group has also conducted other major operations against countries including Operation Titstorm in which they attacked the government of Australia over its proposed censorship of the Internet.

Anonymous are perhaps most well known for the now infamous project Chanology which saw them declare all out war against the Church of Scientology. The impetus for the project was supposedly the church issuing a copyright claim against a leaked video of Tom Cruise acting like a complete fucknut but more likely Anonymous were just beginning to recognise their potential and were looking for a quarry worthy of their mettle. Chanology saw the group identify with a purpose which has gone on to become the core tenet of their loose ideology – that of preventing Internet censorship, which they now seek to crush in all its forms. The initial salvos of Chanology began on January 21st 2008 and saw multiple DDoS attacks against Scientology websites, massive numbers of prank phone calls and black faxes. It wasn’t long before the activities of anonymous drew the attention of the fabled ‘wise beard man’ who is apparently the only person anonymous have ever listened to. He cautioned them against conducting illegal activities against the church and said they would be far more effective if they protested peacefully. Beginning in February 2008, members of anonymous protested in more than 93 cities world wide all wearing masks from the film V for Vendetta to protect their identities.

The goal of project Chanology

The first message from wise beard man

In recent months, the group has launched attacks against MasterCard, PayPal, Amazon and other organisations who supported the oppression of wikileaks as well as sought vengeance for the perceived set up of Julian Assange (legends article to come). Anonymous has been noted by some observers to be the successor to the wikileaks crown and if that happens, there’ll be pretty much fuck all anyone can do about it especially in light of their attacks against the bank of America and the computer security organisation HBGary Federal - the company favoured by the US government for keeping its information intelligence secure.  The Anonymous attack on HBGary Federal humiliated the company causing massive damage to its public image. Hacktivists working for Anonymous managed to steal a large amount of sensitive data from the company including thousands of emails and data stored on its servers. They also hijacked the company’s website and posted the message “You brought this upon yourself. Let us teach you a lesson you’ll never forget: Don’t mess with Anonymous”. The stolen data exposed company activities including a planned smear campaign against wikileaks and the data was later published on P2P networks effectively destroying their public reputation. The company has since failed to meet revenue projections and the parent company HBGary Inc has begun sales negotiations. Operation Leakspin similarly involved wikileaks and took a second look through intelligence data released on wikileaks for potentially overlooked cables / information and the further promotion of that material on the Internet.

Below: Messages from Anonymous

 

Is this group good or bad? I’m not entirely sure, some of their actions are good but some of the actions attributed to them whether through disinformation or because of the actions of some anonymous members are not. In this respect they would have be classified as a neutral force in the world, the collective unconsciousness of the people who comprise that group – a chaotic neutral force. In their wake they leave pandemonium and in general scare the shit out of anyone who ends up on the wrong side of them. It’s interesting but it seems now a virtual certainty that groups like this will soon begin to seriously influence the course of human history and that for me at least is a fascinating development. In the age of the Internet we probably should have seen something like this coming yet for some reason we just didn’t. The rise of anonymous was to some extent an unexpected side-effect of the information age although the enjoyably terrible film Hackers did to some extent predict something like this. And as for the future, well with digital native generation now reaching adulthood expect to see  a lot more weird shit like this going on in the future.

Below: Members of Anonymous protest

25

27

28

Sunday 6 March 2011

The Heroes of Atheism

cretinsI really must congratulate these people – I mean they have singlehandedly done more damage to Christianity than people like Dawkins or Hitchens could ever dream of. Of whom do I speak? The so called creation ‘scientists’ – prominent names amongst them being people like Kent Hovind, John Mackay, Jonathan Sarfarti, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, Ken Ham, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Harun Yahya et al. Granted the last man on this list is a Muslim creationist but interestingly enough Christians who normally have no special love of Muslims seem to be bosom buddies when it comes to creationism. I’ve decided to throw his name into the mix because Christian creationists will happily throw their lot in with him despite him being a criminal, hypocrite and otherwise a lunatic. More on him in a minute.

Firstly the problem with this entire debate is it’s entirely built upon not one but a string of faulty logical premises – the main one being the false dichotomy. A long time ago a man named Charles Darwin proposed the idea that organisms change over time. There was sufficient evidence for this idea to take hold 150 years ago. Since this time every single discovery in the field of biology has corroborated this proposal hence why it was elevated from hypothesis to theory. Now as it stands it’s a very strong theory and a good explanation of what we see in the natural world and allows us to make testable predictions in biology. But despite this the creationist assertion is that its plain wrong but they still haven’t managed to disprove it and I genuinely take issue with this. Because if you’re going to assert that something is completely wrong and you’re so sure of that fact then surely it should be a relatively simple task to prove it wrong. Creationists continually assert that evolution can’t be disproved as if it were some kind of religion but this is a lie and here’s why:

Science has to be falsifiable by design – it’s the rules. There are large a number of ways evolution could be falsified, for example you could find one of the following (From rationalwiki):

  • Find something that defies classification in Linnaean taxonomy e.g. chlorophyll in an animal cell wall.
  • Show that mutations do not occur.
  • Show that although mutations do occur, that they’re not passed down through the generations.
  • Show that although mutations are passed down through generations, they do not produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
  • Show that selection or environmental pressures do not favour the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
  • Darwin pointed out in his own work "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."
  • Or a favourite of rationalists these days – dig up a bunny rabbit from Precambrian rock.

If creationism were true then all of the above challenges should have been met – very easily met which evidently isn’t the case. Instead what we get is the God of the gaps argument whereby creationists find something that science doesn’t yet know and then infer that it must imply some kind of supernaturalism. I don’t personally have a problem with this argument but I would like to point out that so far in everything we’ve learned about science and the way the world works, magic has never turned out to be an explanation for anything whatsoever. And as an added bonus it opens you up to ridicule when science does find that piece of the puzzle.

So let me clear up why this is a false dichotomy. Creationists attack evolution with an almost religious fervour as if discrediting evolution would somehow vindicate creationism by default. The time and resources creationists have now spent on doing this is simply amazing given that even if they could somehow discredit evolution and the big bang theory and they would have to discredit both which in itself is no mean feat, it wouldn’t automatically vindicate creationism by default as they imagine. Why? Because creationism simply doesn’t fit with any observable facts about reality. So the only way creationists can now make a case is through twisting the facts to fit the premise and this involves dishonesty, not only that but it involves a LOT of dishonesty. And this is where my above heroes come in because each one of them can be shown to not only be liars but in some cases (John Mackay and Kent Hovind) just plain fucking nuts. The consequences of it are this - many creationists eventually realise they’re being duped by these people thanks largely to the incessant efforts of complete bastards like myself. But instead of merely rejecting creationism, they end up rejecting Christianity altogether and I think the reason is simple. If Christians are as they claim to be more virtuous and honest because of their faith then what remains of that faith when you realise that someone you respected and believed to be a person of great integrity as a defender of that faith is actually a habitual liar and charlatan? The revelation tends to shake people’s faith often resulting in a complete rejection of religion.

Anyway on to the heroes. One of the favourite arguments these people use is called quotemining. This involves quoting their opposition out of context so as to completely distort the meaning of what that person originally said. This is so pervasive in creationism that there are websites entirely dedicated to putting these quotes back into their original context. All the men mentioned are incessantly guilty of this. But I’m not just talking about misrepresenting people’s positions here; I’m talking about flat out lies where the person has to know they’re lying. Kent Hovind for example has met more fictional evolution professors than anyone else alive. He’s also the authority on not correcting his mistakes; for instance when it’s pointed out that he’s using faulty research or things that have been proven incorrect he knowingly continues to use that material at his seminars. But it’s worse than that, he comes up with hypotheses which are easily flattened but gain a foothold in the creationist community who are ignorant of the science involved and repeated ad nauseum. An example of this would be when he stated that the singularity responsible for cosmic expansion was originally a spinning disc (which it wasn’t) and that it had some bearing on the orbital mechanics of the solar system (which it doesn’t). All this came from the man misreading one science textbook on the solar nebulae hypothesis which of course has nothing whatsoever to do with big bang cosmology. He continued to use this argument in his seminars right up until his unfortunate incarceration on 58 counts of failing to render unto Caesar what was Caesars. He also repeatedly denies that established science works at all e.g. radioactive carbon dating. John Mackay is similarly guilty of this sort of thing; that is when he’s not accusing people of witchcraft or sleeping with the dead any road.

Ray Comfort is also man who is similarly spectacular at brazen breaches of the 9th commandment. For instance he wrote a 50 page libellous introduction to the origin of species and then distributed 50,000 copies (including his foreword) of that book on college and university campuses. We know this introduction at least libellous because he tried to present Darwin as a fanatical racist and as the primary motivation for the Third Reich’s fanatical eugenics programme and subsequent genocide. All of the accusations he presented can of course be easily disproven. Darwin for instance was one of the most egalitarian men in what was at the time one of the most ethnocentric societies in the world. This is borne out in the considerable body of work he left behind – there is nothing in any work ever written by Charles Darwin to suggest he was a racist, exactly the opposite in fact – he was an early proponent of racial equality. Hitler on the other hand would seem to have been a Roman Catholic creationist which is borne out in the considerable number of quotes attributed to him – oh and a casual read of Mein Kampf also adds considerable weight to this idea. But seriously it wouldn’t matter if Hitler had quoted Darwin on every third line of Mein Kampf because it would still invoke the logical fallacy of argument from adverse consequences i.e. this is what evolution caused someone to do therefore it’s wrong. The same line of reasoning could be applied to atomic theory – arguing that that’s wrong because it led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people at Hiroshima – it’s a senseless argument. The whole introduction that comfort wrote has been dissected in detail and it’s pure unadulterated bullshit from start to finish – it’s one of the most dishonest pieces of literature in existence.

In the film Expelled – Ben Stein attempted the same feat – that of invoking evolution as Hitler’s inspiration for the holocaust. It is simply unbelievable the lengths these people will go to defend their ‘sacred truth’. The fact of the matter here is that you would have to seriously misunderstand evolutionary theory in its entirety for it to ever lead to any kind of genocide at all. Why? Because limiting the amount of genetic variety in a gene pool is detrimental to the overall population of that organism – evolution 101.

In the Kitzmiller Vs. Dover trial (2006) which was pretty much the seminal evolution vs creationism court case, Michael Behe repeatedly lied under oath. He had previously stated that there was no evidence that the immune system could have evolved. Upon being presented with 58 peer reviewed papers and several books on exactly that subject he employed another creationist debate tactic known as moving the goal posts. Basically what he did is he began to redefine what he would accept as evidence in the process setting an impossible standard of what he would accept. See the video below on this.

And finally a little bit on Harun Yahya. Creationists love him – I even know of a certain creationist blog not too far away from here that references his work occasionally. And why not – he’s the champion of creationism for the Muslim world. If you’re a creationist you need this guy’s input. Want the kicker? Not only is he a holocaust denier but he’s also a criminal. I mean this guy fights dirty when it comes to creationism and we’re talking censorship of the Internet (in Turkey), extortion, blackmail, libel, embezzlement and drug offences (I don’t personally have a problem with this but it does kind of imply hypocrisy if he believes the Quran is inerrant). But I guess there’s nothing quite like fair and honest dialogue if you are promoting ‘the truth’.

So what do I make of all this? These people KNOW they are lying but they do it anyway. They peddle their propaganda because it’s a good way to make money and their indoctrinated sheep will gladly acquiesce. I think hypocrisy like this is one of the most destructive forces in the entire Christian religion, I would say most destructive but then I’d be ignoring Catholicism and some of its adherents’ rather interesting take on sexual ethics. 

Why creationists chose to pick a fight with evolution I don’t know but one thing I do know is it was a mistake - a massive one. The opening salvos were declared by creationists in Darwin’s time and creationists started a war that they’ve been slowly losing ever since. The problem I have with it is and this should be important to Christians is that it has given secularists the perfect platform on which to attack Christianity itself. In the age of the Internet this battle has become even more pronounced especially in light of the so called great YouTube war between Rationalists and Christians which has seen this debate go nuclear. Christians largely lost this war and YouTube now carries scientific videos that address almost every single objection to evolution creationists have ever dreamed up. The same cannot be said of creationism because the posters of creationist videos normally end up either taking their videos down or comment censor them heavily. Censorship does kind of imply that you’ve got something to hide or that some kind of dishonesty is involved.

Quite why they chose to continue this war I don’t know because it is seriously damaging Christianity in a way that no secularist ever could. I personally don’t have a problem with Christians destroying their religion, I mean I would personally prefer it if people were atheists because it’s far easier to reason with non-religious people. That said if I were a Christian, I would be mightily pissed that there were a group of people busy destroying my religion. But what do I care I’ll happily continue this argument forever and a day, debunking creationism has been likened by some observers to an Internet sport, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel most of time.

Random Englishman presented me with this argument – that scientists who are part of the evolution system are afraid to speak out against it and just go with the flow. I’ve had more chance to think about this one and it’s not quite right. This simply isn’t how the system works. You don’t look for facts to support a preconceived conclusion, you first find the facts and then ask what conclusions you can draw from them. If facts come to light that flatly contradict a scientific theorem then you would still have to submit them for peer review. Other people then analyse your work and decide if it has merit and if the conclusions drawn are correct it has ramifications throughout the scientific world and you gain recognition for your work. The objections to any particular piece of work can’t be a gut feeling or because a reviewer disagrees with the conclusions drawn, it must be proven that piece of work is incorrect. It is perhaps the ultimate system of honesty and integrity because the process of peer review by design seeks truth and prevents misinformation. That is why we have a first world technological civilisation with things like computers, cars and space shuttles – because this system for discovering how things work is monumentally successful. Things like evolutionary THEORY, atomic THEORY and the THEORY of relativity have real world implications because the science works!

“Of course science knows it doesn’t know everything. Otherwise it would stop.” – Dara O’Brien.

Finally a video of a Christian scientist I respect – Ken Miller who interestingly enough testified against Intelligent Design in the Kitzmiller Vs Dover case.

Saturday 5 March 2011

The Adjustment Bureau (2011)

Well how to summarise this film? Original, thought provoking, spiritual and romantic.

the-adjustment-bureau-movie-posterI did promise a review of the latest PKD film as soon as I got chance to watch it and since it was released today, I decided to take a punt at it and see if it was any good. And wow, just wow. Probably the best film I’ve seen so far this year. It is no doubt a film that will polarise critics but as I’ve said before the nuances of PKD films are lost on many people. I expected I’d probably like it but I didn’t just like this film, I loved it. It’s also another example of what seems to me to be a really undertapped hybrid movie genre – the science fiction romance. It was massively better than The Time Traveller’s Wife although perhaps not quite as good as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. There are other examples of course such as the Fountain and Solaris which similarly polarise critics but these examples really don’t compare.

So what exactly is it about? The film stars Matt Damon as David Norris, a democratic politician running for the senate. By chance (although perhaps not – further analysis required) he meets Elise (Emily Blunt), a ballet dancer in the men’s room as he’s rehearsing his concession speech having just lost the election. The chance encounter leaves him more than a little flustered and inspires him to give the speech of his life which unbeknown to him has secured him an interesting future. This is where the film kicks off – he’s never supposed to meet her again and agents of fate are supposed to ensure this doesn’t happen but one of them – Harry (played by Anthony Mackie) bumbles his job (perhaps deliberately) and they meet again which although seemingly serendipitous at the time there turns out to be good reason why which is later revealed. This sets in motion a chain of events whereby Damon discovers the existence of these agents of fate (The Adjustment Bureau) and learns what it is they’re trying to prevent – their being together. During the first encounter it would seem the Adjustment Bureau have successfully intervened and prevented what they were trying to prevent. But years later then they meet again and Damon now being aware of the Adjustment Bureau is adamant that they not change the fate he chooses for himself and thus begins the bizarre combination of existential rollercoaster and love story uniquely twisted together to make a thoroughly enjoyable film.

the-adjustment-bureauAlthough presented primarily as science fiction, the film would seem to have some very strong religious undertones. The Adjustment Bureau can be likened to angels and the film presents a peculiar reason for the need of humanity to not control their own fate but nonetheless a very valid one that’s almost totally believable in light of the real world events it references. They also speak continually of the mysterious chairman who presumably represents God. This probably isn’t what PKD intended as the Adjustment Team were really just a way to personify fate so he could argue against the concepts of predestination but the way the film subtly presents what is really a religious concept as science fiction is very clever and will be satisfying to audiences regardless of religious persuasion as it doesn’t explicitly state anything. In this way the film could arguably be compared to the Mothman Prophecies as questions about the agents of fate and where they come from or who they are are all kept (correctly) unanswered.

The Adjustment Bureau although the antagonists in the story are largely benevolent and only proceeding according to specific instructions. The film states openly that in the past they’ve tried various approaches to controlling fate, from being very controlling to limited intervention to being completely hands off. It would seem that when they don’t intervene that humanity finds a way to fuck everything up royally and this is the reason they have no choice but to follow ‘The Plan’. Going into the film I had expected things to be a little more black and white than this but refreshingly the ‘bad guys’ are entirely presented as a shade of grey. This is perhaps illustrated best when Damon asks Stamp something to the tune of if they’re so great why is the world such a mess to which Stamp glibly replies “At least it’s still here.” and then goes on to point out why it wouldn’t be if it weren’t for them.

the_adjustment_bureau_wallpaper-535x334The film also alludes to several notions present in good science fiction time travel films such as the butterfly effect and the ripple effect. And it is at times a highly amusing film to watch as the Adjustment Bureau have a real time interpretation of how events are going to pan out if certain actions take place, then they watch helplessly as Damon screws up the entire future before their eyes.

As to how it compares to other PKD films that deal with the fate versus free will paradox, it doesn’t exactly come to the same conclusions which made the end kind of refreshing. Granted it was still the happy sappy Hollywood ending but if it hadn’t have been a happy ending, this film would God damn awful and depressing as fuck. The conclusions it draws are rather different than other PKD films that deal with this theme in that whilst the film does state that while fate will be controlled for a long time to come until humanity can truly be trusted off its leash that not knowing the plan creates the convincing illusion of free will and for a limited few (Damon and Blunt), true free will should they fight for it strongly enough. I have to admit I did love the ending even if it wasn’t totally epic, it was quite existential and echoed Vanilla Sky in many ways (a rooftop finale with a peppering of strong philosophy).

The film is also laced with humour but it’s all well timed and doesn’t compromise the overall dark tone of the story. Additionally the humour makes the love story much easier to believe as the character interaction is fantastic. The performances of Damon and blunt were out of this world. I’m not usually good at spotting on screen chemistry but these two had it in oodles and it was so good it lifted the film to whole new level as they were exceptionally captivating to watch. The screenplay is above par excellence and has the audience genuinely caring whether this couple get together based on one single five minute conversation (I hope you’re taking notes Chic Geek). The back and forth dialogue between Blunt and Damon throughout the film is simply amazing.

I would have to say that overall this is one of the stronger Phillip K Dick adaptions out there and for me it was right on the money. An instant classic.

Friday 4 March 2011

Goodtimes

How classic is this song? Would probably have never heard it had it not been bundled with the Windows 95 CD - some definite nostalgia here. And for some reason I can never remember her damn name.

Wednesday 2 March 2011

sunset dream-1280x1024 copy

Abiogenesis

Well randomenglishman, you seem to have successfully butchered this blog and turned it into a debate that's probably unnecessary since neither of us are going to yield our positions but just so you don't think I'm taking abiogenesis on faith, I present a few videos demonstrating that it can at least be partially proven by our practical observations of reality. As I said organic chemistry was never my strength so I don't fully understand the arguments presented here but they do at least make sense.