Poor Windows

2006.03.27 - Monday

Windows Is So Slow, but Why?

This is a pretty interesting article on the challenges Microsoft faces with "Vista", the next version of Windows. They are right, though. Windows is horribly slow. If you consider how fast computers are these days, compared to the days of Windows 3.1 or even 95, it's ridiculous to think that the user experience hasn't gotten much faster. Folders packed full of files still take a while to load, Internet Explorer takes a few seconds to open, and the entire computer can take minutes to fully boot. It's the same as it was five years ago, despite the massive explosion in processor, bus, and even hard drive speeds.

I also found it interesting that Microsoft is supposedly committed to making legacy hardware and software compatible with Vista. I know I'll be glad when I finally get it, and I can still play my old games. Software developers will be glad too, not having to write new versions of their programs simply because an operating system has changed. Interesting then, that Microsoft decided to announce that "Halo 2", which could possibly do huge sales on the PC platform, would be a Vista-only game. Anyone wanting to play it would have to upgrade, or miss out on this Xbox (meaning "old") title on their PC.

Sooner or later it's going to become cheaper for Microsoft to make a completely new operating system, and for a time, have both it and Windows-whatever in the market at the same time. It might be a tough transition period, but they will have to do it if they want to maintain their dominance over the PC landscape.

Will they realize that in time to save themselves? We'll see.

Movie Season

2006.03.18 - Saturday

It's only about another month or so before the "summer movie season" begins. There are always films I look forward to, but mostly there are a few that I have a vague interest in seeing, but probably won't. Continuing the trend of the last few years, "X-Men" and "Superman" are definitely going to be at the top of my list. I expect more of the same from "X-Men", although with a new director and a supposedly rushed production schedule, there's the chance it might not live up to its billing.

"Superman" is an unknown quantity right now. Bryan Singer is a great director who seems to have a real passion for the franchise, giving up working on the third X-Men film in order to do "Superman Returns". The new Superman, Brandon Routh, is an almost total unknown. He looks a bit young, but his voice sounds dead on. Compared to this latest X-Men film and many other projects, hardly any news or information seems to be leaking out of the "Superman Returns" production. Personally, I think that's a good sign. Better than the team is working on the film than working the PR circuit, though that will come with time. Some recent news out of a footage screening is sounding pretty good to me, and I personally can't wait to see how Singer and the VFX team take advantage of the latest film technology to really showcase Superman's powers the way they should be seen.

Besides, as cool as the X-Men are, who the hell doesn't love Superman? I mean, he's freakin' invincible, seems to have limitless strength, and he can fly. Who doesn't want to see that on film now that it can actually be done properly?

I'm going to see "V For Vendetta" tonight. It looks good, so I hope it actually is. I'll post some thoughts during the week.

Gear Collection

2006.03.15 - Wednesday

I thought a picture was a good idea, before I start getting rid of the old stuff.

Ender's Game

2006.03.09 - Thursday

A co-worker suggested I read Orson Scott Card's "Ender's Game", so I picked it up yesterday and finished it today. I suppose it only took about six or seven hours to read the whole thing, so don't think it was engrossing enough to make me pull an all-nighter, but it was good, light reading.

The story basically follows Ender, a young boy chosen from birth, indeed, born specifically to become the greatest military leader in Human history. We need such a person in our war against the Buggers, an super intelligent, insect-like alien race seemingly bent on our destruction. The thing I found interesting about the idea of the Buggers wasn't that they were insect-like, as that's certainly been done before, and to death, but their method of communication. They're telepathic, across any distance, even across the entire galaxy. They've always been this way, simply communicating by thinking to each other. As a result, they have no language, no math in the traditional sense. Nothing to represent ideas, or numbers, or sounds. In fact, as far as we know, they can't hear at all.

What's interesting about this idea is that we cannot communicate with them. In the story, we never have. They have no machines for detecting radio signals, no ability to hear noises, no concept of numbers to see mathematically based light patterns. In turn, they emit no signals, nothing that we could analyze or learn or decipher. If there really was an alien race, or several, like that out there, we would have virtually no chance of detecting them unless they wanted to be seen. That assumes they know we're here, think we're intelligence, or even care.

The book is a good read, even if it is a tad simple. Certainly a good way to spend an afternoon or two.

The Future of Star Trek

2006.03.07 - Tuesday

Now that CBS, or Paramount, or whoever the hell controls Star Trek these days, have thrown Rick Berman's latest movie treatment back in his face, it seems like a good time to start thinking about Star Trek's future. As far as I know, Berman's contract as the head of all things Trek expires in 2008, and at this point we have to assume that he's going to be out the door. I mean, he has to be, right? Assuming that's the case, I wouldn't expect to see a new Trek television series or film until at least 2010. I'm just going to ramble for a bit here about what I would like to see.

First things first, the story has to be set in the "future" of Trek. I'm sick and tired of seeing prequels, as I have been since "Star Wars: Episode 1". Besides, "Enterprise" has completely poisoned the possible story ideas for the birth of the Federation, or the beginning of Humanity's journey beyond our own solar system. Let's see a story set in the 25th or 26th century, way after even the "Nemesis" timeline. Having all new characters is a given, although it would be nice to see Patrick Stewart as Picard in the beginning of the film or series, as the traditional "send-off" character, wishing the new captain well and saying that the ship has the right name, in what I'm sure would a scene that would choke up Trek fans everywhere.

It would be great to get the science of the show in check again. Back in the TNG days, scripts were actually reviewed by real physicists and astronomers to ensure they were relatively accurate and plausible. Entire story ideas revolved around the latest theories in quantum mechanics and astronomy. That's a far cry from horrible "Voyager" and "Enterprise" scripts that featured ships maneuvering only 200,000 km from a black hole, or characters devolving into primordial salamanders. I actually, physically cringed just now as I remembered those episodes. Absolutely awful.

Aliens need to be a lot more interesting. I don't want to see any more actors with bumpy noses, although I could be persuaded to have a few Vulcans on the show once and a while, for old time's sake. What about a machine intelligence that, gasp, isn't bent on our destruction! Something, anything relatively new would be nice. The sci-fi novel community has been coming up with neat ideas for decades, so do a little reading and get wise. No more Klingons, Romulans, Denobulans, or other human-looking beings. No more alien entities that take over the crew or the ship's computer. No more beings living in another dimension, or a layer of sub-space, that our energy collecting methods are destroying. No more environmentalist agenda scripts, please!

Let's see a little more of Earth. How does the Federation work? How does society function when there is unlimited energy and unlimited resources? When people can replicate any food or possession they wish, and money disappears, what is the driving force behind life? Sit down and figure out how it actually works. Let's see a little more of Humanity's accomplishments too. We're always being wowed by advanced aliens, but what about us? What about the fabled Gibraltar Dam? New Berlin and Lake Armstrong on the Moon? The Utopia Planitia ship yards at Mars? The continent raising Atlantis project? Let's see some of the impressive accomplishments that Humanity has made. Show people the possibilities that the future may hold if we want it enough.

Story arcs. I don't know why Rick Berman refused to do them until the 3rd season of "Enterprise". It was probably because he's old and tired; locked into a pattern that he can't escape, simply because "that's what we've always done". Well you got cancelled Rick, now get the hell out. Every other successful sci-fi show has had exciting story arcs that make viewers want to come back. Babylon 5, Farscape, Stargate, Battlestar Galactica, Buffy, Angel, Smallville. Story arcs, all of them. Take the hint. In addition to story arcs, reference your own history. It's okay, people will remember. Instantly incorporate relatively stand-alone episodes into the arc by referring to events in them. Hell, there are even a few stories I'd like to revisit from the TNG days. What ever happened to that planet of nanites? Did the bio engineered society survive? Where the hell did Wesley Crusher go, and why does he suddenly appear in "Nemesis" for no reason? Come on people, there are tons of these.

Ship design and technology has to become more realistic. You would expect a civilization that uses transporters wouldn't build ships with phasers that "can't target fast moving fighters" or torpedoes that only hit their targets 40% of the time. You would expect a ship with holodecks to have internal sensors capable of detecting shape shifters, or old men who have fallen and broken their leg. The inconsistency is baffling and totally unnecessary. In a lot of instances sci-fi stories, especially television and movie ones, don't take in to account what our civilization is capable of doing today, let alone hundreds of years from now. Writers still approach space combat or infantry combat, for example, as if it were still the second world war. Federation foot soldiers, if there are any, aren't going to be using "plasma grenades" that they throw, or worse, launch from mortars. Their phasers will have advanced auto targeting and guidance systems that make it almost impossible to miss what they're shooting at, which up until now, they seem to do quite regularly. It all comes from a lack of knowledge on the writers side about exactly how the military fights today, and how it's planning on fighting in the future, and any writer who thinks that the audience "won't get it unless it's simple" needs to be disqualified from working on Star Trek, permanently.

Please, for the love of God, don't make the show "dark and moody". We don't need another "Battlestar Galactica", we need an entertaining "Star Trek". People don't have to constantly be dying for a show to be emotional, and the Human race doesn't need to be on the verge of extinction in order for there to be drama. TNG's "All Good Things..." should be considered the benchmark for the ideal Star Trek story, as Q says "not cataloguing stars and charting nebula, but exploring the unknown possibilities of existence." High concept people, it's always been Star Trek's advantage over other television, and it can be again. You just can't dumb it down, high concept has to be high concept, and as TNG proved, it will be popular when done well. "Voyager" is what happens when you dumb the ideas down until they're meaningless, and we all know what happened with that show. Star Trek should be intelligent, optimistic, and confident in itself and its spirit. The show shouldn't need to add a scantily clad female cast member as some kind of requirement, or only tackle thinly veiled terrorists stories in order to be relevant. If the people who will eventually make this show aren't going to be confident in its purpose, then why even bother?

I could, in fact I have, gone on for hours about this subject. The possibilities for a new Trek show are almost endless, even working within the established framework. There is no good reason for a new series or film to fail. Will a new Trek project be everything I hope for? I doubt it. Will it be good? It had better be.

Just a Big Scam

2006.03.03 - Friday

I just received my car insurance renewal notice from ICBC. I seem to remember that just last year there was a big deal about ICBC reporting, oh what was it? Right, several HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS in profits. A whole whack of executives got big fat bonuses and some ICBC customers got near pointless $20 cheques in the mail. I was very interested to read in this latest renewal notice that ICBC has applied for a 6.5% increase to insurance rates beginning in March. So they make a few hundred million a then increase the rates? I would expect that sort of thing from a private corporation, but isn't one of the main reasons for having public companies to prevent this sort of thing?

It's obvious to anyone how they make their "profits" anyway, by overcharging the people for insurance and by denying insurance claims. Just this past year Sarah had to pay out of pocket to get her Mom's car repaired after it was side-swiped while parked on the street, just because the ICBC "collision expert" couldn't see how that might have happened, and basically suggested she was trying to defraud the system. Yeah, defraud the executives out of their new yachts and mansions, maybe.

It's unbelievable to me how people in Canada just lie down and take it like a twenty dollar east-end hooker on a busy Saturday night. I swear there is a good portion of our population who actually like being sodomized by the government. Heaven forbid we should privatize something like ICBC though, because then they might actually have to face some competition and wouldn't be able to increase rates while they rip everyone off at the current ones.

Running a public company as if it were private is a good idea when there are private companies for it to compete with. When that same public company enjoys a near monopoly, the excess fees it charges are just another tax. I wonder what percentage of our income is taken up by taxes in total, after income tax, gas tax, liquor tax, sales tax, and all of the many others? Fifty five percent? Sixty five? More?

Ridiculous.