You wanna know how I know I'm a nerd?

Last night I changed the channel from a KISS performance to catch the start of MythBusters instead.

And as I committed that seemingly treasonous act, the poignancy of it all immediately struck me. I decided that I had seen my fill of hairy, aging, make-up-wearing hedonists cavorting around on that huge stage as if they were youth and sexuality personified. In 2006, seeing KISS up there "rocking," (and hearing Paul Stanley strain for the high notes), is no different than seeing an overly glorified dinosaur act like Foghat or Steve Miller. The comparatively staid, rational discourse found on MythBusters promised much more entertainment for me.
What kind of mixed-up parallel universe am I living in? Did I really just say that watching two guys mess around with ballistics gel and poke fun at the idea of free energy devices was more entertaining than watching KISS?

Well, yeah.

Let me put this simply. The KISS phenomena, with its "army" and all manner of toys and merchandising and pyrotechnics-fueled concerts, is the biggest amount of empty hype masking a mediocre product to ever darken the doors of American pop culture. As "musicians" or "artists," (I use both terms very loosely), KISS put on display the perfect storm of style with no substance. Ever hear the phrase "polishing a turd?" I could throw a cinder block on any Friday or Saturday night and hit a bar-band with as much or more musical proficiency as the goons in KISS.

Take away all the pyro, the huge shoes, the make-up, the tongue-wagging, and the entranced women in the front row and just listen to the awful, clichéd blues-based guitar solos and Neanderthal harmonic progressions and it is just so obvious…what you are listening to is the product of highly-paid musical retards. If I was subversively presenting that level of over-hyped ineptitude to the general public, I'd hide my face with paint too.

But it's not just their musical aesthetic that is weak. They also have nothing to say, lyrically, that is beyond the abilities of your average sensitive and/or horny junior high student:

I know a thing or two about her

I know she'll only make you cry

She'll let you walk the street beside her

But when she wants she'll pass you by

Everybody says she's lookin' good

And the lady knows it's understood

Strutter

So why do people still get excited for this swill? I don't know. I'm still working on that one. Why do people get excited for all kinds of pop music putrescence that's thrown at them?

In the case of KISS, I remember as a little kid how my brothers' listening to this perverse music upset my long-suffering mother to no end. I think she honestly thought they were "devil's music," which says a lot coming from my hip and with-it mom. I'm pretty sure the "rebellious factor" secured their original audience as teenagers inhaled this stuff like so much weed. But why, thirty years hence, is there still an audience? Is it just a bunch of 40-somethings reliving their youth?

If you have gotten this far and think that I'm being a little harsh, I will concede this one point: the boys in the band at least seemed like they were in on the joke over the years. I have seen Gene Simmons talk in interviews about their lack of real musicianship and how they were the first band to really "sell out." However, the testimony of a pompous ass of the magnitude of Simmons should not be considered as definitive in any way.

The crux of the matter is that last night I had a revelation of my own nerddom. The time has come to put away childish things. Down with KISS and all that they stand for. Up with the age of rationality and science.

I'm old.

What Makes a Horror Movie Awesome?

I'll tell you what makes it awesome. All you need are four things- scary, bloody, funny and boobs. That's it. That's really all you need. It should be so easy. Unfortunately the majority of movies manage to miss at least one of the marks. If you can find some way to include a combination of these four things then you, my friend, have made yourself a complete horror film.

Let's examine the four categories a little more closely:

Scary
The cornerstone of all horror movies is its scare factor. If a horror movie isn't scary then it's not really a horror movie, is it? It's more of an actiony thriller movie or something. Scares are typically wrought through one of the methods. Let's look at some Stephen King adaptations for examples. The first route to scary is artful direction resulting in suspense that keeps the viewer on edge. This can be found in Misery as James Caan is sneaking around and you just know Cathy Bates is going to catch him at any moment and make his ankle all floppy. The second is through plot circumstances that remind us that what we're seeing could happen to us and tear our world apart. An example of this is Cujo. It's not too far fetched to imagine being assaulted by a rabies-afflicted beast. The easiest route to scary is the jump out. If you're especially ignorant and can't think of an example of this just watch the ending of Carrie. The lesson here is that the methods aren't important so long as the end result if terror.

Bloody
To me, this is the least essential of the quadrilateral. I believe a horror movie requires at least a scene or two that makes me squirm or cringe but if I had to go without at least one of the four this would be the one I omit. That said, when people are discussing movies around the watercooler or at the cafeteria lunchtable these are usually the scenes they are talking about. These are usually the first scenes to come to mind when you are reminded of a horror movie. Think about it, what scenes do you immediately think of when I mention movies like Cannibal Holocaust or Alien?

Funny
The funny is absolutely necessary. If you have an hour and a half of straight tension you would have a stroke and die. Even if you could, why would you want to? There is an art to building up the suspense, breaking it and then building it up again, just a little bigger than before. The great ones do this seamlessly, subtly moving us through laughter and fear. An example of this can be found in Bruce Campbell's performances in the Evil Dead movies.

The comedy doesn't even have to be intentional to be effective. Some movies are so campy or the characters so stupid that they provide us with laughs even when they don't mean to. For instance, take a look at a movie like Troll 2. The plot, acting, and effects are so terrible that it is much more of a comedy film than horror.

Boobs
There's no way to discuss this section without coming across as a pig, so I'm just going to avoid the pretense and speak frankly here. A flash of boob here or there in a movie inherently makes it better. I'm not looking for porno levels of skin or even a gratuitous amount of nudity. Just give us a little. Throw us a bone, so to speak. The movie should, at least once or twice give us an answer when we wonder to ourselves, "What's she look like under there?"

This is where the new breed of horror movies got it all wrong. Scream came out and really revitalized the industry. We were so hungry for horror that we flocked to it. Unfortunately, when they skipped the nudity that had become a staple of horror in decades past and we supported it anyway, the message the studios got was that it was ok to leave the boob shots out. Scream's success encouraged many other films to follow suit, such as the I Know What You Did Last Summer and Urban Legends movies. In those three franchises alone we were denied nudity of Heather Graham, Sarah Michelle Gellar (twice), Drew Berrymore, Rebecca Gayheart (twice), Tara Reid, and Jennifer Love Hewitt (twice.) Yep, good thing Rebecca Gayheart didn't show her boobs and cause her career to fizzle out.

As you can see, many movies blend various combinations of these elements; but it is the very rare movie that finds a way to successfully include them all. The most recent movie to nail the mark was Eli Roth's Cabin Fever. Here's how:

The plot focuses on a group of friends in the woods, (the isolation of the rural wooded area provides an extremely fertile setting for horror), as they are exposed to a horrific virus. The story is scary because it doesn't take a lot of imagination to envision a deadly virus sweeping across the country.

This virus is very destructive and leads to some ghastly wounds and decompositions. We're given all the gore we could want, (provided our name isn't Peter Jackson.)

James DeBello as Bert and Guiseppe Andrews as Deputy Winston provide ample laughs to ease the growing tension as the virus spreads.

Finally, we are given multiple views of the tasty body of Cerina Vincent. Sure, she's shaving the flesh off of her legs in one of them but we really can't be choosy. Somewhat disappointing is that Jordan Ladd refused to bare her goodies but then opted to do so in her very next movie. Oh well, c'est la vie. (I don't even know what that means but it seemed fitting.)

Now, don't be mistaken. There are many great horror movies that fail to meet one or more of the critical criteria. These films are especially disappointing because they could have reached pantheon level with just a little more work.

Of course, you could argue that the inclusion of whatever was missing would have detracted from the movie. Maybe you're right, but good luck convincing me that Sleepaway Camp wouldn't have been better with a little nudity, or The Shining wouldn't have benefited from more comedy.

Some movies have to use sequels to hit all four categories. This, of course, is not a successful fulfillment of the quadrilateral. A good example of this is the A Nightmare on Elm Street series. The first movie hits scary, bloody and funny like Hiroshima, but we aren't delivered a single nipple until later in the series.

Feel free to use my system to evaluate horror movies from now on or even develop your own system. Perhaps, if enough of us start using my system, we can really grow and form a grassroots coalition that will become large enough for the movie studios to take notice. They will begin to meet our demands for better horror and stop just releasing neutered remakes of the beloved classics.

Who will join me? Who will stand my side and declare that we will not go quietly into the night until our desire for fright and gore, balanced with a touch of comedy and completely unnecessary nudity has been satiated?

Well, it's that time again, and provided the rapture didn't hit (6/6/06), I'm Sydney Brown with another edition of Sixty Seconds. And man, if the rapture DID hit, well then, boy is my face red. That's what I get for mocking Satan and his minions.

No crazy intro this time, I really got some goodies for you. Of course, then again, I try to. I don't want to waste your time- which any sentence in this paragraph after this will do. So…..

Capote (2005) Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Catherine Keener, ***

Fact-based film about Truman Capote's research for his 1960's book In Cold Blood, in which two drifters murdered an entire family. Hoffman gives a great performance, (Oscar winning), and the subject matter is fascinating. Capote's research drawing him so close to the killers that he almost sympathizes with their plight sounds like a great film idea, but in all honesty, Capote is such a self-centered egoist, it's often difficult to know when he's actually caring about his subjects and when he's "playing for the camera," (which appears to be a non-stop problem for him.) A very good film, but not quite what I would call great, though it is certainly recommended.

George Washington (2000) ***

Slow-moving, yet realistic-feeling film about poor children in the South, and a terrible accident that occurs over their summer vacation. Difficult film to describe, and possibly even moreso to appreciate. (I'll admit, much of it went over my head.) Key character is a young boy whose skull never quite fused together and must always wear a helmet, and the lengths to which he goes to help others in need. Some great dialogue makes up for some of the slower passages. Definitely not for all tastes.

The Shape of Things (2003) Paul Rudd, Rachel Weisz **

Disappointing Neil LaBute stage-play-turned-film about a female artist falling in love with a nerdy museum worker. Two problems hinder the film: too much stilted pop-culture dialogue that just sounds like off-off-Broadway schtick, and a "twist" ending that all but gives itself away an hour into the movie. Rudd gives a great performance and there's a terrific scene between him and Gretchen Mol, but the message and point of the film is a waste of one's time, (which, in essence, could be the point.) Film DOES, however, contain perhaps the most ridiculous pratfall in recent cinema history.

Gates of Heaven (1980) ***½

Wonderful and quirky documentary about pet cemeteries in California. What's astonishing is how captivating so much of the film is, despite much of it having little, if anything, to do with cemetaries. If anything, the film is more about the American dream, the afterlife, and our relationships with each other. An old lady in the span of five minutes steals the entire film with a brilliant rambling monologue that couldn't be anything but off-the-cuff in what is quite possibly one of the greatest scenes I have ever seen. Emotionally touching, strangely funny, and quite brilliant. Documentary debut of Oscar-winning director Errol Morris.

Modern Romance (1981) **** Albert Brooks

Easily one of the greatest films I've ever seen, Albert Brooks pretty much explains why neurotic people can never be happy as he spends the entire film breaking up with and getting back together with his girlfriend. Countless classic scenes ranging from Brooks' rebound date to an infamous sequence involving a George Kennedy movie to the greatest Harlem Globetrotter cameo ever to the Incredible Hulk's footsteps. If you've ever been even the SLIGHTEST bit neurotic, this is an absolute MUST-SEE. One of my 10 all-time favorite films.

Yeah, I'm building up Modern Romance big time. I say that because if you ever see the DVD cover, you'll think I'm a lunatic for thinking so highly of it.

That's all. Back with more, I don't know, maybe in a month? Maybe?

Wi-Fi – the wireless networks that your computer can connect to and surf the web. Some times it's free (possibly at your home, at work, at certain businesses like Panera Bread) other times there's a charge (like at Starbucks). Fon is a new movement of broadband subscribers that aims to create a world-wide Wi-Fi network that is free for all those that participate by adding their broadband access to the overall network. As an aside, it's pronounced like "phone", but has pretty much nothing to do with telephones. In this issue of Spotlight on Technology I'll discuss the details of the Fon system, how you can "join the club" and a few of my hesitations and questions.

One interesting note about Wi-Fi in general is that the word, "Wi-Fi," is not actually short for anything. From what I've read, it seems the term found its origins in the phrase "Wireless Fidelity", but the people who invented the term (the Wi-Fi Alliance) now discourage people from making this connection.

The Fon system depends on some special software that is installed on your Wi-Fi router (the device that transmits the network signal through the air). Currently only one wireless router is supported (the Linksys WRT54G) but Fon is planning on supporting more as development continues. This software allows other Fon users (they're called "Foneros") to connect to the wireless network that extends outside the walls of your house (usually for 100 feet or so) using a username and password supplied by Fon. They are calling each of these routers Fon hotspots. The plan is to have enough of these hotspots spread out across each city to create a seamlessly connected world-wide Wi-Fi network.

Besides the hardware, the other main component of Fon's world-wide movement is a really slick mapping system, based on Google maps. Their maps show the locations of all registered Fon hotspots, so if you plan on traveling you can find out what parts of town will have Fon access before you leave. On your next trip to Europe or Asia, you wouldn't have to worry about paying exorbitant hourly rates for Internet access… just find a Fon hotspot and log in. This mapping tool makes finding Fon hotspots so simple that I imagine this feature alone will account for Fon's eventual success.

To become a Fonero and get in on the action, all a person needs to do is get the supported wireless router, install the router software and register at http://www.fon.com. Once registered, your hotspot will show up on the map. Fon states that your privacy is protected, but, ultimately, this was one of the reasons I have not signed up yet. It may be a while before I'm really comfortable advertising my address, even anonymously, to the rest of the world.

Currently in Nerd County (OKC) there are only about 6 Fon hotspots – hardly thorough coverage. However, in bigger metropolitan areas (such as Dallas) there are quite a few more, and the movement is still relatively young. Below is Fon's map of the Dallas area.

I came really close to signing up for the $25 router (which has apparently dropped down to just $4 as of June 2^nd) and registering for a Fon account. In the end though, I have not yet done this. Besides the privacy issue mentioned above, I was also reluctant to sign up because 1) I'm almost certain my contract with Cox (my Internet Service Provider or ISP) does not allow sharing my bandwidth with individuals outside of my house and 2) I don't really want people doing illegal things on my bandwidth.

Any website visited by a Fonero using my router would, from Cox's perspective, look as if I were the one visiting this site. Fon's system is not totally anonymous – anyone using my Fon hotspot will have logged in using their Fon username and password. Fon states that this lack of anonymity will deter people from doing illegal activity over someone else's Fon hotspot. However, I'm not really convinced – even though people log in with a username, once they are on my network, I don't think Cox can differentiate between their Internet activity and mine.

There are several ISPs around the world that are cool with Fon so maybe Cox will eventually come around and allow users to share their bandwidth. One alternative, I believe, would be to get Cox's business-at-home service which is about $15 more a month but allows you to do more with your account.

If Cox were to allow bandwidth sharing, I would probably eventually talk myself into joining Fon. The potential of having Wi-Fi readily available everywhere is really appealing, especially if this network were built from a grassroots movement such as Fon.

The literature of humanity is obviously diverse, discussing all manner of ideas: What is love? Who or what is God? How does stuff work? What is right and what is wrong? It's only been fairly recently, (probably within the last hundred and fifty years or so), that writers dared to depict humanity's future with any kind of technology. I'm thinking in particular of the works of George Orwell and Aldous Huxley, but there were others who wondered how technology and humans would interact.

And you can think of technology in two disparate ways: a) either the products of our scientific exploration will make our lives easier or b) the machines will take over and end life as we know it. Even though this kind of talk is usually the specialty of our own Dr. Roger Korby, I want to talk about the virtues of a specific technology that has come about within the confines of my own lifetime: the remote control.

It's an elegant idea, isn't it? I want to do something, but I want to do it from a distance. It's really hard to imagine, but there once was a time, not so long in fact, when there was no such thing as manipulation from a separate location. Control of physical things always implied proximity. Do you remember having to get up off the couch, walk over to the television set, (which was encased in rich mahogany if you were of a certain financial stratus), and change the channel? Obviously those days are long gone as I can control much more than my television remotely. In my living room, I have four different controllers for the stereo, DVD player, TV, and sound system and that's a rather modest set-up. Going to Rascal Stallion's house is like walking through a minefield of remotes. And let us not forget how we use remotes for outdoor purposes like unlocking our cars, lifting garage doors, and if we're in the movies, for detonating explosives.

But today I want to talk in particular about my television remote. Well, not just mine, but everybody's. I want to talk about the idea of television remotes and then a general principle.

Here's the deal. There is no question that my remote control is a handy device. Literally. It goes in your hand. You use your hands and fingers to manipulate it. And it does miraculous things, chief of which is that it changes the channel on the TV. I can spend a whole evening on the couch if I want to and barely have to move a muscle. Thanks to this little device, I can come this close to entering a vegetative state while searching for what's on. (Which makes me wonder-is a potato a vegetable? Only the validity of the phrase "couch potato" rests on the answer.)

So, clearly the remote control is a helpmate for mankind. Sort of like Eve in the Bible. But the principle I wanted to discuss is that of hidden influence. The development and proliferation of television remotes has had consequences that surely couldn't have been foreseen at the time of their invention, particularly in the world of advertising.

Very few people like to watch commercials. Oh, I suppose ad execs enjoy them and the Super Bowl ads are the glaring exception. But if someone was given the choice between watching a credit counseling commercial or ER, ER would win every time. And before the invention of "the clicker" people had very little choice in the matter. While we hated commercials, we hated getting off our asses even more.

Not so in the modern age. A commercial break is now a chance to "see what else is on" for about two or three minutes. We are no longer forced to watch anything we don't want to. And that must drive advertising professionals batty. I'm sure they are constantly trying to come up with ways to get our attention quickly, before we begin to "surf": using bright colors for establishing shots, screaming at us…Who knows what tricks they have these days?

Like I said before, a whole industry had to change to accommodate the residual effects from the invention of a rather simple device-the remote control. Similarly, an entire industry was changed when some dude decided that he wanted to encode the music on his CDs in a compressed file format on his computer and thus the birth of mp3s, the slow death of record companies, and the end of lockouts at large recording studios. Could anyone have seen all of these repercussions beforehand? C.S. Lewis talked about the relative merits and ill effects of science and technology in The Abolition of Man, I believe it was, and one of the big ideas stemming from Sartre's existentialism was the idea that humans are cursed to be free, in that we are free to choose, (i.e. to create and invent–or not), yet at the same time we have incomplete knowledge of the possible consequences of our actions.

And so I wonder, as I hold that little insignificant remote control in my hand, what other "little things" being made or thought about today will bring about unforeseen changes in tomorrow's future?

I was sitting here trying to think of what I might write about this week when my mind drifted off. I began to wonder how different my life might be if I owned various items from books and films. After daydreaming for half an hour about this I realized my topic was plainly evident. So now, without further ado, I present to you:

Science Fiction Items I Wish I Had (and the mischief I would commit with them)

Lightsaber- The first item that comes to mind when my thoughts turn this direction is also probably the least practical. Sure it would be immeasurably cool but what are its practical uses? It's not enough to just sit around the house and play with it, that's just asking for an amputated limb (or at least a bisected dog.) I suppose I could tour the country on the fair circuit and show it off between the Gravitron and the Worlds Fattest Man tent, but what kind of a life is that? No thanks.

Pee Wee's Bicycle- This is another entry into the category of stuff that would be a blast to have but wouldn't really make my life any different. I already have a bicycle and I don't ride it all that often. I can't imagine having a plastic lion's head on the front would increase the likelihood of my pulling it out of the garage. I suppose it would be fun to use its jets to make massive jumps, but knowing me, it would just lead to a massive wreck. And no doubt while I was convalescing, Francis would come and steal it.

The Predator's Cloaking Device- Now we're talking. If I had that thing I would surely lead a life of crime. I could sneak into all sorts of places and, over time, become as world renowned as the notorious LeMarque. If I had the stones for it I could network myself into the world's greatest assassin. But, who am I kidding? I wouldn't do anything all that ambitious. I would just rip off 7-11s for cash and spend the rest of my time chilling out in girls' locker rooms.

Wonka's Chocolate Factory- Now this would be sweet. Not only would I have a cash cow that would allow me to just sit back and watch the dough roll in but I'd also have my own legion of Oompa Loompa slave labor to carry out whatever devious plans I could concoct. The abundance of available candy would ensure an early death, but if you've got to die, you could do a lot worse than death by chocolate.

The Delorean from Back to the Future- I was originally going to write about having one of those flying skateboards from the film until 1 realized 1) I would kill myself very quickly. I can't even ride the kind with wheels. 2) Who wants a stupid flying board when you can have a time traveling car? (Not to mention how it's almost impossible to look uncool getting out of a car with those suicide doors. They are like the exact opposite of the motorcycle sidecar.) I know the whole trilogy is essentially about all the problems that arise form jacking with the past and future but I'm sure I could manage to avoid all that and still become the most powerful man in the history of the world.

Honorable mention cars: Batmobile, Mach 5 and KITT

The computer from Weird Science- You have to admit, it would be most excellent to have a computer that you can use to create people. Besides the obvious sexual uses that were explored in the film there are a myriad of other applications. I would create a gardener/custodian so I would never have to do any work around the house again. I would make a series of workers to flood the workforce and enjoy the fruits of their labor all the way to the bank. Plus, I bet you could use it to make all kinds of things besides people. I could start my own zoo of totally unique animals. I could even make a real Bigfoot and Nessie. There is no ceiling to the possibilities here.

Teleportation device from The Fly- With its massive size and weight, this isn't the easiest product to use. Throw in the inherent danger of a fly taking the trip with you and you've definitely got your hands full here. Of course, the convenience factor of a working teleportation device makes all the hassle manageable. The difficult choice would be determining where to place the receiver. Would I put it in my office to shave my commute time from its current 20 minutes down to a wispy 1 second? Perhaps I would choose to put the receiver on the beach or some exotic locale I would like to visit whenever whimsy struck me. Of course, placing it in an unsecured locale is an open invitation to disaster. Sure, easy, instant access to the Bahamas would be awesome but the fun is over the moment I make the trip back with a sand crab in the pod with me.

Death Star- Oh boy. Could it get any cooler than this? Methinks not. Sure it would be a logistical nightmare, not to mention the tiny issue of what to even do with it. Staffing would be especially tricky. Not everyone can be the laser operator. I would need someone to clean all the toilets. Plus, how would I pay salaries and ensure my employees remain loyal to me? I would need a competitive benefits package to keep my employees from trying to leave for work at a different space station after I go to the trouble of training them.

That said, none of those things matter. Not when we're talking about having your own Death Star. I would just live up in space and lord over the plebians of planet Earth. I would shape the entire political landscape of the world. I would pass doctrine and policy and if anyone dared fail to comply I would make millions of voices suddenly cry out in terror and suddenly silence them.

Wolf in the Fold
Rating: “Fascinating”

Synopsis: Kirk, Dr. McCoy, and Mr. Scott are on Orgellius 2 enjoying some time off, having drinks, and watching a belly-dancer. Scotty, being vaguely referenced in the episode as having issues with women, takes a walk with the bellydancer on a foggy night. A scream is heard, the bellydancer is found stabbed, and Scotty is discovered with the knife.

While the murder is being investigated by the chief administrator of Orgellius, Jaris, and a lawyer-type named Hengist; Lt. Karen Tracy is beamed down from the Enterprise to give Scotty some vague psychoanalytical test. However Lt. Tracey, like the bellydancer, is stabbed as well. Sybo, Jaris’ wife, is called to give a séance to discover the truth of the murders. But in the dark she too is stabbed to death after describing an ancient evil and screaming out the strange words “Rejack, Boradis, Kesla” with Kirk, McCoy, Scotty, Jaris, Hengist, and the bellydancer’s fiancée and father present.

Scotty is then brought to “trial” for the murders on board the Enterprise. Scotty testifies that something cold and evil passed by him in the dark. Kirk asks if it was “someone” and Scotty re-iterates that it was “something.” Scotty gives a lie detector test that says he is telling the truth and that he doesn’t remember anything that has happened, having blacked out during the two murders previous to Sybo’s murder.

Kirk asks the computer to identify the words uttered by Sybo before she was killed- Rejack, Boradis, and Kesla. The computer identifies them as names given to past mass murderers. It identifies more specifically Rejack as an alternate name given to an unidentified early 20^th Century mass murderer called Jack the Ripper. Spock identifies the murderer as an alien presence that feeds on the emotion of fear, having traced murder records in star systems that follow a specific pattern. They also identify the murder weapon as one used by a tribe of people on Rigel 4.

“Mr. Hengist”, of course, is your murderer.

However, the alien leaves “Mr. Hengist,” leaving him dead after a simple punch from Kirk. But the alien enters the ship’s computer, leaving it out of control. In order to kill the creature or get it to leave, Kirk and Spock hypothesize that the crew and all on board must drive out their own fear to destroy the creature.

This had the dangerous potential of being just another murder mystery in space. I am not educated enough in literature to know if the murder mystery is one of the basic plotlines of literature, but it seems like every show has one, and Trek is no different. The most compelling points of the show are the breaking down of what or who the “killer” is. At times, the show contains a lot of mundane spookiness, especially the séance scene. I’m intrigued by the recasting of Jack the Ripper as an evil alien who travels through time and space, creating murder and havoc. That’s pretty imaginative. The worst part of the episode is the whole thing with Scotty blacking out, having issues with women, and the like. It is really kind of silly. I understand that you have to have a hero in peril, but it really becomes a bit ridiculous. I have not yet decided if the crazy voice used by Rejack in the computer is creepy or just silly.

The high point of the episode, as you may have guessed, coming from me, is a demonstration of Trek’s not-so-special effects. The actor who plays Hengist is a man named John Feidler. Mr. Feidler is a slight man who typically plays very mild-mannered, sort of wimpy characters. If I am not mistaken, he was the voice of Piglet on Winnie the Pooh. That should give you some idea of who the evil Rejack is. When Hengist is being revealed as the murderer while on the “witness stand,” he is supposed to explode off the stand, beating up everyone on site. However, as the camera pans away from his closeup, the slight Hengist played by John Feidler all of a sudden becomes a very muscular guy made bald like Feidler with a ghastly, obvious skull cap.

Just another example of the awkward special effects of Star Trek.

This November will be a big month for gamers. Assuming there are no delays, Sony and Nintendo will be unleashing their next-generation video consoles, (the PS3 and the Wii, respectively), on the world. Microsoft got a head start by launching their Xbox 360 last November. These new systems are capable of unprecedented graphics and introduce some very innovative features into the gaming world.Last week all three console makers and everyone else in the video game world were in LA for E3, (the Electronic Entertainment Expo). This event can be like a competition between the different companies, each trying to outdo the others with things like bigger booth setups and hotter booth babes. I don’t know who won as far as presentation is concerned, but from what I’ve read and seen, the consensus is that Nintendo’s Wii was the most impressive offering of the three systems. Microsoft has some surprisingly good-looking games for their Xbox 360, and Sony pretty much dropped the ball with their PS3.

Nintendo’s Wii (probably $200)

Most “grown-up” games (such as Grand Theft Auto) were not ported to Nintendo’s last console, the N64. For many, this cast the system as a “kid’s only” machine. Adult gamers tended to prefer the PS2 or Xbox 360. With the Wii, Nintendo is trying to rid itself of this image by creating a system that is so innovative and that plays games that are just so much fun, gamers of all persuasions will want it. They got a lot of flak when they announced they were changing the system’s name from the “Revolution,” (which I still prefer), to the Wii, (pronounced “we”). Nintendo is hoping to reach non-traditional markets with this system, (such as the elderly), and probably has a better chance of this with a friendly name like Wii.

The feature of the Wii that is making the most noise is its new controller. It’s a long remote-looking device that has some sort of gyroscope in it that senses the movements of your hand. At E3 Nintendo showed off a tennis game where you actually swing your arm like you’re holding a racket and the character on the screen swings likewise. It could differentiate between the types of swings, (backhands, forehands, slams), as well.

Another notable feature of the Wii is the “Virtual Console.” The Wii will be able to emulate several old systems, (NES, SNES, N64, TurboGrafix16 and Genesis), and most, (if not all), of the games for these systems. You will download these games as files from Nintendo’s servers. It has yet to be announced if this will be subscription-based or not.

The Wii is significantly less powerful than the other two systems and will not feature the high-definition (HD) graphics that the other systems have. Nintendo has said that this is a measure to keep consumer costs down.

Microsoft’s Xbox 360 ($300-$400)

There was some question about Microsoft’s releasing their system a full year before their competition. Sega did this with their Dreamcast and it turned out to be the final nail in their coffin. The Dreamcast got trounced by the PS2 and Sega eventually closed the doors on its hardware business for good. However, it looks as though Xbox 360 will come out of this fight in one piece. Their E3 showing was strong. The 360 games had arguably the best graphics at the show and supposedly at one booth an “exclusive” PS3 game was actually being run on a hidden Xbox 360.

Microsoft offers a great online experience with their Xbox Live service. Your stats and achievements in games show up on your online account page which offers a new social dimension to gaming. At E3, they announced that eventually PC gamers will be able to play against 360 players, which is pretty cool.

Microsoft scored a coup of sorts by getting Grand Theft Auto IV as an Xbox 360 exclusive. (Presumably it will eventually be ported to PS3 and PC). The previous three installments of this game debuted on the PS2. According to John Carmack of Doom and Quake fame, the Xbox 360 is the easiest system to develop games for. I read a while back that the PS3′s super-powerful technology was very complex and made creating games for it a headache. This is just speculation, but this could have something to do with Rockstar’s switch to the Xbox 360 for their Grand Theft Auto series.

Sony’s PS3 ($500-$600)

It seems the only news you hear about the PS3 is bad. It’s going to cost $600. It may be delayed until ’07. There may not be many games available at launch. Sony needed to have a good showing at E3 to stifle this bad press. Unfortunately, they didn’t have much to say or show.

On paper, the system looks really nice. It’s got tons of power, potentially will play games at higher resolutions than the other systems, and is the only system to support high capacity DVDs, (Blu-ray DVDs), out of the box. Whether the game developers will be able to make use of all these features and power is yet to be seen.

One interesting note about the PS3 is that it will support Linux. It’s not clear yet if the main operation system of the PS3 will be based on Linux or if it will be able to dual boot into Linux. Either way, the potential for customization seems far greater on the PS3 than on the other systems.

Over the years I have primarily been a PC gamer. The last console I bought was a PS1. But I find myself really excited about these next-generation systems. The potential for the Wii’s controller is off the charts. The online components of all three systems are going to be cool. The graphics of the Xbox 360 and PS3 are going to blow our minds. As for which system(s) I want to get? I’ve got the High-Definition TV bug really bad and will probably try to get one some time this year. If that happens, I’m seriously considering getting an Xbox 360 to really make use of the high-def resolutions. I will definitely get a Wii- all my old favorites through emulation, the controller, and shiny new versions of all my old favorites make getting this system a no-brainer.

The Postal Service is a hip musical duo that makes catchy electro pop-rock that automatically raises the “cool” quotient when included as a background for commercials for any wares you may want to sell on television. Their music is also well-suited for the emotional confessionals and montage sequences at the end of reality TV shows.

But did you know that there’s another, less well-known Postal Service? That’s right. I’m talking about the United States Postal Service.

I don’t imagine that the last ten or fifteen years have been very kind to the postal service. With the advent of various new and fancy communications technologies like fax machines and email, “snail mail,” (as it was briefly called by hipsters at the end of last century), has become the Boo Radley of the world of written messages.

There once was a time when the only way to send Aunt Marge greetings and photos of little Bobbie and Susie’s birthday parties was to put pen to paper, shove your documents into an envelope, affix proper postage, and trust that within the week, she would receive your familial messages. Yes, once upon a time, mail was king.

But since those days, the postal service has been dethroned as the de facto method for getting the word out. Now fax machines, email, and even text messaging have taken over, and rightly so, as there is simply no comparison between the immediacy of today’s digital magic and yesterday’s slow motion.

But I wonder about the changes being wrought by email and text messaging. I wonder what has changed more: a) what we communicators decide is worthy of putting in the mailbox or b) how we communicate altogether. In other words, has the ability to send the written word to Hong Kong instantaneously only changed what I write? Or has how I write been changed as well?

Is Mail Worth the Effort Anymore?

Obviously a new method of choosing what should be sent via the postal service has arisen since we now have a choice. Given the choice between simply emailing a letter with attachments and mailing a hand-written letter and printed photos, it’s a no-brainer that you would choose the method that uses the least amount of time and effort, unless the messiness of sentimentality enters the equation. Sentimentality might dictate that if messages contain anything other than the dry, emotionless prose of business correspondence, those messages might call for more permanence than an email or text message lends. (See “On Books, Libraries and Knowledge in the Information Age,” for more on this idea of permanence.) When someone, spurred on by a need to preserve memory, chooses the more difficult, time-consuming route of mailing actual physical letters, they swim against the current of where technology would take our communication. Whether this is a heroic act or foolish stubbornness is up for interpretation.

Are Actual Words Worth the Effort Anymore?

If you are of the “descriptive” persuasion when it comes to issues of grammar, you can’t ignore the fact that an emergent set of rules for the written word has sprung forward contemporaneously with the parallel emergent technologies. This emergent set of rules seems to simply reject all previous rules of punctuation, (in a way similar to Bruce Lee’s “no-style” style of fighting.) Capitalization is now arbitrary. The new grammar is minimalist and succinct. What used to be expressed via letter as “Oh, my gosh! That is so funny! I can’t tell you how clever that was. And so true!” might now be expressed as “ROTFL :-)” or “LOL!” in an email or text message.

And so I wonder, with the influx of new ways of abbreviating our common phrases, will we ever get to the point where we write exclusively in abbreviated form? And if what we say to each other is comprised entirely of understood, conventional clichés like “IMHO,” is real communication even occurring? For the typical model of communication includes at least one receptor of new information; but clichés are by their nature not new information for anybody. Or even worse, if no new information is being exchanged-is real, individual thought even occurring? What I’m describing is a strange situation: with great convenience comes intellectual atrophy.

So, as you lick those 39 cent stamps that used to cost 15 cents and fold up that hand-written letter to Grandma, remember that you are committing an act of communicative sabotage on the new machine.