Wednesday, February 20, 2008

FREEDOM (2007)

This Pocket Review is for the first 3 episodes of Freedom only.


Click above to buy
Freedom Vol. 1 or click
here for Vol. 2
from
Amazon.

Positive Experience/Entertaining? Definitely--this anime is from the guy who created Akira.


Technically any good? While filled with cliches, this anime manages to do cliches well. A lot of typical anime and narrative devices are used, like the teens and their hotrods, the lead character who is a grease-monkey but still awkward with the ladies, and a grand conspiracy that makes them wonder if the life they've been sold is really just a lie. See, we've seen it all before, but Otomo and friends are great story tellers and the animations is superb.


How did it leave me feeling? The first three episodes are all I've seen so far, but they do leave me wanting a LOT more--in a good way, too. I don't understand how Bandai thinks they'll make money releasing one episode per HD-DVD while charging $30 each for them. Too bad for them HD-DVD has lost the new-format-wars before the entire series could be released. Hopefully that means the rest of the series will be released on standard DVDs, with standard DVD prices.


Final Rating? RTV - Rent The Video - Not as groundbreaking as Akira was, but a sure bet if you're looking for entertaining Japanese animation that is safe for most kids (just a bit of violence) and still fun for adults, too.

Orignal From: FREEDOM (2007)

Amazing Creatures Found Off of Antarctica


This is Jules Verne stuff right here--apparently, French, Japanese and Australian scientists have found all manner of bizarre life forms in the waters off of the Antarctican continent. It's easily the least explored part of our planet, save for the Mariana Trench in the Pacific. From the article: "Some of the animals far under the sea grow to unusually large sizes, a phenomenon called gigantism that scientists still do not fully understand.



"Gigantism is very common in Antarctic waters," Martin Riddle, the Australian Antarctic Division scientist who led the expedition, said in a statement. "We have collected huge worms, giant crustaceans and sea spiders the size of dinner plates."



The specimens were being sent to universities and museums around the world for identification, tissue sampling and DNA studies.



"Not all of the creatures that we found could be identified and it is very likely that some new species will be recorded as a result of these voyages," said Graham Hosie, head of the census project."



OK, so a dinner-plate-sized underwater spider isn't fully 20,000-Leagues-Under-the-Sea-esque, but for the real world, it's still pretty damn cool. Scientists say they're excited about planning another expedition in 10-15 years.



Gee, aim high, guys!



What's with the delay? Why not sooner? I bet if the US government wasn't spending so much money on wars, we could learn a lot about the underwater life around Antarctica with the same amount of scratch. Of course, it's much more fun to kill than it is to learn.



Wait a minute--no it's not! Learning kicks ass! I'd do it all day long if I didn't have to pay my bills!
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz Replies.


Orignal From: Amazing Creatures Found Off of Antarctica

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Heading out to Trader Joe's again--it's like I'm addicted...

Heading out to Trader Joe's again--it's like I'm addicted to this "food" stuff or something. Nah, that's crap--I can stop any time I want!

Orignal From: Heading out to Trader Joe's again--it's like I'm addicted...

BreakingNewsOn thanks for the correction

@BreakingNewsOn thanks for the correction--turns out the satellite shoot-down is in 25 hours, not 1. :) Or, I guess, 24 hours and 23 minutes

Orignal From: BreakingNewsOn thanks for the correction

BreakingNewsOn just Twittered that the USMil will be trying to shoot down...

BreakingNewsOn just Twittered that the USMil will be trying to shoot down that dead spy satellite in just an hour from now. Interesting...

Orignal From: BreakingNewsOn just Twittered that the USMil will be trying to shoot down...

Oil Hits $100 A Barrel


The above screencap comes from an AP.org article at Biz.Yahoo.com (find it here: http://biz.yahoo.com/…rices.html ). The article reports some interestingly conflicting news. Mainly it says that oil prices have broken $100 a barrel despite falling demand. This kind of journalism cracks me up. According to a Bloomberg article I found (here: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news ) the *US* demand for oil has dropped a whopping (not) 1.8 percent--this is US demand only, however. So, it's odd for the AP article to point out that oil prices are rising "despite" falling demand.



The fact of the matter is that there is a finite amount of oil on this planet and since more and more people are born every day it only makes sense that, unless major cultural changes are made, demand for oil will go up and up and up, planet-wide, while supply goes down and down.



OK, so a 1.8 percent of people who were using oil in the US aren't using it now (which makes no sense in itself), big deal--what about the millions of new people using oil today in China? What about people in other developing nations that are inching their way toward 1st World status?



Of course, the main news here is that the crack-cocaine of American life just got even more expensive. This means that it'll get more expensive to:



1) fill up your tank

2) heat your home

3) cook

4) buy anything with plastic or petroleum products in it



Yep, things like computers, DVDs, make-up, and just about anything else you use has oil in it. So, as oil prices rise, eventually, that rise in price will trickle down to each of us.



Too bad we can't, oh, I don't know--find some *other* way to power our cars, heat our homes or make plastic!



Of course, we have (even vegetable-based plastic exists: http://www.sony.net/…04/01.html ), but no one wants to talk about those things.
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz Replies.


Orignal From: Oil Hits $100 A Barrel

DANCER UPSTAIRS (2002)

Positive Experience/Entertaining? Definitely entertaining, but quite a bit meandering.


Technically any good? This feels like it would be much better if it were re-written, making it a bit more streamline--and, sad to say, American. The movie has a lot of character, but most of that character doesn't lead you anywhere story-wise. Half the time I was found myself wondering where it was all going. While things do come together by the end, you're really left wondering what the movie was really about.


How did it leave me feeling? Satisfied for sure--it was almost a relief to see things come together as they do at the end. However, it's obvious that most of this film is about character. Lucky for us, Javier Bardem is a great actor and does a great job.


Final Rating? RTV - Rent The Video - A great character study but would have been better in Spanish.

Orignal From: DANCER UPSTAIRS (2002)

Wikileaks.org Threatened by "Legal" Action


So, I see an article at the BBC News website today (here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/…250916.stm ) and it reports on how a California court has ordered the website Wikileaks.org to be taken offline. From the article: "A controversial website that allows whistle-blowers to anonymously post government and corporate documents has been taken offline in the US.



Wikileaks.org, as it is known, was cut off from the internet following a California court ruling, the site says.



The case was brought by a Swiss bank after "several hundred" documents were posted about its offshore activities.



Other versions of the pages, hosted in countries such as Belgium and India, can still be accessed.



However, the main site was taken offline after the court ordered that Dynadot, which controls the site's domain name, should remove all traces of wikileaks from its servers."



The catch is, that the above screencap was taken by me *after* I read the BBC News article. Seems like folks at the BBC, good as they are at reporting news with reasonable depth, still make mistakes. Of course, the real problem here isn't that the BBC makes the odd mistake. It's that a site like Wikileaks.org is being threatened in this way.



More from the article: "The case was brought by lawyers working for the Swiss banking group Julius Baer. It concerned several documents posted on the site which allegedly reveal that the bank was involved with money laundering and tax evasion.



The documents were allegedly posted by Rudolf Elmer, former vice president of the bank's Cayman Island's operation.



A spokesperson for Julius Baer said he could not comment on the case because of "pending legal proceedings".



The BBC understands that Julius Baer asked for the documents to be removed because they could have an impact on a separate legal case ongoing in Switzerland."



This makes no sense to me. So, a legal case in another country is grounds for people in the US (and the rest of the world) to go without information that they need in order to know who to trust or who to work for or who to avoid? This decision by the California court removes ALL whistleblower information that Wikileaks.org was hosting from the public--not just the stuff pertaining to this Swiss case.



This kind of censorship harms us all and it allows crimes to be committed and it allows the criminals who commit them to get away with it.



So much for freedom of speech.
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz Replies.


Orignal From: Wikileaks.org Threatened by "Legal" Action

Hey cool! I got paid for my novel sales yesterday!

Hey cool! I got paid for my novel sales yesterday! SWEET! Want to help me make more? Go here: http://snurl.com/thekeybook

Orignal From: Hey cool! I got paid for my novel sales yesterday!

Banks Borrow $50 Billion this Year: A Bad Sign?


The above screencap comes from a February 18, 2008 article at FT.com (here: http://www.ft.com/…fd2ac.html ) and it reports on some seriously scary stuff--at least, in my uneducated opinion. All I've done to educate myself is read some stuff on the 'net and swing by the Fed website a few years back to try to make sense of things. Their FAQ these days is a bit more thorough, but clear answers are still not easy to come by. So, us uneducated types have to pay special attention to what reporters say about the central bank of the United States.



From the quote in the last paragraph in the screencap above, to me, it looks like we're having a replay of the sub-prime mortgage mess. Instead of people unable to pay their loans back we've got banks using "garbage collateral nobody else wants to take."



The FT article also gives us an interesting glimpse into how our money works: "The Fed announced the TAF tool on December 12 as part of a co-ordinated package of measures unveiled by leading western central banks to calm money markets.



The measure marks a distinct break from past US policy. Before its introduction, banks either had to raise money in the open market or use the so-called %u201Cdiscount window%u201D for emergencies. However, last year many banks refused to use the discount window, even though they found it hard to raise funds in the market, because it was associated with the stigma of bank failure."



Up until I did that wave of research a few years back, I had no clear idea where our money comes from. When I was a little kid I remember asking my dad about it. He told me it was printed. I asked him if that was all there was to it, how come we can't just print more?



Then he explained to me how inflation works. The more money that exists, the less it's all worth. A few years back I learned that the Fed, as a central bank, is the source of *all* of our money and that they loan money to all banks at interest. This is confirmed in the above quote from the article. Money is definitely borrowed on interest because there is a metaphorical window you can get money from at a discount price.



The thing is, to pay it back plus interest, don't we have to have more money than we started with? Where does that money come from if *all* money is borrowed?



To me our economy already seems like a huge Uroborus (http://en.wikipedia.org/…/Ouroboros ) that will inevitably, eventually collapse in on itself.



It also seems to me that we may be seeing the collapse begin--though it might be a while before it finishes.



Am I overreacting? Possibly--we survived the Great Depression, after all.



Still, I'd rather say something and be wrong than be right and silent.
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz Replies.


Orignal From: Banks Borrow $50 Billion this Year: A Bad Sign?